2026-10-22 - Land Reuse and Preservation Agency Regular Meeting

00:00I think he's reaching back out to them

00:01to ask them to make contact.

00:05Reviewed the the deeds for the birthday

00:07estate and there I think there's a a

00:09minor change needed on those based on a

00:11a change in law requiring signature of

00:13uh

00:14of the recipient, the grantee, to

00:17accept the deed. Um and there's I I want

00:20to ask about the

00:22dates of the the effective date is it is

00:24October of last year

00:26and then just need to to confirm the

00:28transfer of one of the properties that's

00:30in the name of a

00:31tax sale purchaser and I don't see the

00:34the deed of record but just need to

00:36confirm that. So, we should be getting

00:37that done

00:38presently.

00:39>> Okay. And then we're just waiting on

00:41them what for the other two?

00:43>> Uh the so the the agency's after action

00:46letter is sent out to the potential

00:49donors and tells them to

00:51contact

00:52our firm to begin the process of

00:55examining title and getting a deed

00:57transferred. They They have not done

00:59that so we haven't proceeded.

01:02>> [clears throat]

01:02>> Did get a response from 545 Rockaway

01:05that he would be following up. Um

01:07>> Okay.

01:07>> Did not hear Excuse me. Did not hear

01:09anything from 341 right.

01:15>> Okay.

01:17>> [snorts]

01:17>> Is there any way to make that easier so

01:19they don't have to do that step or is

01:20that just

01:21people are not

01:23>> I we can uh

01:25Yes, we can skip that step and just go

01:27ahead and then try to schedule a

01:29closing.

01:29>> It seems like we're often getting caught

01:31on these things where maybe if we could

01:33streamline a little bit, make them do

01:35less.

01:37>> It's fine with me.

01:38You could

01:39>> [snorts]

01:39>> You could end up having the same problem

01:41when you try to schedule the closing and

01:42then you just record the deed but

01:45>> Well, we don't I mean I guess we don't

01:47want you to do all the title work and

01:48then they don't show. So, if they can't

01:50call you maybe

01:52Okay. We'll just keep it like it is.

01:56>> We can We can make them

01:57>> We can discuss how we can

02:00grease the rails.

02:01>> Okay. All right.

02:04>> That's all I have.

02:05>> Okay.

02:06I think we have meetings from or sorry,

02:09meeting minutes from August to approve.

02:12Didn't have any Septembers. Did

02:14everybody have a chance to review and

02:16are there any

02:18edits?

02:20>> I move to approve.

02:21>> Second.

02:23>> All those in favor?

02:24>> Aye.

02:24>> Aye.

02:25Any opposed? All right.

02:28So, we mistakenly included the review of

02:30the EOI on on new business here. We're

02:32going to move that to the executive

02:34executive session

02:36and skip it for now.

02:38But we did want to talk today about

02:39priorities and objectives for the

02:41committees.

02:43A while ago we had a

02:45strategy session and we came up with a

02:47bunch of to-do list items. I know that

02:50we have not seen those lists for a

02:51while, but it'd probably be good to look

02:53back at them. I think we accomplished a

02:55lot of the stuff that was on there.

02:58But we were thinking it would be good to

02:59just discuss as a group what we want to

03:01put on the agendas for these committees

03:04so that they have

03:05something to move forward with.

03:08So, property management, I feel like

03:13we haven't been having trouble because

03:14we kind of have things that we're

03:16working on with that. I mean, we're

03:17working on this property we just

03:18acquired. We're working on the leasing

03:20of 430 Spruce.

03:22Anything else that we want to throw onto

03:24the agenda for that one?

03:32>> [snorts and clears throat]

03:35>> All right.

03:36I think that one makes sense and it's

03:38kind of self-explanatory. Underutilized

03:40properties, it could go a lot of

03:41different ways. I know that you've had

03:43some ideas in the past about what could

03:44happen on that one.

03:46>> I mean, underutilized has a lot of

03:48different meanings. You could take it

03:50really far if you wanted, but

03:51even looking at vacant properties

03:53downtown and putting together some type

03:54of

03:55inventory for that or um

03:58properties along the rail trail we're

03:59not doing anything with that the city

04:00may own or um

04:03I don't know uh but the lots that we

04:05have that we've acquired over time,

04:08maybe we could put together and we

04:09talked about this briefly some plans for

04:12smaller homes

04:13that we could then offer to developers

04:16to build.

