MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
MARCH 2, 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:10 a.m. Members present were: Charles Duffy, Jonathan Jordahl, Mike Lehman, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.
Stutsman: Board of Supervisors for Thursday, March 2, 2000. Second item on the agenda is Business from the Assistant County Engineer. Al Miller is here with us this morning. Item A is Discussion Action Needed Regarding Bids Received for Seed and Fertilizer To Be Used for Calendar Year 2000. I’m turning this item over to Mike Lehman to handle this, due to the fact that one of the bidders on this bid was family business, which I’m associated with. So, to avoid conflict of interest I’m going to turn it over to Mike.
Lehman: OK. Appreciate that. Al, could you give us a little background and history here what the seed and fertilizer is used for and procedure.
Assistant County Engineer Al Miller: Basically, Tuesday morning at 10 we open bids on seed and fertilizer, the estimate of what we need for the upcoming year for seeding our new construction projects as well as other maintenance projects and things we have going on. I’ve handed out a bid tabulation of the bids that we received. We received 5 bids. The current low bid is Gringer Feed and Grain, Incorporated. I would recommend that we accept the low bid.
Jordahl: Note, Al, that there is an item on here. Re-green, which might be spray paint, to come fix the grass, I don’t know. It hasn’t been bid by Gringer. What do we do about that?
Miller: He gives it to us for free.
Jordahl: Cool. Does he know that?
Miller: Yes. It wasn’t bid by second low either.
Jordahl: Yes. I noticed that.
Lehman: So, those 2 bidders are aware of that.
Miller: The low bid is. I haven’t contacted anybody with the second low.
Lehman: OK.
Jordahl: Maybe next year we could get him to leave all of them like that.
Miller: Well, I told him next year, you’re going to need to follow instructions on the bids and an N/A bid is not acceptable. That wasn’t their term for N/A, but it’s not acceptable to us. So, the other 3 bidders did bid the re-green and I told the representative from Gringer that I’m going to put it down on the unit bids as zero. It’s a rather small quantity. It wasn’t one of the bigger items. But, they would be required to give us that seed for free.
Lehman: Judging by the other bids, the amount they put in for the re-green would not put the other 2 above it.
Miller: Right.
Lehman: OK.
Miller: It could have been a problem, but I think it’s something we can work with.
Lehman: Everybody met the criteria. You didn’t have to disqualify anybody because of germination standards or anything like that?
Miller: They’re going to have to supply the seed and we’ll get it tested just like we did last year. It’s going to have to meet the germination specs that we set out.
Lehman: OK. Any other questions for Al on this?
Jordahl: Do we have a policy? Suppose none of the unit prices were specified for example and all they had was a bottom line amount. Would that satisfy the criteria of the bid?
Miller: No.
Jordahl: So, it would be possible to say to either one of these bidders, if we chose to, that this isn’t satisfactory because it doesn’t contain all the information necessary.
Miller: It’s possible, yes.
Jordahl: But, being as those are local businesses, probably would want to weigh that in there, too.
Miller: The 2 low bids did the same thing. If it was a situation where one person did it and the other person did not, you may have a problem.
Thompson: Well, when you go to sign the contract, they would still have the option to say we can’t do that, with no charge for the re-green and not take the contract.
Miller: They would forfeit their $2,000 bond and we’d go with the next person.
Jordahl: It seems like your bidding policy might be informative for other things that we do with other departments. If you have a written copy of that, I’d be interested in seeing it.
Miller: I got copies here in the folder if you want them with instructions to the bidders. I got a master copy. Do you want to make a copy for me?
Administrative Assistant Carol Peters: Sure will.
Lehman: Any more discussion on that? Any questions of Al on that?
Jordahl: I would move we… What do we do here?
Lehman: Our informal discussions don’t have that.
Jordahl: No motions necessary on this topic.
Miller: We need to have you put it on next Thursday.
Lehman: For action.
Miller: For action for the bid.
Lehman: OK. All right. I guess we’ll turn it back over to Sally for Item B then.
Stutsman: OK. Thanks Mike for taking care of that. Give you a trial run because I won’t be here next week, so Mike will be chairing the entire meetings. You pass with flying colors Mike. You’re just all set for prime time.
Lehman: Well tutored.
Jordahl: I have confidence in Mike to be able to handle it.
