7:00 P.M. Monday, March 12, 2007

Council Chambers, City Hall

Assuredly Unofficial Notes by JN

Agenda additions and changes were submitted by Rebecca Cave, Diana Longrie, Erik Hjelle and City Manager Greg Copeland. Mayor Longrie moved approval of the amended agenda, Cave offered her second, and all voted aye.

Minor corrections and unanimous approvals characterized this portion of the meeting.

Kevin Rabbet provided some history on problems in the residence, which has been a location that has come up before up in the context of stolen autos, narcotics, etc. Citations were issued earlier today.

The mayor commented that the importance of ordinance enforcement came up as a topic at the recent city council retreat, and all of the council is concerned about the issue.

Juenemann reported that this is the latest round, üramping up,ý but this problem house has not been ignored in the past ô the city has issued citation, taken the residents to court, etc. These latest citations were a continuation of the process of the city trying to deal with a problem property.

Bob Zick returned to the podium to ask, over the mayor's objections, why not everyone had to give their address. Various people informed Mr. Zick that Mr. Mogren had in fact given his address, on Gervais.

Mr. Rossbach asked if it is premature to give this resolution, since Mr. Grover's resignation letter indicated that he would continue to serve until a replacement is named to the commission, and they may not want to give him the idea they are hustling him out the door. Mayor asked if the position is currently posted. Copeland said yes. Cave asked if the city had had more people than positions open on the planning commission. Copeland clarified that there are actually 2 positions open on the commission.

Hjelle motioned the resolution. Cave seconded. More discussion. Rossbach voted first, all ayes.

Copeland recited some highlights of the resume of Mr. Mittet, who likes to go by the name üBob.ý Mr. Mittet is a resident of Maplewood.

Public Works Director Chuck Ahl began the staff report. DuWayne Konewko provided additional information and background. If all goes according to plan, this new ordinance will go into effect on April 30th. City Attorney Kantrud already reviewed the proposed ordinance and his suggestions were incorporated into the draft before the council; staff also made field trips to other cities to see how their ordinances work. They also solicited feedback from affected entities (cable, water, pipeline companies, etc.), who are working on preparing their comments in writing in time for the 2nd reading of the ordinance. The section in the council packet about this proposed ordinance is very long and involved and pretty technical, in terms of evaluating roads and their position in the capital improvement plan and so forth (e.g., what to charge a right-of-way user who needs a street dug up for their underground utility work when maybe the road was just rebuilt recently).

Rossbach: Was very happy that there is a definition for a hole. His first reaction to reading the materials was that it looked very good, but then he started asking himself how it affects him as an individual and businessman. He thought about roll-off dumpsters that wind up going in the right of way sometimes. It seemed to him that he would now be required to get a permit and pay $80 in order to have a dumpster set in the street. Konewko answered that this is correct, he would have to pay to obtain a permit from the city to do this under this new ordinance. Rossbach followed up: it seems that then he would also have to produce scale drawings, locate underground utility lines, etc., which didn't seem appropriate for just a dumpster. Konewko reported that for an obstruction permit, which would be the case here, those drawings etc. would not be required. The city would still need to make sure that the integrity of the road isn't compromised by the placement.

Mayor suggested that the permit process may alleviate some issues of people placing dumpsters on brand new streets without pads, etc. Juenemann suggested that what Will is probably thinking is a bad thing, she thinks is a good thing. Says that sometimes people don't pay attention to these things, and this process will increase awareness of these things (i.e., the damage that can be done to streets). Ahl observed that residents pay a very substantial assessment for repairs to their streets, and cuts and gouges can cut the useful life of those streets, necessitating repairs sooner than the 35-year life the city wants for its streets.

Rossbach wanted to restate the question, since he thought for example that the mayor from her comments did not get what he was after. He was wondering if the answer is the same if a dumpster is placed off the street. Konewko: If it's not in the right-of-way corridor, a permit is not required (say, if it's on a homeowner's driveway). Rossbach again: doesn't see the language that says diagrams etc. are not required for obstruction permits. Konewko: They're still working on the administrative handbook that will go along with the ordinance, and there are still kinks to be worked out. They'll develop a fact sheet as well.

Ahl suggested that the council should direct staff to add language for a üreasonablenessý clause for enforcement of the ordinance.