04:17There's a lot of different things we can

04:18do in this committee.

04:19>> Um I think we could get started

04:21with sort of everything that we own now

04:24and control.

04:25And we go through that and say, "Let's

04:27Let's pick the top 10

04:29that we're interested in."

04:30>> Well, I think that there are these

04:32resolutions in here about what each

04:34committee does and there's a distinction

04:36between underutilized and property

04:38management. So, property management is

04:40like dealing with everything we already

04:42own.

04:42>> Okay.

04:43>> And I think that underutilized,

04:45if I can find it

04:46>> I mean what city owns that's not been

04:48deeded to us.

04:49So, things that might have been

04:51So, so the odd lots

04:55the lots that are

04:56>> that the city

04:56>> that that we're sitting there and we

04:59say, "Well, there's a lot that we we

05:00could do something on. It's in a vital

05:02neighborhood." And and basically we had

05:04all those

05:06we could say all those odd corner little

05:08lots, maybe we start to contact the the

05:12side yard people and "Would you be

05:14interested in this?" Then the second

05:16piece would be get everything that would

05:19be buildable or

05:21you know, and say, "What are the top

05:2310?"

05:24And is there something we can do with

05:25the top 10? Sort of the small houses and

05:27stuff like that. And then decide if we

05:29want to do that. I mean, I think that

05:31that's at least worth for us to come

05:33together and meet and clear some of that

05:35out. At least have something we can

05:37tangibly work on.

05:38>> Mhm.

05:40Yeah.

05:41>> Especially for infill development. I

05:42don't remember which agency talked to um

05:45who

05:46mentioned that they would sell lots or

05:48grant lots to developers for lower price

05:51or even almost cost-free if they built a

05:55house and then sold it under a certain

05:57value. And that could be part of the

05:59affordable housing that is our mission

06:01if we wanted to do something like that.

06:03But it'd be

06:03>> [cough]

06:03>> a lot easier if we already have the

06:05plans in place for these lots that

06:07you're going to have to get 1,000

06:08variances for it to build on because

06:10they're too small.

06:11Uh, it's something that we could offer.

06:15>> All right. So, it sounds like looking at

06:17the universe of city-owned properties,

06:21not just the ones that are owned by the

06:22Land Reutilization Agency, correct?

06:24>> Right.

06:24>> Right.

06:25>> Okay.

06:26And I think Marvin has probably the

06:28ability to map that if he hasn't done

06:30that already.

06:32But maybe you could check and see if if

06:34that's a layer. I think he already had

06:35that layer.

06:36>> I do. I do.

06:37>> You do?

06:37>> And I think things that are under

06:40make it a 0.15, 0.1, that's clearly a

06:43side lot issue. Then then we can say,

06:46"Okay, get that list." And then we can

06:48start working through that. And then

06:50look at the ones that are at least a

06:52regular city lot and what those might be

06:54and have those two two poles that we can

06:57at least look at and and pick the best

07:00ones out of this

07:02start the disposition of all the others.

07:04>> Mhm.

07:05I mean, anything where we've had a house

07:07demoed, you can build a house back.

07:09>> Right.

07:09>> So, those are easy. And we've actually

07:12accumulated quite a few of those that

07:13are in

07:15pretty good locations, some of them.

07:16That someone might be interested in.

07:17>> Mhm.

07:18>> So, those we could either try to sell

07:19or, you know,

07:21talk to Habitat for Humanity or anybody

07:23else who wants to come in, a private

07:24developer, private builder uh, who wants

07:26to build under a certain level

07:29price point.

07:30>> [clears throat]

07:30>> Teresa, you guys aren't doing any

07:31building anymore, are you?

07:33>> So, I work a lot with Habitat and well

07:35and I

07:36look at a lot of development for that

07:39affordable housing.

07:40And typically in order to get the most

07:42points for grants, it has to be like

07:44under 50% of the AMI. Which is great in

07:47theory, the problem is that there's no

07:49financial assistance for subsidies to

07:51get the Like you can build the housing

07:53for affordable, but you can't fill the

07:55housing with the families because

07:57there's no assistance available right

07:59now to subsidize rent. Like there's no

08:01vouchers, place makes voucher like

08:04We can build a low-income house, but

08:07your low-income person probably makes

08:09less than $30,000

08:12a year. I think like over 50% of

08:14Morgantown does. So, that means their

08:16max affordability is like $750 a month

08:20high end. So, unless there's a subsidy,

08:23you can't really get a developer to come

08:24in and build the housing and create a

08:26pro forma where they're going to make

08:28enough income for it to be profitable

08:31right now.