Stutsman: OK. Item B. Discussion Action Needed Regarding Iowa Department of Transportation Agreement for Federal Aid Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program Project BROS-CO52(51)--8J-52. Kansas Avenue Bridge Replacement Over Old Man’s Creek in Section 35-79-07.
Miller: What this is, it’s a pretty standard contract that the DOT puts together for purposes like this. It’s the bridge over Old Man’s Creek that we’ve been discussing and I brought right-of-way in the past weeks. I’ve got 2 copies of the contract that I need to have motioned next week for the Chairperson to sign. Basically, it outlines the funding that we’re receiving on the project.
Stutsman: OK. So, this is pretty standard, fair in working with this project.
Miller: Yes.
Duffy: The funding we receive goes back to the gas tax, most of it doesn’t it?
Miller: Some of it.
Duffy: Some of it might not.
Miller: It’s out of the T-21 funds. We get reimbursed.
Duffy: T-21?
Miller: Yes. It outlines in the contract that, based on our preliminary estimate we get an 80/20 split on the thing. The County pays for 20% and we get reimbursed 80%. Actually, we paid for the entire project and they reimbursed us 80%, up to $400,000, which was out preliminary estimate on the thing.
Duffy: A pretty good deal on a case like this.
Miller: Yes. I’ve got copies of the documents here. I’ll give them to Carol when they’re ready to be signed.
Stutsman: OK.
Miller: We move next week for that.
Stutsman: Are there any other comments? If not, we’ll put that on for formal approval next Thursday. Item C. Discussion Action Needed Regarding Right-of-way Acquisition for Grade, Drain and Pave Project on Sand Road SE.
Miller: This is a number of parcels that we’ve got the contracts, need to be signed on for the project. On Sand Road it starts at 500th Street and goes to just north of 480th Street. So, it’s about a 2 mile long grading and pavement project. These are the contracts and documents. It’s not all of them. I’ll have a couple more to bring in and I have a few tenant contracts that I need to bring in also. But, these are the ones that I want to get taken care of this week.
Stutsman: OK. So, that would be all the rest of the items that we have on the agenda?
Miller: That’s correct.
Stutsman: Carol, you said that we could just take one motion to approve all those contracts. I’m, just for the record, going to go through the names and the amounts and this would be all for right-of-way contracts for the Sand Road Project. That would be for Thomas D. Kane, single, and Teresa P. Kane, single, and that would be for $2,590. For James E. Guthrie and Colene Guthrie, husband and wife, $9,130. For C. E. Schrock and Dorothy O. Schrock, husband and wife, $4,470. For Kevin P. Barnes and Lisa J. Barnes, husband and wife, $2,550. For David M. Wright and Karen K. Wright, husband and wife, $2,215. For Robert G. Lovetinsky, Sr., and Juanita M. Lovetinsky, husband and wife, for $5,020. For Earl Womer Trust and Robert Womer Trustee, for $2,400. For Jerry Womer, single, $4,365. For John G. and Kapra A. Hefley, husband and wife, $3,672. For Miriam I. Plecker and Miriam I. Plecker as Trustee of the Trustee U.W.O. Lloyd E. Plecker, $4,950. Richard Fountain and Dorothy J. Fountain, husband and wife, $8,250. Glorine Berry, single, David L. Long and Karen M. Long, husband and wife, and this would be for contract purchasers, for $2,930. For Donald R. Robertson and Margaret A. Robertson, husband and wife, for $5,170. For Michael Dahlen and Janet Dahlen, husband and wife, $3,700. For Daniel D. Dalton and Amy Dalton, husband and wife, $3,200. For Ralph Sedlecek and Carolyn Sedlecek, husband and wife, $300. So, that includes all the contracts so far for the Sand Road right-of-way acquisition.
Miller: That’s great.
Stutsman: Are there any questions?
Lehman: I recognize a few of these names from our discussion last week. Last week was right-of-way and damages possibly. So, have some of these been included?
Miller: Last week we discussed about going to condemnation. 2 of the 4 that we discussed going to condemnation last week have actually signed on this list.
Stutsman: You’re still negotiating with those other 2, or are they moving on to condemnation?
