Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2352_001MINUTES COMMITTEE of THE `HOLE ��a'��i+• � I. ROLL CALL Mayor Krause called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was televised live from. the Mount Prospect Library Conference Room on cable tv. Present at the meeting were: Mayor Carolyn ; rause, 'T us ees Ralph Arthur, Gerald Farley, Leo Floros, Norma Murauskis and George Vary Geem . Trustee Theodore Wat�t:enb,erg was absent. Also present at the meeting were: Village Manager Terrance Burghard., Administrative Assistant to the Village Manager John Bowman, Director of Finance David Jepson., Fire Chief Lawrence Pairitz, Administrative Aide Paul Watkins., Director of Code Enforcement Les Wu.ollett , Police Chief Ronald Pavlock,, Deputy Chief of Operations Thomas Daley, and Deputy Chiu of Administration Joseph Bopp. There were approximately five personas in the audience. II. OPENING REMARKS Mayor Carolyn ! i explained !- - audience �' t this meeting - ! - fourth and final Committee i Whole of meetinR in a series of Budget hearings. Budget for a first reading regularly scheduled Board meeting of April 3 and will be presented ii ! /. at i meeting i - Mayor introduced the topic for this meeting, pointing out that the combined'Fire and Police budgets comprise approximately million. III. MINUTES The Minutes of the Committee of the. Whole meeting of March 13, 1984 were accepted and filed. IV. 1984-1985 BUDGET HEARING Village Manager Terrance L: Burgh.ard presented an overview of the Village Budget, which includes some $22A Million in services. The Village Manager pointed out that while the Budget reflects an overall increase of 'S °e 15,, these increases are primarily attributable to pl:dn ed expenditures for Lake Michigan water. However, the Budget shows a moderate tax reduction in the General Fund as well as the overall Tax Levy. .�R,G.,�� ..,. wn�c�..9m, Fire Chief Lawrence Pairitz presented an overview of the Fire Department Budget, commenting that the Budget is broken down i equipment on a •given call. Fire Chief Pairitz res-Ponded w ith an explanation of the volunteer fire fighting . force and stated that the extra manpower afforded by sending both ambulance and police' equipment is necessary. Trustee Arthur had several questions regarding the Code Enforcement Division and asked about th-e general level of building activity in the Village. Chief Pairitz commented that the number of building permits issued is increasing. Trustee Floros asked about the drop in over- time expenditures:` Chief Pairitz explained the Fire Department's hire -back policy to maintain the level of 16 persons on duty at each station. Mayor Krause stated that the Fire Department Budget request reflects an increase of over $89,000 and asked where these increases are found in the Budget. Chief 'Pairitz ex, laincd, that most of the 'increase (approximately P $76,,0,00) is, in, the, arca OJf personal services. This increa'8;6 is primarily due to the transfer of zoning enforce,ment from', Co it Development to the Division ,of Cbd'e, E,nfoxcement and the re*nstatement of a clerical position in the Code Enforcement Division. Trustee Van Geem asked that Chief Pairlitz evaluate the Fire Department's facilities, the handling of hazardous materials, and •the measures taken to ensure safety in bligh-rise buildings for senior citizens ' Chief Pairitz commented that the location of fire stations #1 and #2 is satisfactory and the location of fire station #3 at the eas,tern�edge of the Village is not ideal but is necessary due to the Soo Railroad Line. The Fire Depart- ment's pre -planning activities were explained in the a�tardous materials and high-rise buildings. areas,of'h ' Trustee Farley,questionsed the use of opticon systems at all locations in the Village. Chief Pairlitz stated that, while it is not necessary to install opticon on all intersect ions, it is necessary at major Intersections, Mage noting that all signaled intersections in the VI fall 'into this category. The,Mayor askedabout the Fire Department's public education'progn��§ and specifically the effort to encourage smoke detectors,fir homes. Chief Pairitz explained the Village s efforts -to install or check smoke detectors "ointed •ut that Village Ordinances s"I s anc 101�4,14 perliodlic� b#1 I I•po � � require smoke detectors for all multi -family housing