Here we'll start get going here. >> All right. We'll have a This is a March 19th injuring zoning professional services RFP workshop
5:30. >> Call here except for Paul. Um, and Rachel's not here for staff, which is fine. Neither is Kane. Wasn't sure if they were going to show up, but I'll um kind of regard to I'll kind of go over briefly the documents sent out
yesterday. There were, I think, three there that were um I don't know if anything else got posted, but the three main ones we're really looking at is the the main workshop agenda, which will kind of broken down into three pages, about 12 different sections here. we
really kind of get the opportunity to break down the RFP and what we want into it. Um there is a draft scope of work document. Um as we go through we're going to kind of be building a draft scope of work if you will. So we'll be able to for it's more for us but you can
kind of see the process of the staff side what we're looking at putting in and you know what we'll need and it's things we can talk about in the workshop. And then the third one is actually it was a PDF attachment. I tried to find a zoning one. Couldn't, but I found a RFP
from Zimroda from a few years ago. This is just a reference to how they would kind of look like um coming out of the city once they're finalized and how they could look going out um to the different groups, if you will, once we put out um you know, and it shows the different sections uh that we would may want to
consider, compensation, required content, all that kind of stuff. Um obviously again this is for legal services. So it's slightly different but same kind of thing. You'll start with the purpose and background and then go into your scope of services and and everything beyond that. So is there any
questions about those documents right off the bat before we kind of dive into it? I'm going to run and get a pen. There's one in the office. >> There should be some in the cup right by the window. >> Okay. Thanks. I forgot that I didn't have that. I thought I had that.
Daniel Marie, any questions on those documents I sent out? >> No question. >> No, nothing for me. Thanks for sending it. Sorry, Daniel. >> No, you're fine. Uh, no questions from me about the documents. The only question that I guess I have is with
Paul being the person who requested the engineering and then PNZ um requesting the zoning. Um, do we think that this needs that we need to
have them available? >> You know, that's that's council's call. I mean, that's that's one of those things. It was brought before council was kind of decided at council to go to workshops for you guys to talk and discuss. Um, this is, you know, the RFPs really should be on staff to put
together and and do. um you know their input is is always appreciated and welcomed from especially like P&Z and stuff but at the end of the day I don't know that it necessarily falls on them more so council to make the decisions as to what would go into it or not. So
>> not that >> that that works for me. I was just thinking along the lines of um what we're looking for, what what those specific people were looking for to trigger this process
is is more of what I Jim, do you feel like you're able to speak on PNZ's behalf on this? >> I'm not sure. >> Yeah, both of us are are are there. Um, I know that, um, Kathy definitely wanted to to do an
RFP and we wanted to combine the two together >> for for what there is with that and this because they make sense to go together. >> I agree. >> Yeah. And as the dude like for the reason of due diligence like that's where I fall. I don't necessarily have
the background of like if there has been any historical shortcomings in the services that we received um to to justify. So I can't speak on any of that behalf, but just the due diligence portion like that's that's
where I sit I guess >> and and and and I'll speak a little bit. Um, you know, um, I I think we've we've had really good representation that there has been from from Stantech with Phil
and and I know the transition is a transition no matter what there is when it comes to different people that there are behind it. Um we were looking along the line also which is the whole
thing of of service is one thing cost is another response is another one so it's it's all combined together with what's going on but you know I I mean Stantech has has you know like I said we hadn't
looked at this for for basically 20 years when you go back through it and I see the things on all the mayors and everything And I'm with you off of that. And I'm not saying that Stantech shouldn't have the business. What I'm saying for us, I
think it's good for us to be good stewards of what there is to take a look. You know, after 20 years, I I think it just it it makes sense to to address some of these things. And of course, that would be a part of it if you're looking at what we're doing.
