►
Description
Minneapolis Community Development and Regulatory Services Committee
A
Good
afternoon
welcome
to
the
regularly
scheduled
meeting
of
the
community
development
and
regulatory
services
committee
for
today,
februari
11th
I've
been
joined
by
council
members
wore
sami,
reich,
fri,
Quincy
and
Cano.
We
have
a
relatively
short
agenda
today:
I'm
first
going
to
move
the
consent
agenda,
I'd
first
like
to
remove
item
number
8
for
discussion
and
call
on
councilmember
Cano
for
a
change
in
item
number
13
councilmember
panel.
Thank.
B
A
Councilmember
Cano
has
changed
the
name
of
the
reinstatement.
Thank
you
for
that.
I'll.
Note
that
item
number
seven
are
the
regular
licences
recommended
for
approval
item
number.
Nine
is
the
issuance
of
our
tax-exempt
bonds
for
2014.
These
are
certain
actions
required
to
do
that.
Item.
10
is
accepting
a
large
number
of
environmental
remediation
grant
awards.
11
is
our
great
seats,
facade
improvement
program.
12
is
the
reinstatement
of
a
rental
license,
as
is
13
14?
Is
the
Marshall
terrace
NRP
phase
2
neighborhood
action
plan?
A
15
is
the
Holland
NRP's
phase,
2
neighborhood
action
plan
and
item
16,
17
and
18
are
being
referred
to
staff?
Are
there
any
items
on
the
consent
agenda?
Anyone
else
would
like
to
pull
off
for
discussion
or
question.
Seeing
none
I'll
move
the
consent
agenda
as
as
suggested
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
aye.
Any
opposed
those
items
are
approved
will
then
go
back
to
our
public
hearing
agenda
starting
with
item
number
one,
which
is
a
land
sale
at
30,
15,
morgan
avenue,
north
mizo.
It's
welcome
good.
C
Afternoon,
madam
chair
and
council
members,
this
is
a
proposed
land
sale
of
a
property
at
30,
15,
morgan
avenue
north.
This
property
was
originally
purchased
under
the
Neighborhood
Stabilization
program
for
land
banking
by
the
city
for
future
development.
The
Jordan
this
is
located
in
the
Jordan
neighborhood.
The
Jordan
neighborhood
felt
very
strongly
that
this
building
was
significant
to
the
existing
character
and
structure
of
the
neighborhood
and
contacted
powderhorn,
resin
prg
I'm.
Sorry,
they're
no
longer
called
powder
own
residence
group.
Are
they
vrg
to
rehabilitate
this?
C
This
building
prg
went
through
they
put
together
a
budget
and
felt
that
it
was
a
building
they
could
rehabilitate.
This
is
a
building
that
would
be
will
be
rehabilitated
to
green
community
standards.
In
the
city's
homeownership
works
program,
it
will
be
sold
under
the
home.
Worship
works
program
to
an
income
qualified
buyer,
whose
income
is
that
are
below
eighty
percent
of
area
median
and
staff
is
recommending.
The
sale
of
this
property
to
prg
are.
A
There
any
questions
from
his
oats
on
item
number
one,
seeing
none.
Thank
you
for
your
report,
we'll
open
the
public
hearing
on
item
number,
one
which
is
a
land
sale
at
3415,
morgan
avenue
south.
Is
there
anyone
here
to
speak
to
this
issue,
anyone
anyone
seeing
none
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
council
member
Quincy?
Thank.
A
E
Specifically,
an
additional
250
thousand
dollars
would
be
allocated
to
the
tornado
recovery
housing
program.
Excuse
me,
two
hundred
and
twenty-five
thousand
dollars
for
the
program
and
an
additional
twenty
five
thousand
dollar
twenty-five
thousand
set
aside
for
staff
administrative
costs.
It
is
intended
that
these
additional
funds
would
be
spent
in
our
continuing
effort
to
address
tornado
damage
to
properties
in
North.
Minneapolis,
since
the
council's
original
approval
of
the
spending
plan
in
2012
see
pet
staff
have
inspected
more
than
240
tornado
damaged
properties,
we've
worked
with
our
partners
to
successfully
acquire
approximately
54
tornado
damaged
properties.
E
A
Are
there
any
questions
for
Miss
Glasper
on
item
number?