08:32There's just no There's The funding's

08:35not there. Like there's not extra

08:36vouchers. There's not

08:39USDA is not within the city limits of

08:40Morgantown. There's a couple of HUD

08:42programs, but you've seen what HUD

08:44funding is doing right now. So, we can

08:46talk about building affordable housing

08:47all day. I love it. In fact, your tiny

08:49home, if we want to do a community of

08:51tiny homes, social security, I've had a

08:53dream about that one before.

08:56Uh but on the scale that you're looking

08:58at, it's hard to put

09:00You can get someone that can get a

09:01grant. If it's donated land or super

09:04low-cost land, they get extra points.

09:07Um they can get subsidies on top of

09:09subsidies to build low-income housing

09:10tax credits, that type of thing. But at

09:12the end of the day,

09:15there's not assistance available to

09:17permanently support the people once you

09:18put them in.

09:20And they have to have a subsidy cuz they

09:22can't afford how much the property

09:25developer would have to charge to be

09:26able to offset the cost of building.

09:29>> Particularly in this interest rate

09:31environment.

09:31>> Right. Just at this point and at

09:33construction costs, too. I'm sure you

09:34guys know way more than I do. But that's

09:36what I really I get it. I wish that we

09:39if we need deep pockets of subsidies so

09:43that it can And when I say subsidy, just

09:46that difference between how much a

09:47market rate rental is that they would

09:48have to charge to be profitable

09:50profitable versus what the person can

09:51afford to pay. 30% of their income for

09:54rent plus utilities is typically the

09:56most

09:58that HUD is going to say is affordable

10:00housing for someone. And when you look

10:01at the average so many people making

10:0430,000 in this area,

10:06it's just not there.

10:08But, on the flip side of that, and this

10:10is where I was talking to you a little

10:11bit about it, the workforce, middle

10:13income, you're looking at So, you have

10:15to make We use everything on an area

10:17median income basis. So, 100% area

10:20median income is the average income. And

10:22for a family size of four in Morgantown,

10:24that's actually like $103,000.

10:26It's way higher than you think. It's

10:28just there's no that there's a big gap

10:29in the middle. Um and so, there's not a

10:32lot of opportunities for those families

10:34that make say 60 to 80%. Habitat for

10:38Humanity is like 50 to 60%. So, they're

10:41a very narrow margin of eligible

10:43criteria. And they only build I think

10:46they've done

10:47two houses every two to three years in

10:50Morgantown cuz they're flip-flopping

10:51between here and Fairmont cuz Fairmont's

10:53getting the properties donated and

10:55they're getting more points there.

10:57Um and they are amazing among their

11:00board now. So, I'm trying to help them

11:01with expand that part of it. But, I

11:04think there is something with if we

11:06could build maybe like townhomes for

11:09first-time homebuyers that are making

11:12$80,000 a year and build a townhome

11:15that's maybe $300,000,

11:17that's there's nothing there for those

11:19price those families. And they've proven

11:22that if you can create housing for that

11:24higher income, not super high, but like

11:26moderate, medium, it's going to free up

11:29more housing for low-to-moderate as

11:31well, that should cause a

11:34funnel effect or something, some fancy

11:36word that sounds professional.

11:39But

11:40>> So, it sounds like you could still do

11:42infill development. You're just saying

11:44let's adjust like how we think of what

11:46the end goal

11:47>> Right. Well, and a developer, if they I

11:49mean, Huntington has an amazing project

11:51where they converted this huge thing

11:53into a senior housing and they got

11:55funding from West from the State Housing

11:56Finance Agency. So, it happens. It's

11:59just a lot harder to make it happen up

12:01here than down in the South it feels

12:03like because they

12:05grant-wise tend to show more need as a

12:07state.

12:12Just in my personal opinion, thank you.

12:16>> We appreciate you sharing that. That's

12:17why we asked you to come.

12:18>> [laughter]

12:19>> None of us know all that stuff.