>> Okay. Yep. That would be that's that's fine by me. I just didn't have any other background um to provide from the PNZ act. >> So, okay, going back just before is we went up for when we were doing the
zoning, we went up for an RFP for for bid for rewriting the zoning aspect of it. We had three people that that had responded. We listened to their presentations of the three companies that there were and and uh we thought
that it's only fair to give the final two another look because we wanted to to make sure that that we were addressing it correctly, you know, at at at that time. And and that's where we went up with that, which
we did the two semifinalists looking at it. Um, and and that was a decision that was made when we went with WSB with that, you know. So, >> was that just for the excuse me, was that just for the code work up or you
talking about zoning services for the city because >> No, it was just for the just the code. Okay. That that that's all we did with it. and and and the two were were Stamp Pack and WSB were the two that were the
two finalists that were there and and um WSB just really blew Stantech away on that last goround. It was it it was it was one of those things that that we said there there was no comparison, I'll put
it that way, which kind of was disappointing to us. Okay? you know, so that's why we wanted to give Santech another shot to to make sure. So, you know, like I said, you know, this is this is looking openly at
at at everything and and you know, if if we come back and believe me, Stant's got a history. I'm not taking anything away from that. But, you know, I think that we need uh as as council after 20 years
to to really take a little bit of a dive into this and take a look. >> Okay. So, um you give me the documentation. >> Yes, I did. Absolutely. >> We discussed this in April of last year.
>> We did and and we were going to do an RFP before and then he said, "Okay, look, I've been basically kind of overcharging. we can do a little bit of difference and adjusted things, but it really wasn't a total look at everything that there was with an RFP, especially
with what's going on with with um planning and zoning. Marie was going to say something. So, >> March, go ahead. >> There was a word choice there. Joe did not say he was overcharging. it was using less of his services and using
more of the younger employees for a different rate. >> So, I just want to make sure that's clear for the for the record for that because he he wasn't overcharging by any means. It was simply his rate as the senior engineer is higher than that of and so he brought back a structure that
would incorporate the use of more junior personnel than than him on the projects. So, sorry Marie, go ahead. >> No, and I think we need to center on what's working well and what's not working well in this conversation versus
we're just focused on cost, which cost is a component that we can evaluate, you know, whoever responds to RFP against, but that shouldn't be our leading factor. >> I I agree 100% with with that as well. I
I just think that that Yes, I I agree with that what you're saying, Marie. >> I just have a couple comments from from an administrative administration point of view. Um, you know, when you guys requested you wanted to have workshops um or you wanted to have a time to talk
about RFP and all of the things, we were kind of unsure also like what are the reasons. So, we spent administration spent two days going back through the documents. We kind we did review, you know, we never got a request from planning and zoning to have any
financial review. We've never provided anybody any of those numbers like year to year to year. What are the finances year to year to year? There haven't been any um there haven't been
any like negative uh poor service ramifications, nothing. Um I mean we went back and looked all the way back to 2011 and I did try to attach most of the documents. >> Yeah. It's just to say that we haven't
done anything and we haven't reviewed Stantech services in 20 years is not true. Uh we did this in 2025, we did it in 2024, we did it in 2023. I think we did it in 2017 and then it goes I also found documentation that we went over
this in 2011. um maybe not in P&Z and maybe not in council, but admin and some minutes council certainly did talk about this. Um and there were contracts that were renewed and renewed and renewed and renewed year after year and there was
never any question up until then. So I I sort of agree like the very first question under workshop purpose and desired outcomes established clarity on why the city is wanting to issue an RFP and what does that success look like?
as from an ad administrative place. Um it would be really a kick in the teeth to both us and the administration and for all of the work that that our relationships that we've grown and we're confident in
working with each other. I think for PNZ to say we need an RFP without asking for some information or review from staff first was a little bit shocking is all I think I would I would like to have a better reason. You know like financials we can
provide if you're looking at what we spent just last year and and that was a driving factor. I can tell you we still have almost $300,000 coming back in reimbursements from PFA that are not in those financials yet. So, if you are looking at a number from 2025, those are
not correct numbers to base any anything off of at this point either. >> We're not looking at the the PFA when we were looking at stuff with planning and zoning. So, um that isn't a part of it. Um and and then the financial is is a
part. The rest of it is is again um I'll let Kathy speak as as the chair and and we can get Kathy involved with it and I wish she would be on or and talk about that too at this point. But um that's
where us as a group had had wanted to to do an RFP and thought that let's just take a look at at everything that's going on with Stantech and and again um just looking at things and and you if
you're you're with a company and and again I I no negatives on on what there is with with Stantech. So I'm I'm not out to, you know, to try to go that way. But on any company,