Two
seeing
none!
Thank
you
for
that
extraordinary
effort
and
that
report
I
will
open
a
public
hearing
on
item
number
two,
which
is
approving
the
amended
and
restated
spending
plan
for
tax
increment
funds
in
the
tornado,
just
tornado
recovery
area.
Is
there
anyone
here
to
speak
to
this
issue?
Anyone
anyone
sing,
none
will
close
the
public
hearing,
councilmember
Reich
I,
madam.
A
G
You,
madam
chair,
we
have
an
application
by
North,
Loop
coffee,
LLC,
doing
business
as
Dunn
brothers.
They
are
seeking
to
relocate
from
228
washington
north
to
337,
washington,
north
and
upgrading
to
a
non
sell
wine
and
class
class
ii
license
with
strong
beer
up
from
a
restaurant.
This
location
is
in
the
dock
street
flats.
G
Building
a
newly
constructed
mixed-use
building,
the
licensed
premises
will
be
located
in
suite
100
north
loop.
Loop
coffee
is
owned
solely
by
Marty,
Kessel
he's
the
owner
and
he'll
will
be
the
onsite
manager.
Indoor
seating
at
this
establishment
will
be
for
our
41
guests
and
an
outdoor
private
patio
we'll
see
48
guests,
a
public
hearing
is
required.
We
did
notify
residents
and
property
owners
within
300
feet.
As
of
today,
we
have
not
received
responses
for
or
against
this
application.
A
There
any
questions
for
mr.
Wilson
on
item
number
three,
seeing
none
we'll
open
the
public
hearing
on
item
number
three,
which
is
an
application
for
an
on
sale
and
strong
beer
class
C
license
for
dunn
brothers
on
the
300
block
of
washington
avenue
north.
Is
there
anyone
here
to
speak
to
this
issue?
Anyone.
H
Morning,
I'm
Marty
castle
said
owner
of
North
Loop
coffee,
AK,
Dunn
brothers.
We
just
opened
for
business
at
our
new
location
is
every
morning
without
the
whining
do.
At
this
point,
of
course,
we've
got
a
great
expanded
food
menu.
We
see
the
wine
and
beer
as
a
wonderful
addition
to
our
offerings
into
the
neighborhood
and
I
want
to
thank
all
of
you
for
considering
this
item
for
approval.
Thank.
A
I
A
G
Machair
net
supermarket
at
1845,
nicollet
avenue
is
seeking
an
extended
hours
license
to
allow
them
to
be
open
one
additional
hour
on
the
days
of
sunday.
Through
thursday,
the
current
hours
of
operation
authorized.
There
are
six
a.m.
to
10pm,
72,
Thursday
and
Friday
and
Saturday.
They
have
six
am-2
11.
They
seek
to
be
open
from
six
to
eleven
seven
days
a
week.
The
net
supermarket
has
operated
at
this
location
for
over
15
years
and
they
have
certainly
been
in
good
standings.
With
with
the
my
department
and
regulatory
services.
Public
hearing
is
required
for
this
application.
G
A
Are
there
questions
for
mr.
Wilson
on
item
number
for
saying
none?
This
is
a
public
hearing
and
item
number
four,
which
is
considering
an
application
for
extended
hours
in
1845,
nicollet
avenue
south.
Is
there
anyone
here
to
speak
to
this
issue?
Anyone
anyone
sing,
none
will
close.
The
public
hearing.
Councilmember
were
Sami.
A
I
Is
a
quasi
judicial
hearing
dealing
with
two
particular
rental
licenses?
This
committee
is
limited
by
law
to
hearing
argument
from
the
property
owner
or
the
owner's
representative,
but
is
prohibited
from
considering
any
further
evidence
or
taking
any
further
testimony.
This
means
that
you
are
required
to
limit
your
comments
to
arguments
specifically
addressing
the
evidence
or
testimony
introduced
before
the
hearing
officer,
which
is
part
of
the
record
that
is
already
before
us.
You
may
you
may
not
offer
and
we
may
not
consider
any
new
or
additional
evidence
based
solely
on
this
existing
record.
I
In
the
arguments
that
the
parties
make
today,
the
City
Council
may
affirm,
modify
or
reverse
the
recommendation
that
is
before
us.