12:23>> But I've written a lot of grants and

12:24I've gone to a lot of like developers

12:26and met with the directors who are doing

12:27development in other states and they

12:29have

12:30programs that we don't have. Now, if the

12:32city wants to create some programs

12:35to subsidize long-term,

12:38there could be potential there cuz a lot

12:39of times that is where other states are

12:41getting funding from their county and

12:43from their city and they're able to do

12:45affordable housing. They have down

12:47payment assistance programs and all

12:48kinds of really great programs and we we

12:50don't. Our state just really does not.

12:55And that's why we're trying to appeal to

12:56Charleston too. I've got a whole thing

12:58with other agencies. I've got plans and

12:59dreams and goals.

13:02>> [snorts]

13:02>> Thank you, Teresa.

13:04>> I'll stop now. You don't need to make me

13:05stop talking.

13:07>> No, it's informative.

13:09>> Yeah, it is helpful, but it still sounds

13:11like your plan of sorting and looking

13:13for infill developers is still good.

13:15It's just like

13:15>> I mean, it's not necessarily for rent

13:17either. It would be to sell

13:19under a certain price point, so

13:20>> And and I think it's too case specific.

13:22Like right you got to Teresa's talking

13:25about we got all of these different

13:28alternatives that

13:30and we can look at

13:32depending on the property.

13:34>> Mixed use has been very successful in a

13:36lot of the other places, too. Doing a

13:38commercial residential combo with market

13:40rate land low income.

13:42We'll do X amount under 50% AMI, but you

13:45can still and you integrate the

13:47communities and it's supposed to be

13:48better just

13:51revitalization-wise.

13:52>> And the commercial helps the

13:53performance.

13:54>> Right. That's because they're able to

13:55charge for the commercial it offsets the

13:57>> cost of it.

13:58>> Yeah.

14:03>> That would require a much larger

14:04footprint.

14:05>> Future dreams and goals. I'm telling

14:07you, I'm thinking way long term.

14:08>> And the total zoning overhaul as well,

14:10so

14:10>> That's you know, one day at a time.

14:12>> We're working on

14:13>> Rookie's got nothing to do, right?

14:15>> [laughter]

14:16>> I mean, the zoning overhaul is happening

14:18>> you're working on it, so yeah.

14:20>> [clears throat]

14:21>> Okay.

14:23I mean, that sounds like a good start to

14:25me for underutilized. I feel like that

14:26would take you a minute to get through

14:28all that.

14:29So

14:29>> Yeah, Seth, if you if you can provide I

14:32mean, we can work together before the

14:34meeting, get the documents out to folks,

14:36and we can we can accomplish something

14:38in an hour.

14:41>> All right. So, now let's talk a little

14:42bit about the resource

14:45development committee.

14:48Yes, that's what it's called.

14:50Um

14:52the people that are running that one

14:53aren't here, but

14:56I think we want to talk a little bit

14:58about how we market the properties that

14:59come to us.

15:01Um we haven't really ever had to do that

15:03yet, but I think we're going to. It'd be

15:05nice to have a plan in place for that.

15:08Um

15:09I know Brad has like gotten on to the

15:12communications a little bit and he's

15:14been proactive on that front, but it'd

15:15be nice to ask him to that meeting and

15:18touch base on a regular basis on the

15:20comms and too, I think.

15:23Seeing more things come out was would be

15:25good. What other ideas do you guys have?

15:34Are you trying to hold your idea in? You

15:36can do it sometime.

15:40>> I haven't really thought about this one.

15:41>> [cough and clears throat]

15:54>> Well, that one I may be piggybacking on

15:56what Teresa said, is having a

15:58conversation with the Housing

16:00Development Fund.

16:02About I mean, they they exist. They

16:05They have almost half a billion dollars

16:08in reserves. I mean, they have the

16:10ability to start a program in a couple

16:13of places, at least a pilot,

16:16to to see what can we do. I mean,

16:18because in this interesting environment,

16:21if we can get repayment, not worried

16:22about having to make the interest like a

16:24bank does, you can help families. You

16:27really can, you know, that's one of the

16:28the bigger costs. But, it may be that,

16:31you know, we have some conversations

16:33about what's possible, or there's some

16:34pilot programs they might consider

16:37within the city limits of Morgantown,

16:39making sure that we know the houses are

16:41going to the right income brackets and

16:43that kind of stuff. It's at least worth

16:44a conversation.