Cave asked if other cities provided any information on the issues that Comcast, Xcel, water utitilies, etc., would bring up. Konewko answered in the affirmative.

Longrie had additional questions. With regard to mapping data, ... erm... I spaced out what she asked. Konewko answered. Longrie asked about fees offsetting costs ó will they cover all the costs of administration? Konewko: üThat's our goal.ý After some time administering the ordinance, seeing what it actually costs, staff will come back to the council to report how it's going and perhaps seek adjustment. Longrie: Is someone allowed to put a dumpster on the grass or does it have to go on a hard surface? Konewko: His recollection is that any vehicle or dumpster has to be placed on a hard surface. Normally city doesn't allow dumpsters and/or vehicles to be in a yard.

Rossbach said that normally dumpsters CAN go on grass, under the city's ordinances, based on his experience; PODs however cannot. Then he had another question about exemptions for certain holes. This apparently has to do with soil borings. Anyhow, Rossbach suggested some clarification, which staff agreed with.

The public hearing was opened up to citizens for comment. No citizen comments, so the public hearing was closed.

Hjelle made a motion to approve first reading. Juenemann seconded. Rossbach asked to clarify that staff is going to add language for staff discretion in appropriate circumstances (like not needing dumpsters to get a report on underground utilities). Cave voted first, all ayes.

As usual, the mayor explained the consent agenda, and asked Copeland to read through and briefly explain everything on the list.

Some discussion ensued when Erik nearly moved the list, and talked about wanting not to see 80% of consent items pulled. After some items were pulled, Hjelle moved the rest, all ayes.

Items pulled:

Juenemann asked if a retaining walls issue on this property was resolved. Ahl said that his understanding is that the issue has indeed been resolved.

These were some duplexes that were converted into apartments back in the '70s without authorization. Juenemann wanted to make sure there have been no issues in the neighborhood, in terms of complaints and whatnot, and there have not been. Juenemann moved the item, all ayes.

Juenemann just wanted to make üanother commercialý to remind residents of this event. Juenemann moved. Rossbach figured, as long as she pulled it, he would share a testimonial about the disposal cost savings offered by this event. Rossbach voted first, all ayes.

Juenemann just wanted to comment that this is üa wonderful thing,ý and particularly wanted to praise staff for working on it. Longrie also wanted to highlight some grant funds that had been procured for this. Juenemann moved, Hjelle seconded, all ayes.

Longrie had a question about rising gas and diesel prices. She requested that the council be notified if fuel expenses go beyond what is budgeted for the year. Longrie moved, Juenemann seconded, all ayes.

Shann Finwall gave the staff presentation. This comprehensive plan amendment was previously considered at the Feb. 26th council meeting, where it lost by only getting 3 of the required 4 votes. The city council asked staff to come back with more information. Staff has analyzed the changes proposed by the planning commission and endorsed by 3 of the council members last meeting (namely, not changing some of the proposed areas from single-family housing as they are now zoned), and found it means 20 units that can be reallocated elsewhere in the Gladstone redevelopment area.

Also she highlighted changes discussed at the council retreat. She invited the council to consider the additional information the staff brought them, and perhaps direct them with a new motion or reconsider the previous meeting's motion or what have you.

Longrie seemed to be asking a question. I kind of spaced out and lost it.

Rossbach wanted to review a bit what was discussed at the council retreat, since üthere was some coming and going.ý (The mayor had to leave for another appointment before the retreat concluded.) He read the paragraph staff wrote, and said that it does indeed satisfy what he was looking for. He added that he was interested in bolding an introductory paragraph from the Master Plan, as he had discussed at the council retreat. Finally, he said they had discussed the changes Finwall had just gone over regarding three sites, and there was general agreement that those sites could change as Finwall was indicating and that was fine with everyone present at the time. The last thing Rossbach was asking was that, given the flexibility issue he was trying to highlight, they would not change the language for the different units laid out in the master plan. His reasoning was, in particular for the area north of Frost but really for the whole plan, that developers may be deterred from presenting plans given the unit limitation for each sub-section of Gladstone. So if there is consensus on the council, he suggests leaving the numbers that are in the 2006 draft master plan, except for those areas that they are changing (leaving as single family residential).

Longrie wanted some clarification.