So
if
it
wasn't
already
exceedingly
clear,
no
new
evidence
simply
the
evidence
that
was
already
before
the
administrative
law
judge
I,
understand
staff.
We
have
some
information
for
us
right.
J
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
and
council
committee
members,
my
name
is
Joanne
velde
and
I.
Am
the
deputy
director
of
housing
inspections,
services
within
regulatory
services?
The
property
involved
in
this
revocation
action
is
located
at
2714
fourth
street
north
in
the
city
of
minneapolis.
This
property
is
a
single-family
rental.
The
licensee
in
this
matter
is
mahmood
khan
in
the
rental
license
application
list,
mahmood
khan
as
the
owner
and
property
manager.
This
matter
was
commenced
by
regulatory
services
to
revoke
the
rental
dwelling
license.
J
Pursuant
to
section
244
1910
licensing
subdivision
five
more
than
three
repeated
nuisance
violations
occurring
at
this
property
over
a
24-month
period
as
of
februari.
First
2013,
the
city
had
acted
to
abate
the
nuisance
conditions
at
this
property
seven
times
within
a
24
month
period,
the
city
of
beaded,
nuisance
conditions
on
September,
26,
2011,
October,
17,
2011,
March,
5012,
March,
twenty
six,
twenty
twelve
August
twenty
seven,
twenty
twelve
November
fifth
2012
in
December
31st
2012.
This
evidence
was
introduced
at
the
administrative
hearing
on
December
for
2013
on
februari.
J
First
2013,
a
notice
of
directress
determination
of
non-compliance
was
sent
to
mr.
Khan
notifying
him
that
there
had
been
three
or
more
instances
where
the
city
abated
nuisance
conditions.
At
this
address.
It
also
informed
mr.
Khan
that
if
there's
any
further
City
abated
nuisance
that
occurs
at
this
address,
it
would
be
grounds
for
revocation
on
April,
15,
2013
and
other
nuisance
condition
was
found
on
the
property
in
the
city.
Abated
the
nuisance
condition
on
April
17
2013
on
August
16
2013,
a
notice
of
revocation
of
the
rental
license,
was
sent
to
mr.
J
J
The
large
number
of
nuisance
conditions
at
this
address
that
was
abated
within
24
months
by
the
city
demonstrates
that
the
owner
licensee
has
failed
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
the
licensing
standard
recommendation
that
the
rental
license
held
by
mahmood
khan
as
owner
of
the
property
for
2714.
Fourth
street
north
of
minneapolis
be
revoked.
Thank.
K
You
to
the
chair
council
members,
my
name
is
Michael.
Kemp
I
appear
here
as
representative,
an
attorney
for
mr.
Khan
as
the
council
member
noted.
This
is
not
the
place
to
bring
forth
new
evidence
nor
do
I
intend
to.
However,
this
council
is
vested
with
the
discretion
under
Minneapolis
code
of
ordinances,
chapter
2
44
to
amend
or
modify
the
recommendation
based
on
the
circumstances
of
the
case,
I'm
not
going
to
try
and
retry
the
evidentiary
hearing
which
was
already
held.
The
question
is
whether
not
weather
this
council
can.
J
K
K
Excuse
me,
40
different
addresses,
many
of
which
have
been
extensively
extensively
rehabbed,
which
is
exactly
what
the
city
of
Minneapolis
is
looking
for,
is
developers
to
come
in
to
find
properties
which
have
fallen
into
disrepair,
become
nuisance
conditions
and
fix
them
up.
He's
done
that
extensively
throughout
the
city,
and
so
in
this
particular
case
he
did
have
a
problem
with
some
tenants.
As
the
record
indicates,
the
issue
was
with
tenants,
disposing
of
weeds
and
rubbish
in
the
yard.
Now
what
he
certainly
has
a
legal
duty
to
ensure
that
they
comply
with
the
code
of
ordinances.
K
In
that
respect,
however,
this
the
council
can
take
note
of
the
fact
that
this
was
not
a
failure
of
on
mr.
Khan's
part
to
do
something
that
was
required,
for
instance,
to
bring
this
property
into
code.
Compliance
that
had
already
happened
from
being
a
building
on
the
edge
of
demolition
to
something
completely
in
compliance
with
the
code.
It
was
the
tenants,
as
the
record
will
will
note,
who
had
to
notice
these
conditions
if.