Miller: As far as I know right now, one, I believe, is going to go to condemnation. The other one is, it’s a problem with the title. It’s kind of an odd situation that we’re trying to take care of. But we have a condemnation hearing set up so that we’re covered and we can meet our bid date.
Stutsman: Right. Keeping it on track. That takes care of all the right-of-ways with those?
Miller: For that project, that’s correct.
Stutsman: Great.
Duffy: Did somebody help you negotiate for these agreements?
Miller: Yes. Yes, we did. We contracted with Grand Land Acquisition up in Ankeny and they helped us not only with the law changes, but they put all the documents together for us and we’re present at the right-of-way meetings that we’re required to give a little bit more of the legal end of the new requirements of the law that was passed last summer. They did have us negotiate some of the parcels.
Duffy: I congratulate you because there’s a lot of these that been resolved. The non-property tax dollars that we get for that road amounted to $360,000 maybe?
Miller: Are we talking about the T-21?
Duffy: The pavement, yes. T-21.
Miller: Off the top of my head, I think we’re getting actually $600,000 change from the T-21 funds.
Jordahl: Will this consultant be necessary on an ongoing basis, or are you learning the new law as you go?
Miller: What we’ve tried to do, we scale it back quite a bit. Last year, we basically handed it over to them to let them do the negotiating. We kind of changed the way we want to do things this year, not only because we’ve got some different requirements with the meetings, but myself and Jinyeene did most of the time work on the project and we met with all the property owners and explained the construction end of it, which last year, on one project, I think that was kind of what was lacking. People wanted to get those issues resolved before they saw the offers. I think it worked out really well. We met with everybody a month ahead of the right-of-way meeting, so they knew how the construction was going to go and how it affected them prior to us even making an offer for the properties. I guess to answer your question, what we plan to do in the future is having Graham help us put together the documents, which is a time-consuming thing. They do a good job on making sure we’ve got the names the way they’re supposed to be and doing the title searches for mortgages and liens and that kind of thing, and help us with the right-of-way meeting in a limited fashion as far as the negotiating goes.
Jordahl: This is different from the Prairie du Chien land acquisition process to some degree.
Miller: The way it turned out, yes. Yes it is. It isn’t a procedure that we have standard for everything. It was something that we elected to do just from some of the comments we heard from the property owners. I think you folks heard one a couple weeks ago. We’ve modified the way we do it, to have more contact out of our office. These people aren’t local and I think that tends to give property owners a feeling that these guys are out of town, they really don’t understand what’s going on here in Johnson County. We’ve elected to do a lot more than negotiating in the meeting face to face ourselves. We have to work with them when we’re doing the construction anyway, so I think it’s a better way to go about it.
Jordahl: That’s how you would characterize the difference between Prairie du Chien Road and acquisitions of these.
Miller: Correct.
Jordahl: Thank you.
Thompson: I think that’s really nice that you’re listening to people as you go along and learning from your experience.
Stutsman: Not only learning, but then applying what you’re learning, too. Making some modification and changes. That’s good for everybody.
Miller: It took a little bit more… It took some more time on our staff’s part, but I think it definitely made a difference at the end. We’re getting a better trust with people out there before we start construction, looking at the number of condemnations between the 2. It’s not really the same project, but we’re looking at one or possibly 2 versus quite a number of condemnations on the other project.
Jordahl: That’s really a good direction of change. I appreciate how you guys are working.
Stutsman: OK. Anything else? If not, then we’ll put those on for final approval then next Thursday on the formal meeting. OK. Anything else, Al?
Miller: That’s it for me.
Stutsman: All right. Thank you very much.
Stutsman: Business from the County Auditor. Discussion/action needed regarding resolution 03-09-00-B1 for appropriating amounts for the 4th quarter of Fiscal Year 2000. We have Dan Stolze with us from the County Auditor’s office.
Deputy Auditor Dan Stolze: Good morning.
Stutsman: Good morning, Dan.
Stolze: This resolution is simply to appropriate the remainder of the budgets for the rest of the fiscal year. As you know, we’ve been doing it in quarters this year, so this is the final one. Otherwise, it’s, I guess, pretty basic.
Stutsman: This is the money that’s already budgeted.
Stolze: Right. This is just from what has currently been approved by the Board. You’re just simply authorizing the rest of that so the departments have budget authority to spend.