Cave spoke about her experience at the council retreat. Said she was flexible, didn't have any problem putting some things in bold. She was flexible to add the language requested by Mr. Rossbach, since she thinks that future councils will have the ability to make changes so it does not hurt to acknowledge that.

Juenemann: üJust to complicate things a little,ý she brings up the 650 number. She was bothered by the 180-unit thing on the tourist cabin site. üWhat is a unit?ý For example, assisted living units and memory care units; are those living units, where there is no kitchen, but there may be a restroom? She thinks it's important to have flexibility on the 650 number, considering for example the number of residents in that senior development.

Cave reported that at the council retreat they did discuss this topic, and the mayor raised the same question ó when a memory care unit may be a bed and a sink or a bed and a bathroom.

Hjelle asked if all five were planning to attend the next council retreat in April. He reported that there was good progress made with four in attendance, but it would be really wonderful to have all five.

Gary Pearson from the Planning Commission was invited to speak. Then citizen comments were invited.

David Bartol said that that Gladstone residents were disheartened at the comp plan being turned down at the last meeting, and they appreciated the council taking another look at the project. He said the four changes discussed at the council retreat took off the ürough edgesý and made the plan very palatable. He expressed concern that developers will always push to maximize their units, and said that the 650 unit figure is very important to the neighborhood. He wanted to know if üflexibilityý meant changing the 650 figure. He also said it made sense to adjust the memory care units, as the council had discussed, to not count each as being a full unit (maybe they could count as half or a third).

Sharon Cambites Lumphrey thanked the council and staff for all their hard work, and also thanked Mr. Barton for his work and dedication. She expressed her strong support for the 650 units figure, and for keeping the single-family housing as it is, and looked forward to this plan moving forward.

Joseph ?? came to voice his appreciation for the changes.

Kim Schmidt also wanted to thank Dave Bartol for his work, and voiced her support for the 650 unit figure that had come as a compromise out of the process.

Alan Olson said the area north of Frost is the anchor of this whole thing. Maybe the entire 650 will be north of Frost, and in 10-20 years the southern areas might be looked at. He spoke about the concerns of the Gladstone business community as well, and the way that the uncertainty that has affected them.

Ed Lundblatt said he heard that something about the Vento Trail, back behind his home. Ahl provided a clarification.

Juenemann wanted to follow up on something Mr. Olson said. Although she disagreed with some of the specifics (thinking one area that is single-family should become medium density), she agreed with Mr. Olson that who knows what may happen decades in the future?

Al Galbraith said he's not sure what he'll do with his Monday nights now if this gets resolved at last! He said he üwaited and waited for wiser heads to prevail, and they have.ý He recognized that many of the things envisioned will not come to pass until long after he's gone.

O.J. Lumphrey wished to express his strong support for Mr. Bartol's low density areas. He also discussed the prospect of future rail along the Vento Trail corridor, and safety concerns. Mr. Ahl said that the regional rail authority recently testified that they have no plan to vacate the right-of-way they have along the Vento Trail. He also discussed the idea of a ügreen street.ý He explained that some improvements like this are the kinds of things that developers can do to get the density bonuses. The specific area under discussion, however, is planned to remain single-family.

Hjelle asked about how to proceed, in terms of a renewal motion or a motion to reconsider. Kantrud said that one of the people who voted nay last time could make a motion to reconsider, or someone could make a brand new motion with the specific changes since the original motion at the last meeting.

Hjelle decided to try a stab at the motion, to accept item K1 with the following changes: attachments 4, 5, 6, 7 (from the staff report).

Will said, üI'll second as long as I can verify what we're doing.ý Discussion ensued about whether two separate motions were needed, and the consensus was there would be two ó one a change to the comp plan, the other a change to the Gladstone master plan.

Rossbach said that they're doing it backwards, because the master plan is being incorporated into the comp plan. So first the Master Plan changes need to happen, and then the comp plan.

Still they hashed out the details, and wound up with a unanimous vote to amend the comp plan.

Rossbach then moved to amend the Master Plan to add the additional paragraph (attachment 8), to be added on a blank page behind the table of contents; further change the final printing so that the first paragraph of the abstract chapter is printed in bold; the Master Plan would also be changed to reflect the four pieces of property just discussed in the comp plan changes just adopted; and finally, they would leave the existing verbiage for the other parcels unchanged.

Cave seconded.