16:46>> Yeah, I think so.

16:49>> Yeah, no doubt. I mean, I

16:51you know, just

16:52spitballing because I haven't thought

16:54about this one much, but um

16:57uh

16:58if you force me to,

17:00um

17:02I think I I mean, I think what are like,

17:04what are the needs and what's

17:06what's what's being effective in other

17:08communities? What to your point, what

17:11like Dave said, I mean, what what are

17:12other cities and counties in other

17:14places doing?

17:17I I having an inventory of those things,

17:19a list of those things, and then what

17:22are the what are the organizations and

17:24resources that we have available here,

17:26where are the gaps?

17:28I mean, I think that just starting there

17:30would be a very useful exercise.

17:32>> Mhm.

17:34>> And I can make the the APA, the American

17:36Planning Association, teamed up with the

17:38National League of Cities recently to do

17:40a housing study, and they came up with

17:41this accelerator program where they

17:43looked at cities large, small across the

17:45board and came up here like a five seven

17:47things that are doing across the board.

17:49We can share that and start there to

17:50your point. That'd be a good way to

17:52>> Yeah, that sounds great.

17:56Community land trusts, shared

17:58appreciation models. There's some pretty

18:00cool stuff out there.

18:01>> Yeah, that's definitely been tossed

18:02around a lot lately. Was Council

18:04bringing that up?

18:05>> Mhm.

18:07>> What What are you guys thinking about

18:09that? I mean, just they

18:10>> I mean, that we'd love to do.

18:13We'd love to do it. It's just, you know,

18:15where do you

18:16where where do we finding finding the

18:18right opportunity? And I mean,

18:21if we look at what what what tools do we

18:23have in the toolbox, and then, you know,

18:26looking at each individual property or

18:28opportunity, well, what's what's

18:30appropriate? What's the fit?

18:33So,

18:35you know,

18:36we we we've talked about it in the

18:38context of kind of the housing study

18:41that we

18:42the development services presented

18:45earlier

18:47this year or late last year,

18:50but but anyway, presented recently, and

18:53that's, you know, one of the one of the

18:56opportunities that we I think there'd be

18:58a lot of interest in us pursuing.

19:00>> Mhm.

19:01So, could you maybe in that committee

19:04meeting give us a rundown of what that

19:06looks like so I think

19:08I need a little education on that.

19:09>> Sure. And and if you haven't seen the

19:12the the housing and they Land Reuse

19:15hasn't seen the housing we can assess

19:18that you all you know put together Ricky

19:20that might be good to share with

19:22everyone.

19:28>> Any other ideas for that one?

19:33I also just want to say since we're in a

19:35public meeting can Seth can you briefly

19:37go through the updates that you provided

19:39in writing form on the green space and

19:42the bridge?

19:46>> Uh just to provide updates. If you go to

19:49page seven in your packet

19:52just a summary of updates of some of the

19:53reports and things that we've kind of

19:55been gathering for this week.

19:57Since Jamie was unable to be here Damian

19:58was also unable to be here this

20:00afternoon.

20:01Got a quick note from Jamie that the

20:03pedestrian bridge has been delivered in

20:05Lower Greenmount and that crews remain

20:06working on installation and necessary

20:08groundwork for that project. And that

20:10the green space design has been

20:12substantially completed. I did confirm

20:14that there is not an updated copy I

20:16don't believe but there is one

20:17forthcoming and we'll make sure that you

20:18have it when it's finalized.

20:20>> Okay, cool.

20:22>> And then regarding the Lower Greenmount

20:24space and finalization of some ownership

20:25items need to be resolved before that

20:27can be sent out to bid and constructed.

20:29That's what Jamie sent me on that.

20:31>> Before you continue Ryan what's the

20:33status of the title issues on those? Are

20:35you doing

20:36>> On which one sorry?

20:37>> On the properties that need to come down

20:40for the green space.

20:44>> Um

20:45there are no there are no title issues

20:47in those.

20:48>> Sorry. Um but you were doing like

20:49eminent domain or something?

20:52>> Yeah the

20:53so but the city has acquired right of

20:55entry for this land and property through

20:56eminent domain.

20:58Rush property has been acquired.

20:59>> Okay.