Jordahl: One of the reasons that we’re talking about changing that, we have decided to change that process for next year, is that we figure any adjustments that need to be made in the budget can be made at this appropriation. I will ask, had we been doing it that way this year, what snapshot do we have now that we would be making judgement about. Is there anything you’d like to point to here where this is… We’re, yes, appropriating the rest of the budget, but should all of this budget be appropriated are the budgets that aren’t spending up to this level, for example.
Stolze: Well, I guess what you’d be able to do is on the monthly reports that I bring up, you can look at those and see what the percentages that the departments have spent up to that point, and thinking, up to this time, most of the major departments seem to be pretty much right on track, as you saw last month. I don’t think at this point there would be any real big changes. But I think for next year, what we could do before this point, I could simply give you the information. We have another report that we run by service area, which is how this is done, because that’s how we appropriate it. I could just simply get that to you before this time so you could look at it. If you had any changes that you thought were necessary, you just let me know, and I’ll just reflect that in the resolution.
Jordahl: I think that’s an important stage to have if we’re not going to have quarterly appropriations. We ought to put these 2 things together.
Stutsman: Maybe we should explain what the change is going to be. We’re going to be appropriating at the beginning of the year, and then…
Stolze: For the first 3, basically, 75% or 3 quarters of the budget at the start, and then, before the 4th quarter is done, it was my understanding that the Board would actually look at whether the remainder in each department actually needed to be appropriated. If somebody was only at 50%, why appropriate the rest of it if it doesn’t look like that’s going to be needed? I think probably the easiest way, I can just simply give you the information as current as we can have it prior to the 4th, appropriating that last part, so you can decide who gets what, and then I can just reflect that in the resolution.
Jordahl: This probably should be kicked back to the department heads too, I would think. They get that report, and if they are at 60% expenditure and they’re supposed to be at 75%, they may very well want to come in and make a presentation about why they do need to have the entire appropriation.
Stolze: Exactly.
Jordahl: I think it’s going to be a whole lot more detailed process than this morning’s presentation gives the impression of. On the one hand.
Stutsman: Yes, good idea, because this is a change.
Jordahl: It’s kind of like a 2nd budget process. It’s looking at where are we at, at the end of the year. I like the idea of more involvement with the department. It shouldn’t just be we go through a different process that they should have, they should know what’s going on and be able to interact with us about it, too. But at the same time, it puts us into more of a supervisory role over the budget at the 3rd or 4th quarter appropriations. It also gives more latitude to the departments at the first part of the year. It’s respecting their ability to monitor their own budgets and so giving them the entire 75% to work with rather than doing this quarter by quarter thing as if the Board is going to somehow control the amount of money that they spend, as if we needed to. But this is the point where we can make a difference.
Stutsman: Yes, there definitely needs to be very clear communication with department heads so that they are aware of what the plans are.
Stolze: I’ll send out a letter to each of the department heads after this is approved. We’ve already made a revision to that letter since we’re trying to prepare them for the way it’s going to be next year, so we’ve already kind of reworded that a little bit so that they understand that they’re going to get 3 quarters of it right off the bat. Then, the Board will review before that final appropriation is made.
Jordahl: We might want to jointly work on that letter. I think it’s important that that communication…
Stolze: I’ll bring that up and you can take a look at it.
Jordahl: What do you think about that? You think it would be good that the Board send a message, because we’re really… The budget is like our biggest responsibility.
Duffy: Well, I’m not so sure we should have even changed it. The reason why the 3 month thing was put in, in the budget, one year the tax dollars from property tax came in slow or a little late, and we didn’t know whether we’d have to cash in some CDs in order to get us by to the next fiscal year.
Stutsman: Well, this morning we’re just talking about the resolution, so I think if we want to revisit that we’ll have to put it on for agenda for another time.
Duffy: But anyway, the worst part of this…
Stolze: But I know from the standpoint of reviewing this, it makes it, it’s a lot more efficient to have 3 quarters of it done right away because we’re not talking about whether there’s actual cash to pay the bills, but they have to have spending authority.
Duffy: That’s right.
Stolze: Some departments, like the Insurance Fund, they pay almost the entire thing right at the start of the fiscal year. It’s done sometime in October. There’s the case where you’re trying to say well, they really need the appropriation more than 25% right at the beginning, so it just simply… Because we have to look at everything in terms of are they within their budget authority. I know it’ll make it easier and more efficient, I think, to do it that way.