Longrie clarified that the changes would be made on the areas staying single family, and Rossbach concurred. Juenemann asked for clarification on changes on the other areas, and was told that they don't need adjustment because they already are high enough for the 650 figure.

Hjelle voted first, and all voted aye.

Bartol returned to the podium to thank the council, and called this üa momentous night.ý

Karen Guilfoyle gave the staff report. Juenemann, as is her tradition, took the opportunity to grill the manager about how seriously the city takes sales of alcohol to minors. Rossbach encouraged him to card everyone, and related his happiness at himself being carded at Taste of India recently.

Cave motioned staff rec, Rossbach seconded. Rossbach voted first, all ayes.

Again, Guilfoyle gave the staff report about this new business on the site that formerly was Bennigan's. The owners have five other restaurants around the Twin Cities, and Guilfoyle said from a personal standpoint that she enjoyed another Jake's City Grille that she has dined at.

Rossbach joked, üSo, I see you two guys can enforce the rules pretty well...ý (since both the Jacob brothers are big and burly guys). He then more seriously asked them about the issue of underage drinking; the brothers said that in 10 years they have had 1 violation across the seven restaurants they own. They also do their own compliance checks.

Hjelle and Juenemann agreed with Rossbach's question, and Juenemann added a comment about her high expectations.

Cave motioned staff rec, Hjelle seconded. Cave voted first, all ayes.

Guilfoyle again introduced the applicant and staff report. She noted in the past there was a 3.2 beer license. Rossbach said he never thought of golfers as big wine drinkers. Behnke said it's mainly for the beer, but they are thinking about perhaps wine tasting events and the like. Rossbach said he figured they probably have younger staff. Behnke agreed, and said he does have one employee under age 21. Rossbach wanted to make sure they are more diligent if they have younger staff and a lot of rotation. Behnke admitted that they did have one failed compliance check, which was üpretty shockingý and he assured the council that it won't happen again.

Juenemann wished to emphasize many of the same points. Cave made the motion, Rossbach I think seconded, all ayes.

Karen Guilfoyle once again gave the staff report. Ms. Dang's son assisted with translation. Rossbach asked for clarification on the location, and then said, üKathy...?ý to invite her to give the usual lecture on the importance of never selling to minors.

Cave made the motion, Rossbach seconded, all ayes.

Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. He discussed the good turnout at the last neighborhood meeting. After the meeting, he said it did seem that a lot of people (staff, council, etc.) thought it would be good to hire an outside firm as a consultant or facilitator. The staff-recommended consultant, after soliciting bids from several firms, is Schoell Madson. Ms. Rose Lorsung of Schoell Madson, is a former Maplewood city employee (as an intern).

Rossbach raised questions about the use of the term üfacilitator,ý and wanted to seek assurance that technical expertise was being brought in. Copeland said they're not proposing to ühire Phil Donahue,ý and while the term üfacilitatorý was one that came form the community, more than facilitation is in mind.

Lorsung said that her firm does plan to offer full services to the council, to put together different development scenarios for policy makers and residents. She said they are already looking into met council requirements, and all the different issues that have come before the city, general land use practices, etc.

Hjelle asked üa basic questioný: wondered ballpark age on her partner, since his biography gave 1876 as his graduation date. Lorsung jokingly described him as a üvery good looking 120-year-old man,ý but then said in fact he's in his '40s she believes. Hjelle then inquired about Lorsung's experience in Maplewood and asked if she is comfortable working here. She replied that she had been an intern, grew up in the St Paul area, and is confident and familiar in the area.

Rossbach called attention to full-color brochures included in the council packets.

Cave said she is excited, and praised Copeland for his work in getting a facilitator for this project. She motioned the staff recommendation, Hjelle seconded, all voted aye.

This is a project that they are hoping to bring forward ahead of schedule to take advantage of lower construction costs this year. üClearly some of the worst streets, if not the worst we have in the community,ý Ahl said of the neighborhood, and with the thaw this weekend they've gotten even worse. City staff had a meeting in the neighborhood and spoke with residents there, and the neighbors are strongly in favor of the work.

Ahl said costs are 33% higher in 2007 than 2004. He said there are 10-15% annual increases in these costs. Also, a gas tax increase is likely ó which will mean an immediate influx of projects into the system. Currently 2007 is the lowest MnDOT spending budging in the last 8 years, but if the gas tax goes into effect there will be a lot more construction in 2008...but in 2007 the contractors are hungry for work and willing to bid accordingly. Ahl believes $300,000 to $350,000 will be saved by doing this in 2007 instead of 2008 to take advantage of the current supply/demand situation.