21:00>> So the city has let's let's call it the

21:02feasible title for the selling property

21:05but it's using a method by which it's

21:08permitted now to enter the property and

21:09demolish.

21:10Like once it does that, it has to go

21:13through with the purchase at whatever

21:15the value is that's assigned by the

21:16commissioners.

21:17>> Okay.

21:18So, it's all in process to happen.

21:21>> Oh, yeah. The The city's clear to move

21:23forward and has been for some time.

21:25>> Okay. So, do you know the timing of the

21:27green space? Like when the construction

21:28will happen?

21:30>> I do not.

21:31>> What does that depend on?

21:34>> Getting the land getting involved.

21:36I should say there's There's one of the

21:38properties that is was not targeted for

21:42for that part of the for the CDBG

21:43project because it was at the time under

21:45contract with the land use agency that

21:47we are

21:48are still

21:49working on acquiring.

21:51I mean I mean

21:52It's been authorized by city council,

21:54but

21:55we're not getting that file.

21:57It was something we were looking at

21:58using those

22:00those upper

22:01floors, [cough and clears throat]

22:02but due to

22:04timing and uh

22:06some sub award constraints

22:08and the

22:10the limitation of the agency in

22:13not having eminent domain powers as the

22:14city does have them that

22:17that's why those ARPA funds are shifted

22:20to demolition.

22:22Just [snorts] trying to uh

22:24acquire that property through eminent

22:25domain with other funds.

22:27>> Okay. But basically that's the hold up

22:29on the green spaces. We need to get that

22:31taken care of before the green space

22:32starts construction.

22:34>> Before it starts construction, yes. But

22:36that I mean the construction is not

22:38going to start anyway until next spring.

22:43>> Okay. Thanks. That's what I was trying

22:44to get to.

22:46Everyone in the neighborhood wants to

22:47know, so.

22:48>> Mhm.

22:49Yeah. That that property acquisition is

22:51not delaying the construction timeline,

22:53I don't think.

22:54>> Okay. It's already set for the spring.

22:57>> That's my understanding.

22:58>> Like this coming spring or next spring?

23:01>> [clears throat]

23:03>> This spring.

23:04>> It's spring.

23:05>> It's spring. Kind of TBD.

23:05>> I mean, I I I don't want to put you on

23:07the spot, but also why is this question

23:08so hard? Like, it should be a fairly

23:11easy question.

23:13We We have the money. We have the plan.

23:15What Why don't we know when it's

23:16starting construction?

23:18>> Well, I mean, I mean, it has to be bid

23:20it out, too. I mean, it hasn't been bid

23:21out, so

23:27It has to be designed and bid. I think

23:29the plan is

23:30>> to expend those funds in the spring.

23:33>> Okay. All right. Thanks.

23:36All right. I think we have already

23:37covered the other stuff

23:39on this list. Did you have anything

23:41else?

23:41>> Uh Ricky was going to touch on the

23:42demolitions briefly, but I do think we

23:44covered the property updates for 341

23:46Ring, 545 Parkway. Uh just to reiterate,

23:49I did hear back from Mr. Harris um

23:52last Friday regarding 545 Parkway. Said

23:54that he would reach out and follow up

23:56with Ryan. I

23:58That was last Friday, so I can send him

23:59a just kind of ping him again before the

24:01day before I leave here

24:03to say, "Hey, if you haven't done that

24:04yet, please follow up."

24:06>> Okay. Thanks.

24:07>> The other I have not had any success

24:08contacting the owner of 341 Ring.

24:15>> Um in terms of the demolitions, the

24:17contract's been awarded um to get the

24:19three properties on Pennsylvania Avenue

24:21demolished, and we're finalizing some of

24:23the MOA requirements that we have with

24:25SHPO to

24:27be compliant with our agreement to

24:29demolish those structures. So, it's

24:31moving forward. Uh tentative completion

24:33would be the beginning of December for

24:35the demolition.

24:36>> [cough and clears throat]

24:37>> Okay. Cool.

24:39Anyone have any more questions on that

24:42update section?

24:45All right.

24:51I think that is all for the regular

24:53session.

24:55So, now I move that we go into executive

24:57session to discuss acquisition of

24:59property and related things under the

25:02sunrise, something that Tim used to

25:04recite.

25:05Um, do we have a second?

25:08>> Second.

25:09>> All right, we will not be coming out for

25:11further discussion after that session.

25:13So