units, -3- 1► i 0 i '` 11 i � • '" i " r '" • "` • i i �` i " i i ill •.. #i "• � i i i i • •• i d4 r r " � r i " 11 ■ « "" � . " i '� r � i � i * i li i � r i r � * • s w /r � i i � r i � i 1 � '" • i i r •. i i i 1 w a i '` • � r �, • i 1 '� it � i i i "' � r • i � i � � � � r � i . � • r � � E �1 � r i r � ♦ * r �' r • i r • � r r r r r � r �" • � • � � � � f r • � i � 1111 i 11Y r i rw � i � +M Iw � V•Y i ! � • i rM • i .. •• i •• "` •• •, 0 • i y r r r• r r p s i • i r 1/1 M 1� � i r` � i � � i � r r � i ®` " � � ♦ i 4 i 1 '" � � r' i It i i •• • w �i � ,, i• i .. r i r�r • i� ..,. a r .. r i• i I. r i QI • r A general discussion ensued as the Board of Trustees askei quest ions regarding the operations and expenditures in the Police Department. Trustee Arthur asked for an update on the PIMS Program to automate Pol ice records. Chief Pavlock stated that the program has been successful, allowing a reduction of personnel in the records division. Trustee Floros noted the organ lizat Iiona I changes over the past few years and asked if the organizational activities have stabilized. Chief Pavlock commented that the re' - organizational efforts have stabilized and have been successful. Referring to the staff comparison study, Trustee Van Geem noted that other communities with slimillar population have nearly twice the budget of the Mount Prospect Police Department, asking Iif the level of service provided in Mount Prospect is adequate. Chief Pavlock cautioned that statistics can be misleading, as the level of funding depends on the number of calls as well as the priorities of the corporate authorities. However, Chief Pavlock stated that in his opinion the current level of staffing is sufficient at this time, Debt Servi*ce and Pensio a] Finance Director David •Jepson su=ari'zedthe Village's debt position and explained the Village's three pension funds. Using nationalstandards of debt per capita and debt -per assessed evaluation, Mr. Jepson demonstrated that the Village is 'in a good posit]* -on. Mr. Jepson pointed out that the pension ® comprise 12.7% of the,­tot,al Village Budget or about�-.$..2 & 8 million. Illinois Revis�ed Statutes require an annual evaluation of the actuarial status of both Firemen's Pension Fund and Police Pensi-on Fund., These servicesare provided to public pension funds by the State of Illinois, but a municipality may also hire. an independent actuary. Mr. Jepson recommended that the Villa'ge. use an independent actuary, since the *Information would be more accurate and would be presented iin a more timely fashion. Mr. Jepson summarized for the Board the reports submitted ftom' b,oth the State and an 'Independent actuary., noting tha�t the differences in recommended requirements were b,Otantial. For example, in the State report the ;# I Firemt�o s Pension Fund is considered to be 97% funded. However, in !insb, ' ft ­report, the Firemen's Pension Fund is considered to be funded at a level of 135%, or over -funded in the amount of $1.7 million. Trustee Arthur complimented Mr. Jepson on his pension analysis, and asked quest 'Tons regarding the Hanson f irm. Trustee Arthur recommended that the Village Board split the differ nce between the State and independent reports, which would reduce the requested amounts by $120,,000. Village Manager Burghard stated that the Pension Boards have not had a chance to review the Hanson report and in any event, the Board would have an. 'opportunity to abate the taxes prior to December when the tax rate IS inalized. Trustee Arthur commented that he is on record in favor of reducing the Pension requests. V. ADJOURNMENT The Mayor concluded the 1984-1985 Budget Hear ingS., stating that the first reading of the Budget would be presented at the regular Board meeting of Aprlil 3, and a Public HearT*n'g on Revenue Sharing expenditures would be conducted atthat time. The Board meeting of April 17 will include a renal discussion and vote on the 1984- 1985 Village Budget. Mayor Krause offered her thanks to the Trustees, staff and volunteers who made the cable broadcast of the Committee of the Whole Budget review Hearings possible. The Mayor stated that the Village would like to have input and feedback from Village residents on their perceptions of-the Hearings ,.and stated that perhaps future Board meetings could be televised from the Public Safety Building. The Committee of the Whole meeting was adjourned at 9 :25 p.m. I Respectfully submitted, TE NCE L. BURGHARD Village Manager TLB/rcw -6- ...... . . . . 