I
K
K
Correct
and
in
some
of
those
instances
it
was
attends
another.
It
was
third
parties,
but
the
question
is
obviously:
does
mr.
Khan
have
a
legal
duty
to
ensure
that
rubbish
does
not
accumulate
on
this
property?
That's
not
an
open
question
that
the
fact
is.
He
does
have
that
obligation,
whether
it's
the
tenants
or
somebody
else,
but
nobody
has
presented
any
evidence
or
even
an
allegation
that,
for
instance,
he
was
the
one
using
the
property
as
a
dump
site.
K
I
bring
this
up
merely
to
point
out
to
to
the
council
that
these
tenants,
who
have
since
been
evicted.
This
he's
surrendered
his
rental
license.
That
was
all
actions
that,
while
he
had
a
legal
responsibility
to
oversee
weren't
things
that
he
was
personally
doing
wrong.
This
is
intended
to
to
show
the
council
that
the
revocation
of
his
rental
license
may
be
an
overly
harsh
remedy
in
this
particular
instance.
Given
the
circumstances,
mr.
I
K
Councilmember
know
the
the
issues
at
the
at
the
ALJ
hearing.
The
testimony
was
was
developed
there
and
so
that
testimony
had
certainly
don't
intend
to
add
anything
to
it.
That's
not
already
on
the
record
there.
That's,
obviously
not
the
purpose
of
this
meeting.
The
purpose
was
simply
to
demonstrate
to
the
council
why
it
can,
and
in
this
case,
should,
in
its
discretion,
look
at
chapter
2,
44
and
say
in
this
particular
instance
for
this
particular
landlord.
K
I
L
The
only
thing
I
can
say
is
there:
this
property
was
condemned
and
I
fixed
it
two
years
ago
brought
it
under
complete
code.
Compliance
I
spent
a
lot
of
money
and
fixing
it.
It
was
bought
it
from
the
Hennepin
County
District
Court
I
mean
the
other
tax-related
land
after
the
auction.
Nobody
bought
it.
I
bought
it
fixed
it
up.
It
was
supposed
to
be
demolished,
but
I
took
care
of
all
the
things.
K
L
I
Questions
well.
Thank
you.
Mr.
Kemp,
mr.
Connor
will
say
there
are
three
facts
that
you
had
dead
on.
First,
that
mr.
Khan
still
is
the
owner
of
the
property,
notwithstanding
any
sort
of
contract
for
deed
this.
The
second
is
that
it
is
his
legal
responsibility
to
make
sure
that
that
property
is
kept
up,
regardless
of
what
whether
his
tenants
are
doing
it
or
they're
some
sort
of
third
party,
and
the
third
piece
is
that,
yes,
there
were
more
than
three
violations
in
the
last
24
months.
I
I
J
Chair
and
council
committee
members,
the
property
involved
in
this
revocation
ocean
is
located
at
1068
18th
avenue
southeast
in
the
city
of
minneapolis.
The
property
is
a
single-family
rental.
The
licensee
in
this
matter
is
Douglas
Doty
in
the
rental
license
application
list,
Douglas
Doty
as
the
owner
and
property
manager.
This
matter
was
convinced
by
regulatory
services
to
revoke
the
run,
a
license
pursuant
to
section
244
1910
licensing
standards,
subdivision
seven
for
unpaid
reinspection
fees,
subdivision
11.
There
shall
be
no
delinquent
property
taxes
or
assessments
on
the
rental
dwelling,
19
adverse
license.
J
Action
action
may
be
upon
good
cause
as
authorized
by
chapter
4,
section
16
of
charter
of
the
Charter
and
in
subdivision
23.
That
licensees
shall
not
have
any
unpaid
fines
or
fees.
Owing
to
the
city
of
Minneapolis.
On
august
15
2013
the
department
sent
a
notice
of
directors,
determination
of
non-compliance
to
the
owner
of
1068
18th
avenue,
southeast
Douglas
Doty.
This
notice
provided
an
opportunity
for
the
licensee
to
pay
required
fees,
delinquent
taxes
or
assessments
in
administrative
citations
and
other
cause
established
by
chapter
4,
section
16
of
the
Charter.