Jordahl: It’s going to reduce the number of budget amendments we face, too. We’ve talked a lot of criticism in the press about having budget amendments shortly after the budget is approved. If we had the 75% appropriated, in some cases where people have had to spend more than they anticipated, that’d be covered within their budget just as it already is covered within their budget. I think it’s a very important change. But more importantly, with regard to this morning’s discussion of appropriations for the 4th quarter, that we would have the opportunity to save money for the public on this by intervening at this point. Saying, 18 months ago, when we looked at this, it seemed like you were going to need that much, something has changed, so we can put that in ending balances, maybe readjust budget according to needs as we see them at the time. It keeps us more… We talked about a year round budget process. This is the point where that rubber really meets the road on that year around budget process. This is where we make the difference.
Duffy: But those spreadsheets that we’ll probably get now each month or each 2 months… Now, the last one was right on. There hadn’t been any that really wasn’t, but that’s a very easy document to read, easy for the public to read.
Stutsman: We’ll still be doing that, reviewing that on a monthly basis.
Jordahl: All right. Just suggesting that that document or one like that, as close to up to date as we can get it, be presented along with this, enough in advance so the Board can study it and really make budget appropriations according to that very tracking of departmental expenditures.
Stolze: Right.
Stutsman: Any more discussion on the resolution. Are we OK with what’s being presented by the Auditor’s Office? If we’re OK, then we’ll but that on for next Thursday for the formal meeting for formal action. That can be taken care of. Thank you, Dan.
Stolze: Thank you.
Stutsman: Item B. Discussion/action needed regarding resolution 03-09-00-B2, and this is for naming depositories. County Treasurer Tom Kriz has this on the agenda. Tom is you want to walk the Board through this.
County Treasurer Tom Kriz: This is a fairly easy one.
Stutsman: All right.
Kriz: We have worked over the past year with our SEATS department. What this is, is amending the amount that SEATS can have on deposit in one particular account. The way that system had worked before is they would bring their deposits daily to the Treasurer’s Office, and then we would deposit that into a master Treasurer’s account. It was a cumbersome thing with 2 people handling and working the funds that way, so with the help of Lisa Dewey we worked out a system where they deposited it to their own account daily, on a daily basis. At the end of the month, a check comes to the Treasurer’s Office broken down into their receipts and then interest earned on the money. The effect is the same but it gives them a much better accounting system. They can check day by day rather than us calling them and saying well, this would be off by a dollar or things like that. It’s a much better system. They have the people in place to do that. We also worked out an arrangement with the local financial institutions that the interest they receive on the money is the same interest that we receive on our master account, so there’s no loss in dollars. There’s no increased investment. The interest received will be the same amount. It’s just a better bookkeeping system for SEATS and a better way to do a system. Prior to this, they didn’t have the people that had the capability to do that, but now they do. What it is, is raising that limit, which was at the $10,000 level to $150,000, then it meets our requirements, as we’re audited, as to what’s named in each thing. It’s merely a change in bookkeeping, but a positive change, to where they’re accountable as they do it, and it gives them a much better look at what they do on a day by day basis and month by month. The end result to the County is the same because they receive the same interest rate on their deposits in that account as we do in our master treasurer’s account.
Stutsman: So before, they brought it into the Treasurer’s Office.
Kriz: Every day. Every day.
Stutsman: It would save you some work.
Kriz: It saves us some time, too. It took some time to get it there and get a system set up for them, but it’s a very smooth system now. It works very well for us as well as them. That’s some of the changes we’ve done as we’ve contacted departments and said, what can we do? Unlike a lot of the other accounts where we had different accounts earning different interest rates, we’ve pretty much lined that up now, so where even a smaller account will earn the same rate as our master treasurer’s account, which is advantageous for the County and all the departments that do it.
Jordahl: Making us money.
Kriz: Trying to.
Jordahl: The public money. We get the same amount, but the public is going to get less tax to pay (inaudible).
Kriz: It’s just a more efficient way to do something.
Stutsman: Do you have a comment, Carol?
Thompson: No.
Stutsman: Oh, you looked like you wanted to say something, or acted…
Thompson: I like the neatness of that.