Hjelle offered compliments to the city staff for their work on this and how well the neighborhood meeting went. He also spoke of water issues and drainage, again with compliments to the staff.

Longrie had a question about a berm, since the budget indicates $30,000 in MnDOT funds. Ahl said it's not allocated funding, but it's a program that is available. Longrie asked about timing for application, and Ahl said they would like to apply right after the public hearing on the 26th.

Longrie asked about the second page of the staff report. One was a statement that an allocation was not available from the environmental utility fund. Ahl said, üit's exactly what it says,ý i.e., the city does not have a fund balance of money dedicated to the project. Ahl explained how this related to bonding and spreading expense over time rather than having a big spike over a short time period. (So bonds are sold, because the money isn't there now, but the money from the utility fund is pledged to repaying the bonds.) Longrie expressed other concerns about finance and bonding and long-term obligations, and a wish not to see property taxes continue to spike as much as they did this year under this council's first budget.

Hjelle made a motion to call for the public hearing. Juenemann seconded. Rossbach voted first, all ayes.

Ahl explained that this is an item brought to the city by a number of state legislators. Apparently the plans for metro transportation had no funding planned for I-94 in the next 30 years.

Juenemann moved staff rec, Hjelle seconded. Cave voted first, all ayes.

This is related to a proposal to redevelop a site which currently has a single-family home. The developer is interested in a development for a public street that would be a cul-de-sac for the infill development, and this motion authorizes a study.

Juenemann moved it, Hjelle seconded. Longrie voted first, all ayes.

These are specific change orders, related to a budget change made at the last meeting. Hjelle motioned the staff rec, Juenemann seconded. Longrie asked if these are things discussed before. Ahl clarified that the actual individual items were not discussed, but the budget was at the last meeting; the only reason they hadn't processed these change orders previously was because they had reached the maximum in the budget. These are costs covered by state aid reimbursement. Longrie asked if there are clauses for certain things that should have been included weren't in a bid, if the contractor has to pay for it. Contractors are required to construct a project according to the bid, but in this case there were changes in the project that became necessary as the project unfolded as conditions changed. If conditions didn't change, then the contractor would have to do it as bidded. For example, Ahl said, they had to remove some tires, some styrofoam, which had not been specified in the original bid.

Unanimous ayes.

Again change orders, with three contractors, described by Ahl. These change orders are needed to close out the project. In one case, Vadnais Heights and the developer failed to have the project ready to go on time, so they will be paying for the extra costs incurred by Maplewood's contractor (but Maplewood still has to approve the change order). In another case, work not done by a contractor needs to be removed from the contract (and the city won't pay for it).

Hjelle moved the item. Juenemann seconded. Hjelle voted first, all ayes.

These changes were again discussed in the budgetary context at the last meeting, and the follow-up change orders need to be done to finalize things. Juenemann moved staff rec, Hjelle seconded. Juenemann asked, üAre we done now with the rotten soils in my neighborhood?ý Yes, said Ahl; the roads are done right, but he and the staff just need to do a better job on the budgeting. Longrie said her comments from last meeting (about being disheartened by budgeting problems) still stand. Rossbach voted first, all ayes.

(Item 12 was moved to consent agenda.)

In short, the Planning Commission was asked to change their rules; however, their rules do currently match city ordinance, and while they are not currently following their own rules (by moving to a night when they can be broadcast, for example), they don't wish to change their rules to conflict with city ordinance.

Longrie asked City Attorney Kantrud for his input. Kantrud recommended that the council direct staff to make necessary ordinance changes and other actions to bring everything into line. Longrie asked if this meant a first reading, second reading, etc., in terms of changing the city ordinance; Kantrud answered in the affirmative.

Hjelle motioned.

Cave asked if this constituted a first reading. Kantrud said that by moving the staff recommendation, staff would be asked to bring forward the specific changes to a future meeting. Cave seconded.

Rossbach said it appears that these are pretty minor changes. üAm I missing something?ý Copeland said that is correct. Kantrud said that staff would be bringing back a redlined ordinance as well as perhaps rules of procedure with the changes. While they could adopt those changed rules now, he suggested it would be more prudent to first go through the ordinance changes.