7/v 0,1 Village Of Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois 11 *J '7 -7, INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Village Manager FROM Director Public Works DATE: April 6) 1984 SUBJECT: Suggested 1984 MFT Street Resurfacing Program Attached is a proposed list of streets for the 1984 Street Resurfacing Program. These streets were selected based on their high benefit to cost ratio with the assistance of the Novak -Dempsey Pavement Management Program submittal of 1978-79. A surface condition evaluation of our streets was also done du-r-l.ng the past two weeks and the results of that evaluation was also weighed prior to developing the attached list. The suggested streets selected for resurfacing are scattered throughout the community, and based on our engineer's estimate, will cost $502,500.' There is $500,000 allocated in the proposed budget for this proposed expenditure. 11erbert lVeeks Director Public Works ........_ m .,.. ........ L. , ¢ STREET NAME FROM TO AMOUNT Quince Lane 1. Basswood Ln. Hopi Lane 23,100 Hopi Lane 2. Burning Binh Lane 'River Road 36,800 Wilshire Lane 3-. Highland Street Kensington Road 231,000 Highland St.. 4. Rand 'Read w Wilshire Lane 53000 Highland Ave. 5. Main Street Elm Street 309200 Russell St. 6. Memory Lane Kensington Read 28,800 Memory Lane 7. Elmhurst Avenue Route. 83 231,600 Walnut Street 8. Prospect Manor Ridge Avenue 69,500 Ridge Avenue 9. Central Read Henry St, 179400 Owen Street 10. Northwest Highway Central Road 369700 Waverly Place 11. Cl even Avenue Busse Avenue 183,200 Busse Ave. 12. WeGo Trail Lams Court 242700 14iLusi Ave, 13. Lincoln Strut Milburn Avenue 927010 Lincoln St. 14. Wapella Avenue Elmhurst Ave. 24,300 Deborah La. 15. Lincoln Street Rusty Drive 123,500 Scott Terrace 16. Meier Road Carol Lane 73,900 Mark Terrace 17. Meier Road Carel Lane 7,900 Robin Lane 18, Robert Drive Waverly Place 213,700 Sunset Road 19. Robert Drive CanDota Avenue 55,400 Glenn Lane 20. Robert Drive Waverly Place 18,200 Sunset Road 21. Emerson Street Elm Street 129900 Gol fvi ew Drive 22. Edward Street Albert Street 10,9010 Albert Street 23. Gal fvi ew Drive Golfhurst Drive 119,000 Catalpa Lane 24. Tamarack Drive Lavergne. Drive 159500 Eva Lane 25. Cypress Drive Church Road 102500 Circle Drive 26. Cottonwood Lane Cypress Lane 105100 $50295010 Ap r�i 15, 1 84 Vimllage'of Mount Prospect MOUnt Prospect, 11knois 7"' INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Vill"Clge Nlanager FROM: Director, of Public Works DATE: April 3), 1984 SUBJECT: Proposo�,i 'fT­L1ff'1,c Signal(s Attached are copi.os of traf f ic stud ies which were rnade.. at the intersoction of'" I-Aynhurst 1­,trid Ht,niti,,ng,ton Commons, Rd. and also at the inte-z,soction of K ' cn_,,,-,i_n,gton,""'and Ifheelihg Roads. Both studics tvcrc conducted Ixy the V.illz�igels fi.ngineering Staff. The dfata that i�,as collectec1 indicates, tlic",,it tfiey both meet the warrants for i.nstajlat.j,ojj 0f f f i C light., 1-1 o w, e v e I i t IT11.1 St be 'rioted that tho Stato of'" I'll i,11,o 1 wil,l be conducti.�ng their own traffic studics before tf�ioy WOU,1(11, aive f inal approval of -the installation of the s i,gnai.s In the currendgot'therc was rj '.line item in tho amount of f or ins tal I ,at ion o f a tra-f f ic s ignal at the inte'T'section of Elmhurst Rd. and Huntington Commons Rd. While,we have received requeMts from both loc-ations for installation of controlling-d-evice, the amount of traffic at tho j L - r, r s c c t:.0 T1 of the Huntington COMMOTIS Rd. location was OUT' pri,"'uIcary reason foi- init.-i,al recomimendatibn. It was not intear dod to be cast. in stone but rather a. s`uggestion' at the time. o 'bert L. 1�eks r Di-rector of Publicdor: ks HLW: kb AttachMent VOLUME UME T S F'REET PEAK r 24 -HR PEAK s�"I�a:.. PRODAC VOLUME HOUR 1 v INTERSECTION CONTROL ANALYSIS DATA ............. . . . ... . NEAR SCHOOL (1 ess STREET 1. A ItAJ0R -ECTOR L uCAL OTHER 2. ~QUEST. ISiING CONTROLS w� ..„�m.� nn �����w � n w,ao www, ..._.w�.,�w.� 1A ` wn RCA �� INTERSECTION CONTROL �_. �. :. �YI EL.. SPEECH ,. � _..�TD 1A W E UNE L 1141 2A 2B D 30 o. 245 8 VOLUME UME T S F'REET PEAK r 24 -HR PEAK s�"I�a:.. PRODAC VOLUME HOUR 1 M 70 o ............. . . . ... . NEAR SCHOOL (1 ess 3 7 0� �h A 24,E 2 ww �_. m B ...