J
On
august
29
2013
the
department
sent
a
notice
of
revocation
of
the
rental
license
to
Douglas
Doty,
providing
the
licensee
an
opportunity
to
appeal
this
action
on
September
16
2013
mr.
Doty
filed
a
proper
appeal
of
the
revocation
action
on
December.
Fourth
2013.
The
matter
came
before
the
administrative
hearing
officer,
Edward
Backstrom.
After
hearing
all
evidence
presented,
and
the
arguments
were
heard
by
the
hearing
officer,
his
conclusions
and
recommendations
are
as
follows.
Proper
notices
were
sent
by
the
department
involving
mr.
J
Doty
that
the
department
intended
to
request
the
revocation
of
the
dwelling
rental
license
for
1068
18th
avenue
southeast
based
on
a
number
of
housing
violations
occurring
at
the
property,
a
large
number
which
currently
remain
open
and
the
community
concerns
or
the
condition
of
the
property
good
good
cause
has
been
shown.
The
recommendation
that
the
rental
annoyed
dwelling
license
held
by
Douglas
Doty
as
owner
of
the
property
for
1068
18th
avenue
southeast
in
minneapolis,
be
revoked.
J
J
A
J
D
Council
members,
thank
you,
I'm
not
going
to
rehash
the
history
here,
but
particularly
what
I'd
like
to
address
would
be
the
actual
hearing
itself
in
the
case
of
mr.
doughy
as
I'm
sure
the
council
is
aware,
this
hearing
was
a
somewhat
unusual
affair
in
that
the
city
missed
some
of
its
due
diligence
in
bringing
this
revocation
action
in
the
first
place.
One
of
the
recommendations
that
was
not
addressed
previously
was
judge
pasture
hearing
officer.
Backstrom
did
not
recommend
to
provide
to
revoke
mr.
Daly's
license
for
1072,
because
the
city
provided
improper
notice
to
mr.
D
Doty
as
a
result
of
that,
none
of
the
none
of
the
violations
that
are
currently
outstanding
can
be
determined
as
to
whether
there
for
ten
sixty
eight
or
ten.
Seventy
two
one
of
the
things
that
was
determined
in
the
hearing
is
that
1068
and
1072
are
on
one
they're
on
one
plot
of
land
but
their
separate
rental
dwellings.
That's
one
tax
ID!
D
There
were
no
outstanding
reinspection
fees
and
11
is
no
delinquent
property
taxes
or
assessments,
and
while
the
city
believed
when
they
brought
the
hearing
initially
that
there
were
delinquent
property
taxes
and
assessments
because
they
had
called
the
tax
for
the
Department
of
Revenue
and
found
out,
there
was
a
confession
of
judgment.
They
hadn't
looked
into
what
the
confession
of
judgment
was
a
product
of
which
was
mr.
dodies
chapter
13
bankruptcy
and
all
of
those
back
taxes
and
fees
are
in
a
repayment
plan.
D
D
The
city
attorney
objected
to
our
specifically
addressing
to
the
point
of
the
corrective
action
as
there's
some
question
as
as
to
whether
or
not
they
have
been
simply
closed
out
in
the
system
or
whether
there's
a
insufficient
there's
a
systemic
problem
where
some
inspectors
have
told
mr.
Doty
that
these
are
closed,
some
have
remained
open
and
on
the
city,
records
they've
remained
open.
The
city
objected
based
on
relevance,
sane
and
I.
Believe
I
quote
it's
only
about
money.
If
it's
only
about
money,
mr.
D
Doty
has
already
paid
the
outstanding
fines,
which
we
have
proof
up
here
today.
I
blew
the
request
that
you
don't
revoke
his
license
and
at
at
the
beginning
of
this
entire
process.
When
mr.
Doty
was
made
aware
of
this,
he
called
the
city
and
asked
what
what
can
I
do
to
fix
this?
What
do
I
need
to
pay?
You
know
how
can
I
make
this
battery
has
been
throughout
this
process.
Attempting
to
rectify
these
problems,
he
was
told
that
he
there
was
nothing.
He
can
do
to
fix
this
because
of
the
open
violations.
D
D
In
conclusion,
that
you
tell
you
the
circumstances
that
mr.
Doty
is
addressing
here
and
that
the
city
should
be
looking
at
is
not
simply
the
$1,000
outstanding
fine,
which
is
what
the
cities
were
requesting,
revocation
based
on,
but
is
my
client
working
with
the
city
to
improve
his
property
and
to
correct
these
violations,
which
his
history
should
show.