if you have a contract for 20 years and and you see the adjustments that there are with it, yet you never go out to see what's really outside there, are you really using the money that there is for city's
money wisely on on anything that there would be, you know, and and that's where I'm coming from. Like I said, I'm I'm I you know, I I understand these things. I think that there's a few other companies that that might give us a real easy
indication by looking at some things to see if it's even worthwhile. And one of my thoughts was even looking at what we did at at city council this last meeting that we had and and it's looking at at
um the paving situation that that there was that was put out in in the chart that was there. If you even turned around and looked and said, "Okay, um this might be an example. take everything out that of course is there
and and say okay companies were looking at doing something does does this you know what would you come back with to give us a simple look before we got more in depth just out of curiosity okay
>> yes >> okay otherwise I mean we can go more in depth but I'm just looking at something that says okay it's worth it or it's not worth it to even go any further Well, I um you said a couple things already that I don't I haven't seen the documentation. I think documentation is
important. Um you've made two comments. One, there was shortcomings received. Um I'm not sure what those shortcomings are, if they've been documented, shared with Stantech or administration. Second item, you said what's going on
with Stantech. Can you expound on what you mean by those comments? Well, when I say what's going on with Stantech, like I said, I don't have negatives on Stantech. Okay, I all all I'm looking at is is as
a council to look after 20 years and and and not looking. So, if if there was something that was off on year five and it continued on to year 20, you know, we would be making something. But we still
don't know what's really out there in in the marketplace to take a look. >> So, you know, we mentioned or Melissa mentioned the the number of times we have reviewed the contract and I'm getting upgrades. That's just that's all part of an ongoing relationship that city has with a professional
organization. Mhm. >> Um, yes, it's a professional organization and we're getting with professional engineers and it's not like we're looking for um portaodies or or plowing or something like that. It's they provide a professional technique to
the city and what they've contributed to us in in the means of our water and sewer projects over the years, fleets. Um, I mean there is some credibility, there's integrity. Um, there's a history there. Um, I mean, we could, for
example, if it happened, we decided we're going to go with company XYZ because they're 10% less money or something like that. Um, we've lost all the history. >> We've lost all the history. We've lost all the professionalism of what went
into the design of the sewer system. Um, and we're starting from scratch with a new company XYZ to pick up the design from know how it's operating. So that's to me that's a very
key piece of the puzzle for it wasn't working for some reason. It was a bad design and it's just complete failure. Absolutely. We need a different professional company. But we have Stantech. Stantech is well known. It's and it's in
the documents that we have here provided you. But I just, you know, >> it's a lot of money and it's a lot of um >> a lot of uh it's just be a lot of trouble if we were to even do it. >> And um Ryland, Daniel's got a question
if you got a when you're done. Go ahead. So Daniel, >> sorry I don't want to necessarily turn this into a um who's right and who's wrong on requesting this because I absolutely agree that if we haven't
asked for competitive bids from other companies in 20 years. Whether we've looked at the financials or not, I think that's correct me if I'm wrong, Jim, that's that's pretty much what you're saying >> is we haven't we haven't looked for competitive bids and com with uh
equivalent services. I have no issue with any of the work that Stantech has done. Um, but from the due diligence aspect of requesting competitive bids, that that's where I'm at with this. Um,
but I just wanted to get the history if there was any additional anything else to add. And that's where I feel like uh with Paul putting the engineering on the agenda and really the request coming
from Kathy over the last couple of uh years to for PNZ zoning service support. That's where I think their input could be valuable into clarity here. Um
I also agree with with both what Marie and Ryland have said is that this can't be just a dollar's decision. This has to be um take all of what's currently going on into consideration. But
to find competitive bids, there's absolutely nothing wrong with attempting to see what other equivalent services are offering. I mean, that's that's where I'm at. >> So, and and to go off of that, that was
my interpretation from sitting through planning and zoning meetings was it simply just hasn't been done in x amount of years and the city should go out for bids. >> Yes. Yes. That's exactly my my take on it as well. Like not that anybody's done
anything wrong or staff hasn't done due diligence or Stantech hasn't done due diligence. It's strictly we have not asked for competitive bids from outside companies and that's just not
that's a that's a way of doing business in the past, right? It's it's not not current way of doing business. Yeah. And Daniel, that's that's exactly where I'm coming from as well. Absolutely. >> Okay. >> So, I think we understand, we've
established why the city is would be issuing an RFP, right? Is because this hasn't I mean, simply has not been looked at and reviewed in 20 years and to go out and get um I guess lack of better words, a feel of what's out
there, right, of services that can be provided um and at what cost. But you know there there is we all know that there's more than just services and costs. There is the background that plays a part of that. Right? So I think that comes into the next part of the first part of the objective here is what does