Kriz: It’s something that just took some time to put together, and once it’s in place, it works really well.
Jordahl: Now, you talk about one of the things you’re doing, and this is one department and we list other departments here, is this an ongoing process? Is this an isolated case?
Kriz: No, this is a never-ending process. We’ve offered the help to any of the departments that want any help with that or setting up anything or changing anything. They can do that. Most of them, early on I worked with Kim Painter in the Recorder’s just to how we did a few of those, and it works good. It’s just a little different way of doing things. But it’s a win-win. The departments have a better handle on exactly what they do, and the County wins because of the interest they receive on the deposits.
Jordahl: Sounds like newsletter material to me, Tom.
Kriz: It could be in the future.
Stutsman: Communications meeting tomorrow. We’ll include that.
Kriz: One other thing I wanted to briefly talk about in regard to this, many of you probably read, and this is just for information about a bank failure in Carlisle, Iowa. OK, that has some ramifications locally. What that is, is the State set up a new, what’s called a sinking fund type account where banks could now, over the last year accept deposits in excess of the $100,000 limit which we’re fully guaranteed by the State. When you have a failure like that, how the banks were assessed for this bank failure is on a basis of how many uninsured tax dollars the bank held from cities, counties, school districts, things like that, that were in excess of that. There were some fairly large assessments sent to the local banks here because many of them participate heavily with the County, with the City, with the school district on deposits there. So there, the banks were assessed by the amount of deposits which go beyond that limit. For instance, one of the smaller banks in town was assessed $52,000 as part of their assessment. What this brings to light is this may have some ramifications on the aggressiveness of banks for counties, cities and funds like that on deposit. It’s the first real eye-opener that says OK, this is how the system worked and it worked good, but until there’s a bank failure nobody’s assessed anything based on that. With the failure of the Carlisle bank, everybody had to pitch in, and that’s, the system worked and it works fine that way but this is the first eye-opener that the banks now write a check for that thing. So it can have some ramifications down the road on how aggressive banks will be on bidding for public funds.
Jordahl: In other words, interest rates may go up.
Kriz: The interest rates may go up, but the aggressiveness that we’ve found, and we’ve worked with the local banks, could change. It doesn’t mean it will, but having sat on the other side of that desk, if I know that is there, I might have been less aggressive to bid on Iowa City Community School District funds and Johnson County funds. So it’s something to keep in mind.
Stutsman: Knowing that there is a little bit of liability.
Kriz: Well, there’s a little bit of liability, there’s no liability locally. These are some of he soundest banks, but when something fails elsewhere, then everybody kicks in to take care of that fund, and this came home in the case of the Carlisle bank failure.
Jordahl: Basic implication of this is that it’s going to make it harder for us to borrow money. Harder meaning higher interest rates.
Kriz: Not to borrow money. What it’s going to make it harder is to negotiate depository rates as to interest paid to us because they may look and say how bad do I want this money to turn around and reinvest. If I’m the bank on the other side of the table I may say well, if I have all this money, the more I have the more I’m going to be assessed if there’s another bank failure in Northwest Iowa or someplace like that. So you will start now to think about that more than you ever did before when you’ve been sent a bill from the Superintendent of Banking for 50 or 60 or 70,000 for your share.
Jordahl: So this is related to the amount that they have on deposit, or the amount that they have on deposit in excess of the 100,000 federal insured.
Kriz: The amount on deposit in excess of the $100,000, right. So it just has some varying on how banks may look at large deposits from counties and cities and school districts. It remains to be seen, but I think once the board of directors of various banks look at that, there could possibly be a less aggressive stance on that.
Stutsman: It’s interesting.
Kriz: It’s an FYI, but it does, you know, Carlisle, Iowa comes home to Iowa City sometimes and things like that happen.
Stutsman: Something like that effects us all.
Kriz: It does.
Stutsman: Directly or indirectly. Thank you very much Tom.
Kriz: Thanks.
Stutsman: Business from the County Attorney? Anything this morning Janet?
Assistant County Attorney Janet Lyness: Just to apologize for being late. I had an 8:30 hearing that I thought would be a 5 minute hearing and it turned out to be a 30 minute hearing, so I apologize.
Stutsman: Those things happen.
Lyness: But nothing else to report.