Additionally,
this?
If
the
city
wants
to
revoke
these
licenses,
they
can
do
so
properly.
D
They
can
bring
the
proper
revocation
action,
they
can
give
the
proper
notices
and
they
can
do
so
for
the
right
reasons,
and
in
this
case
there
has
been
throughout
this
process.
Systemic
problems
that
that
have
caused
well
have
caused
a
due
process
have
caused
a
violation
of
my
clients
due
process
rights,
Thank.
B
I
D
I
You
would
acknowledge
that
these
two
individual
properties
quote-unquote
sit
on
one
parcel
right.
That
is
correct.
Okay,
so
when
you
make
the
the
you
have
the
application
for
those
two
individual
license
applications
if
you
can
revoke
one
without
revoking
the
other
right.
Yes,
and
at
the
previous
hearing
with
the
administrative
law
judge,
you
would
acknowledge
that
the
property
for
1072
that
was
entirely
taken
off
the
docket.
So
none
of
the
facts
that
we're
talking
about
today
even
have
to
do
with
that
right.
No,
that's
incorrect!
Okay!
What
explain
to
me
how
that's
incorrect
this.
D
I
Can
you
stand
here
today
and
say
of
the
guys?
The
record
shows
that
since
1993
there
have
been
62
special
assessments
with
25
occurring
in
the
last
five
years.
There
have
also
been
12
housing
violations
since
2013,
a
hundred
and
twenty
12
and
prior
to
the
415
that
was
prior
to
the
405
15
violations
in
1993.
So
I
mean.
Are
you
saying
that
of
all
of
those
violations?
One
hundred
percent
of
them
happened
to
1072
no.
I
Agree,
the
only
people
that
can
do
that
is
the
city.
So
it's
my
understanding,
you
that
you
already
paid
the
thousand-dollar
outstanding,
fine
yep,
and
you
do
understand
that
the
previous
fines,
as
you
correctly
pointed
out,
they
were
erased
from
the
record
due
to
the
bankruptcy
I
mean
my
mind.
You
probably
got
out
of
a
significant
amount
of
money
and
then
you're
still
owing
more
no.
I
J
Madam
chair
councilmember
free
the
way
the
violation
orders
are
issued
from
our
department
is
when
you
have
a
separate,
read
a
license
with
two
separate
addresses
that
aren't
conduct
connected.
So
these
properties
on
this
parcel.
Do
it's
not
a
range
address,
so
the
addresses
are
not
shared,
so
our
system
will
generate
our
violation
notice
to
whoever
the
licensee
is
for
each
address.
So
the
violation
information
history
stays
with
1068
a
violation.
History
stays
with
1070
to.
I
F
I
A
G
G
We
anticipate
if
we
did
not
have
a
resolution,
something
like
that
is
before
you
that
is
called
a
clean
zone
resolution
that
will
assist
us
regulating
some
of
the
temporary
vending
and
entertainment
activity.
That's
expected
to
hit
Minneapolis.
We
need
to
plan,
in
conjunction
with
major
league
baseball,
for
a
myriad
of
events
that
are
planned
already,
and
we
need
to
coordinate
all
of
those
vents
to
make
sure
that
our
traffic
control,
our
police,
our
homeland
security,
all
know
exactly.
What's
going
on
at
every
corner,
I
encourage
you
to
adopt
this
this
resolution.
G
It
will
greatly
help
us.
It
does
only
affect
temporary
permits
or
licenses
that
that
are
in
use.
For
such
events,
it
will
not
affect
anybody
who
has
an
annual
business
license
in
the
cities
such
as
our
food,
vendors,
food
trucks,
pedicabs
taxicabs,
things
like
that
and
I
will
guess.
I'll
hold
for
any
questions
are.
A
There
any
questions
for
mr.
Wilson
I
think
he's
addressed.
The
questions
we
had
raised
earlier
by
clarifying
these
were
would
be
to
not
issue
any
temporary
permits
going
forward
and
he
did
note
that
the
dates
are
from
July
fifth
through
July
twentieth,
which
was
a
second
question
we
had
raised.
So
my
questions
have
been
answered.
Does
anyone
else
have
questions?