success look like for us? Right? Is success simply money? Is success um you know are we getting out there and realizing okay everybody's about the same cost? We're you know 10,000 difference from the high end to the low end. Well you know in that in that range we have Santech who has 20 years of
service. Does that add it into what does success look like is, you know, history. Um, so I think that's the next next question we need to talk about is what does that look like for us? What does the success of an RFP here really get us? What are we looking for? and and and
using that example of of $10,000 on the other um being a sales manager in sales my whole career, you would be hoping that that your service that you've done in the past is worth more than than something
that would be that way. So, um you know, again, it's it's it's seeing what's out there. Um, yeah, I think >> I think we almost need to figure out what our criteria is and what that
waiting would look like as RFPs come forward. costs again is is one piece of that, but what are the other problems that we're trying to solve? And what is that waiting of some of those? Because again, we want to make sure that we're not just like shiny object bringing in
someone new and not saying we're we're there, but we also need to kind of hold ourselves accountable for when there may be a price difference. like what what is that limit and and what is you know reputation and longevity within the the
city? They've done past work and it's been great. They've tried to work with us on cost-saving measures. Like I think we we should think about what are some of those criterias that we would weight this against and again I think cost is a is a is an piece but probably not the
driving factor. Um because again there may be a fluctuation in price but I just want to make us think that just because it's a little bit cheaper that might not be something we want to do long term. But again I totally agree if we haven't looked at this competitively for 20
years. It's it's probably time to do that and SANTC again has the option to come back through and bring that forward. Um and then they, you know, they have kind of that competitive advantage already because they've already been supporting the system um in
the city. So again, I think maybe thinking about what we would weight these against might help us maybe focus even a little bit more on not just cost. >> Yep. So that gets into section B there. Number three B or you know what are our desired outcomes for this working on
this RFP, right? We talked about cost predictability is probably one of those. Not a driving factor, but is one of those things. I put in here a variety of things with question marks, right? Like I I I don't know. This is one of those things we're here to talk about, but there's some of the things that typically come up with planning and
zoning. And we can go through this. We can add to this list, take off of this list. Um, you know, I we can speak to some of these um these items as staff. Um, and I guess I'll start us off with that. Even the first one improved responsiveness. Uh I personally have not
had any issues with responsiveness from either our zoning or staffing uh with our zoning or or engineering. So I think we would want to maintain that level of responsiveness, right? Not necessarily improving it but simply maintaining um that that responsiveness and that
responsiveness looks very good from our end. You know, when I can reach out to our engineer or our zoning official and hear back with them usually within the same day, if not the next day. um and they will you know we'll work throughout the day multiple emails phone calls to
be able to do that. So for me that responsiveness like I said doesn't need to be improved um from the staff point. I guess Mel can talk a little bit on that but you know I think we just need to maintain that level of active response from whoever we have. I think that that's a very good baseline on what
you're talking about with this stuff, you know, >> um that that it needs to be that. No, I I and I'm sure you're right, Mel, with with what goes on. So, I'm I again, I hear what all you guys are saying like I get the other side of it, too. I just
would ask that as we continue to do workshops or it come um it's in P&Z or at council just that council would be respectful and remember that people who are you are asking to administrate these
projects um and work with the planners and the people that are putting the pen to the paper every day that you're taking our work and our time into consideration too. that that and that's that's really what I was getting at is it's one thing to say it at a table and
it sounds good and this and that, but administering or facilitating >> um what we do with planning and engineering and what public works does with engineering is substantial and so I just would ask that you guys keep us in
in in mind >> as we go through these. So, can I maybe interject on that? I think that's an important piece. So, I appreciate Mel for you raising that. So, I'm just going to ask this question with everything going on right now with Jason departing
and we're trying to figure out what the structure looks like in the city. Is this the right time to do this? I mean, I don't want to kick the can down the road, but I also want to acknowledge what Mel just said, and I think it's important. This is going to take commitment and time and do we have that
with everything else going on in transitions and if we're not going to do it with full intent then I I think we should wait. >> It's not ideal timing. Thank you for recognizing that. Um but that doesn't mean that in that doesn't mean that you
know when we kind of get everything >> lined up that later this year it could be even still this year that we could discuss it again if we are in a place where we can do that. My personal opinion in administration is I would not do anything with it right now.