Juenemann said that the planning commission also had clearly spent some time discussing the appointment process, and thought maybe the council should put some thought into that. Kantrud agreed. Longrie said the council has been following the same process of the previous administration, but whether to take a different approach is something they could talk about.

Rossbach wanted to üjump oný what the Mayor just said, and agree that they should have a discussion about it. Kantrud suggested that ünow is a great time to talk about it,ý before staff brings something back.

Cave said she thinks the way they have been doing it, in the latest round of appointments, is how they should continue to do it. Rossbach offered as a counterpoint that he believes the process has become üway too political in nature,ý and the commissions are intended to be citizens who advise the council. The commissions did a fine job in interviewing their candidates, they are familiar with their processes and work; and now the council doesn't even ask the commissioners to give them questions they should ask of applicants. Thinks the council has üscrewed it up,ý and would be better served having independent people on the commissions. Hjelle asked Rossbach to elaborate. Rossbach cited the example of the police civil service commission, and the choice at the last meeting to reject the single eligible applicant for reappointment to the one open position. Cave said she felt it was an unusual case because they had two other candidates who had to be removed from consideration at the last minute because of their government employment.

Some snippiness ensued.

Hjelle said another example was Dale Trippler, whom he felt was an inappropriate choice for the environmental commission because he was a member of the Porsche Club, a group devoted to ügas guzzlers.ý He was fine reappointing Trippler to the planning commission. Hjelle also opined that Rossbach's thinking these are üpolitical witch huntsý is üridiculous.ý In the case of the police civil service commission, he objected to the individual's vote to halt the hiring process in the police department, and suggested another commissioner who seconded the motion doesn't belong on the commission either.

Juenemann voiced interest in finding the middle. She said the problem she perceives is a lack of consistency, and believes that's what the planning commission's concern was. At the least she thinks the council should get commissions to tell them what they are looking for in appointees.

Rossbach opened some further discussion about the Police Civil Service Commission, and said Hjelle's arguments against the former and current commissioners was exactly the kind of politicization he was concerned with. He also said the Porsche Club is not a driving club, but a club that shows off cars. He suggested it was a üstupid reasoný not to appoint someone who is more qualified in environmental matters than the person that the council did appoint in the end.

Cave suggested that the appointments issue be tabled for the next meeting for a discussion. Longrie suggested that the motion and second on the table to direct staff to revise ordinances regarding the planning commission, and related policies, was still before the council.

Hjelle voiced agreement with Juenemann, but Longrie questioned whether it was related to the discussion under consideration. Longrie suggested that it might serve as the basis for a second motion.

Gary Pearson was recognized. He said the issues the planning commision had talked about had more to do with timing, with respect to issues of electing officers and the like. It was not political ó just asking for an ordinance to be brought forward that they can comply with and be in concordance with. As far as political appointments, previous councils were far more political, in his view.

Rossbach said it seemed to him that staff wanted them to discuss this policy as a precursor to the revisions they bring back. Longrie said she saw it as a different issue from the ordinance revisions ó internal council policies as to the specifics of selecting commission members are not part of ordinance.

Juenemann asked for clarification from Kantrud, in terms of whether the motion they are considering will address the concerns he raised. There was clarifying discussion about the difference between the planning commission's rules of procedures and the city council's.

Motion repeated: Direct staff to make the suggested revisions to the planning commission ordinance that reflect the housekeeping changes needed as suggested by what has been reflected in the planning commission policy booklet, and the city council will consider the two of those together during the first reading of that ordinance.

Cave votes first. All ayes.

Hjelle motioned to extend beyond curfew (it was 11:09), Longrie seconded. All ayes.

Residents of these townhomes came to a meeting at city hall this past weekend, which Cave and Rossbach attended along with city staff. She thanked David Fisher for his role in it, and reported good feedback from the residents.

Mayor Longrie reported on an Emergency Management training session she attended last week in Maryland.

Hjelle suggested that before the council meeting on May 14th would be a good time for it. He noted that on April 19th they have a city council retreat, and that might be a good opportunity to discuss the format for the evaluation meeting.

Kantrud prepared a memo for the council to review with a summary and various relevant documents on this topic.

11:17 PM, and we're done!