>> It's going to put added stress on the on us that are going to be spread thin for some time. I I you know that's that's a very very good point that that you're making off of that and and it might make sense to to delay this for a while till
we get everything organized. You know >> it's phase 1B is is critical and we've approved council has proved injuring or stand to proceed with our feasibility plan and you know that's to me that's very important that we finish phase 1B
uh with Stantech. Um that's always been the plan is to have complete sewer system for the complete city and they're integral part of that. they've been recognized the state of Minnesota with the project that they have done so far with the award that we received and um
so I think that's a very important piece of the puzzle as far as u looking at the outcomes and and one thing about the outcomes and we just on this very first one responsiveness um you know we know what Stantech has
done for us and will continue hopefully but if company XYZ comes in and they says yeah we could do that maybe faster. Well, are they telling us what we want to hear or how do we how do we qualify such statements when we're comparing them to what we have with Santech
and that's what getting into this process will will look like right because you as you go down and this is not something I ever expected even if moving forward we would have it done today or anything like that but that's where you would get into how are you going to develop qualifications and evaluations and you know a lot of it
comes into you know looking at those kind of things having a skill to grade off of um a matrix, if you will. Uh while also, you know, a lot of times you're going to look at references, those, you know, you can ask for a list of city references that they've worked with or projects they've done um to be
able to communicate that. >> And at the end of the day, I mean, I don't know, you may get fluff, you may not get fluff. I mean, it's how many times does a a friend put you down in your past as a a reference and you're like, "Yeah, they're a great person." you know, you hope for the best. You do your due diligence and at the end of the
day, you make the best decision with the information you have before you. So, >> yeah. And I I don't necessarily want to put this off for four years or five years. I think it's got to be something that's got to be done this year. So, you know, the 1B I understand, but anybody
can can pick that up and move forward with that if that's a situation, which would be a part of of them taking a look at it as well, you know. So, I mean, those are all a part of of how we want to look at it as as as a city. Uh but
again I think that that um we we need to do it maybe and and what you were saying you know Mel is very true at this timing right now that this is a lot to put on a plate that there is and and and taking a breather for we're getting things
organized and and and digging back into it in in uh maybe the middle of the summer or something where things are are more at ease um and and more stable. >> You're >> well, you got the budget. I know that. I
understand that one. >> Be looking towards the end of the year. >> Okay. But but I'm just saying but I think it's something that that needs to be looked at and and not not kicked that far down the road. I think we we we've got to be re responsive and and and look
at it as a council. So, >> and maybe it's something like, and I agree, maybe it's like a September, October conversation because it's still a little bit and maybe it's September or even finding a time in late August so we
can have Kathy or the chair of PNZ um and then Paul here too because again, I think we need to focus on what we're trying to solve um as well. And I just want to make sure that we're thinking about it thoughtfully. Um,
but we also need to make sure that our admin staff can focus on keeping the lights on and this probably isn't the hugest priority on their plate and we should just be cognizant of that as well as if we bring um additional staff in,
right? They may have a different line of sight and or things that we should consider. It also gives us um kind of the ability to to bring some outside perspective in of things that maybe we haven't considered as well within new staff coming into the administration functions.
>> You know, I think what what you put down here, Jason, as you went through this was very good. Okay. I really do. I think it's a great start on on on looking at at things. So, >> absolutely. >> You know, I I I think that that's
excellent. I think the the past what you you put in for the past history that information the work that's been done for you Melissa too on on what you did. Thank you. I think that that that's going to be advantageous as we look at at the point when it's the right time to
do it. >> Right. And I wasn't necessarily diving deep to plea my own case, but just to provide a full, you know, kind of scope, a full vision for you guys when you're, you know, reviewing and trying to make decisions. There's there there's a
significant amount of documentation, uh, documentation that exists that, um, is favorable to all, favorable to the city, maybe favorable to Stantech, favorable to staff, or maybe not. You have to take what you do what you will from it. No, I I I think that this was was or is I
won't say was is definitely a good stab at at getting the initial start point. Daniel Murray comments. Yeah, I think I mean I think we can keep it right in our back pocket as we think
about how do we not kick the can too far, but how do when we reengage in this conversation, I think it's a really great starting point. I think the other thing that we could do so it doesn't seem paused is maybe we ask Kathy um and
and Paul or whoever if they could send us some documentation of maybe what they're considering some of these. So maybe even those questions in that first half of what success looks like. Maybe we do that asynchronously and they can provide that feedback. So as we if we can't get them
on the the meeting, right, we have some of their talking points that we can structure that so maybe that doesn't feel like we're kicking it too far down the road without listening and and hearing them. That could be another avenue is do some stakeholder interviews and try to
capture it asynchronously. >> I think that's good, Daniel. >> Yeah, I agree. I think the template that Jason put together is uh kind of what we want to move forward with, but I don't necessarily think that the timing without the information and the feedback
from those specific uh folks is what we need to be doing right now. And when our staff can get a little bit caught up, uh, yeah, end of year, I think that's we can we can work like Marie said, start
putting the pieces together, uh, start working on that checklist and then move in that direction um, a little slower. So, that's where I'm at. I'm I'm fine with that decision as well. I think from from staffing side, if you want to look at time frame,
you know, with all the work that we have to do as staff here, especially coming into that time of year, we all know September is the preliminary budget. So, I would recommend an end of September, October to have start having those group meetings again, workshops again because
there's going to be a lot of work over the summer and into that building up into September. So, your staff is going to, you know, be extremely busy and and work with that portion. But once you get through that initial budget, the pressure kind of eases off on that. You know, we're coming in, you come into the
end of construction season. At that time, there's a lot of things that start to back off the plate to allow breathing room. >> I was just going to mention that, too. But construction season in the summer, we got streets and roads projects going on. >> We can get this stuff done in April or
the meeting, you know, the new zoning codes, that's construction is going to happen. There's going to be groundbreaking this summer. There's going to be things moving forward. So >> I think too is we look administration standpoint we need to keep public works in mind because they have if anybody they probably have a stronger
relationship with Stantech and and can provide input too of what things we should look at if we're going to put something together for >> and this is a great you know take this stuff here and you know in your your time start filling in you know what write down your ideas like we do with Kathy and them to start filling this out
and putting it it down so you guys have this ready to go when you come back together to discuss it um and you know can start can start working on it with everything already there and not just come in sit down and then try to walk through it. You know you've got now that we know okay we're going to push this
down early to October. Um we've got you know six and a half months to start filling in these questions >> and how how you as individuals view these and and uh we prefer you know what kind of things you would like to see and whatnot. So that that does give you a
little bit of time to work off of this as a template for that. So >> again, >> yeah, I agree I agree with that, Jason. I think that's a really good point is we can if we're delaying this for a certain period of time, we can use that period of time to compound notes and specific
examples. Um, and that that even even if we stay with Stantech and and aren't moving off, that's still valuable information for them for growth with us as well. So, that's wonderful uh suggestion.
>> I agree. That's good. Well, with with that, um, I make a motion. >> I guess we're gonna That's fine. Art, >> did we start with the motion? Well, no, I just I made a motion, too. So, >> no, we didn't start with a motion, but I
was just trying to say for a workshop, I think that >> Yeah, I think it's just a good place to to put it as long as we're all in agreement. So, >> are we going to are we going to cancel the next ones then? >> Yeah, if there's any other ones. Um, >> you just had one that was in two weeks
that was on a Monday night or is it next Monday night? >> It was the 30th. >> Tuesday the 31st. That's for zoning. >> No, it was a Monday before the Tuesday one. There was one >> 23rd >> the 30th.
>> Okay, I'm getting two different answers here. >> Sorry, the 31st was the date that you guys chose at the last workshop to continue on with the ordinances. >> Then it would have been the 30th because I thought it was the Monday before that. So, >> correct. I have a I have a 30th RFP.
>> 30th we would Yes. I hold that old that date and time. Um I spoke with Joe yesterday before the meeting. There was something he wanted to discuss or before the council meeting and it didn't get brought up. I know he's got some information on something
that he wanted to talk about. I haven't drawn a blank on it right now. Um and there might be we figured it might be best to do in a workshop to give you guys time to digest and like talk about it. Um, so I I'll talk with Joe, figure out what that was and if that date works for >> on the 30th to still be able to do that.
So if that works, we could hold that date for now. >> Um, and then I'll send something out hopefully tomorrow and let everybody know like, yep, this is what this is going to be for and about or we can release it and have a free night. >> So
>> very good job you two for putting this stuff together. >> You did a very lot of work. >> I know. That's that's appreciated. Good. >> Yeah. I think there there's going to be value in taking our time with this. >> Yeah. >> So,
especially done for a while. So, that's good. All right. Well, thank you everybody. Thank you uh for hopping on here and our guests for hopping on as well. Sorry it wasn't as fruitful, but you know our timeline now. >> Yep. >> Take that back. We'll work with that.
So, all right. Appreciate it, guys. >> Have a good night. Bye-bye.