���..... �- i2 HRWIDTHS VOLUME _P. V T ..... . ... � ��. .. . . ............. � . o.���.�..m.. . �. OTHER o .�. www, NEAR SCHOOL (1 ess than block) 24,E VISIBILITY S C: I P 11 S G ''' TREE CLASS OBSTRUCTION IF CLASS -- .P I II III IV III OR IV �1 A w A r 2 YEAR ACCIDENT RECORD (STREET RIGHT REAR -APPROACHJ ANGLE END OTHER TOTAL.. , . �...�w A� 11-1-111,11,� B .......- www., A B. IN ... . . TTM. . -- � STREET N � AR i ', I N G 'ARK I NIG P E Rt -1 I TTED t PPROAC PER►SITED r0. � TCS wwwww,. w A ... I� NEIGHBORHOOD: RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS �... SHOPPING �. OTHER NEAR SCHOOL (1 ess than block) 1 I COMMENTS _.... . .. ........ BUT �������wwww�wd..wmm ��O CAR � � O CARS AIN CARS EVIDENCE NO EVIDENCE NTL PARKED OF PARE I NGOF PARKING113 SAFETY COi a.•1I SS I ON RECON ►•1ENDAT I ON: � D 0.=;r R D ACTION: ... . .......... .............. Col-at""WISION DIAGRAM L, � Z' INTERSECTION ----AND 0AE•-CLt i3c, TPERIOD......... . ............. . . ......... F R 0 M TO CITY tA, T PREPARED B Y NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 3 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY N J U R Y 0-9 ^ F:%T-A-* . i�3 a ......... AA 1 3 �A b, s e xx 3: of P 2- z9 - NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 3 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY N J U R Y 0-9 ^ F:%T-A-* 30 TOTAL ACCIDENTS km DO SYWBOLS TYPES OF COLLISIONS I moo A C Ot - w r, v[ - # C L[ A 0 C"q -C** '"wo"&V vt-'CL. got pt 3 'r 0.&11 PANK[V lwr"ICLt Cs.li 00, cc"rmc" ❑ f -SID 06JICT Ltry 7vues 11 A I AL t JL C , D( ,Ir it r- T ❑ ."Jumv ACC -Dim? E m Cu SHOW, FOR EACH ACCIDENT SIT -gift Stock No. 3104a RV * INTERSECTION CONTRf L ANALYSIS DATA µM S TSR E E T I 'MAJOR COLLECTOR tOCAL OTHER �- m..�..m,...� _1 . . . ....... . m.. / REQUEST: EXISTING CONTROLS 1A STREET INTERSECTION CONTROL SPEED PPRCIACN ..... �P Y EE CTN NCINE L I MI A T A . ........... . . . . . . . ............. . . . ................................... . . .1 �' �....� �...., 2 NEIGHBORHO D: ` OLU,11E & 1,111DTNS RESIDENTIAL O'STREET 24-HR PEAK I PEAK NR WIDTHS BUSINESS WPRGACH VOLUME :,OUR VOLUME „u HOPPING l 7 FtA III P>?— :50 OTHER / I �� ��� : .NEAR SCNODL(�less than 3 72,1 3I / 2 . . ........................................ . . . .._,�e ��_..w VISIBILITY ........ �����mmmmmmmmm ---- DESCRIPCN CUSS ICSE SIGN"T STREET . ............ OBSTRUCTION I F CLASS ��.mm.m� �,. �� �... �.mm ,,,,,. .. APPROACH I II III IV III ORIVw ..n�n B l �. 2 A l B YEAR ACCIDENT RECCRD s s AT -r A, c E D e—o L-L-t 5(o �4 D 'STREET RICHT PEAR -'IPPROACH ANGLE N D OTHER TOTAL B //Jy 2 A 1/ I a- -..ARIt' ._ ..., _. , _.... , .... .� .. .... .. . B T ......, ..m-..., ....,W...., _ � �.....�... -.... .............. ,,,,::� ,STREET ET too 1DARK IN G ��� C " R CARS AND PARKING P ERI'lI TTED CARS EVIDENCE NO EVIDENCE .-"APPROACH .'ITE � RU TO NTL PARKED DF PARK I t�1G � OF PARKING �. _._.. ... _. w � ��� ,� _�.mm �.a . . �. _.�. , ....� . � 1 ��.A�.. 11 A �������_ .ft � I SAFETY CO',11MISSIGN RECOY-11x1iENDATION: BOARD A C T I O N .,mm„_ .P" IfJ C 1-m l- I N DIAGRAM INTERSECTION ILAZ A N D *-To J!kjAo 1�- P F R 0 M Rlt:�. 19 61 TO C I TY L4 P R E PAR E. D B Y "D6 2 11 82 Stock No. 3104a RV Village of Mount Prospect IN N Mount Prospect, Illinois AP INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER TERRANCE L. BURGHARD FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: APRIL 6, 1984 0 As the cable television system nears completion in the Village, the emphasis of staff activity 'has shifted away from regulation and towards programming of the municipal channel and promotion of community access programming. Although the Village has several individuals on staff with demonstrated ability in,, cable production,' there remains a need for a staff position responsible for the development of quality municipal programming and the coordination of institutional uses of the cable system. Although the Manager's office has taken a lead in this area in the past, it may be time to turn these responsibilities over to an individual with a background in the technical as well as regulatory issues affecting cable tv. Several area 'communities, including Evanston and Downers Grove, have such a position on staff.. These "Cable Coordina- tors" are typically trained to handle *all regulatory issues as well as the technical aspects of local programming, development of institutional networks, and the general promotion of public use of cable ter. Other responsibilities may include the setting up of training courses for Village residents, development of a munlicipal tape library, and coordination of the municipality's internal tralni'_ng programs via cable. Day-to-day activities may include the handling of citizen complaints, and this individual may serve as staff to a local cable commission. I would recommend at this time that the Village consider hiring a Cable Coordinator, the salary of which will come directly from Cable TV Franchise revenues. Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois �o�'E �� INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 7 TO: VILLAGE MANAGER TERRANCE L. BURGHARD FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: APRIL 6, 1984 SUBJECT: PROPOSED SENIOR TAXI FARE INCREASE In recent months, both Birks Transportation Company and American Taxihave expressed their dissatisfaction with the current are structure for the Village's Senior Taxi Program., Currently, the c,ab companies receive a flat fee of $2.10 per ode, of wh3i_ch, $1.35 I's paid by the Village and, the remaining r 1 75 � b ' y the senior using the service. In Elk, Grove V3'*-lla,pe,, the cab company currently receives a $1.75, flat fee w1ith the Village paying $1.25 and t1h.e rider 50�_. Elk Grove is consider - an Increase to their program, currently. This rate d Isparity must contribute significantly to the company's financial problems. Claiming that their respective companies are losing money on thiLs Program,, both fi'rms have proposed alternate' rate structures. American Cab suggests a ""zone's fare structure, and Birks Transportation proposes a fare of 20% off the metered rate, wi-th the Village's subsidy, remaining constant. The proposed zone program would obviously be confusing to the seniors and difficult to administer and audit. The discounted meter suggestion is too open-ended and would result in a substantial decrease in ridership because of the significant impact upon the rates paid by seniors. recommend that we retain the existing flat fee structure and explore how that fee may beraisedto help alleviate the operating losses claimed by the cab companies. A sampling of senior rides conducted in mid-January by the Senior Center staff indicated that the average distance traveled was 1.8 miles. The current metered rate for this ride would be $2.50. If our flat fee were established at this level, the, cab companies would break even on the average ' cost of the rides. while being provided a "built-in" market for senior ridership. Therefore' , I believe that a flat fee of $2.50 would be fair to, the taxi companies based upon their current meter, rates, Assuming some increase in the fee, the issue then becomes the distribution of the additional cost between the Village and the users of the program. The Village receives a Grant from the RTA which provides a reimbursement of 75% of the actual costs to the Village for the Taxi Program. Next ye * ar's Grant provides a maximum of $18,730, provided the costs of the Program equal or exceed $24,973. This figure represents an increase over last year, and the Village would appear to be in a good position to increase its subsidy. However, we have received Grant Funds only in recent years, and there is no guarantee that RTA funding will continue beyond next fiscal year. Any changes in Village subsidies may eventually affect our General Fund resources. On the other hand-, a recent survey of the users of the Program indicates that some level of fare increase to the seniors would not substantially decrease ridership. For example, at a fare of 90q, the survey results indicate that 48% of the seniors would be able to continue riding as often as they do presently. Only 9% of the respondents indicated that they would not ride as often if the fare was raised at all. Overall, the survey respondents indicated satisfaction for the Taxi Program and drivers in general. The attached tables illustrate the total cost to the Village under four different alternatives. This information is based on the ,actual number of rides taken by the seniors in 1983. Each of these alternatives is discussed below: 1. No Increase in the Senior Fare. Assuming an increase in the flat fee to $2.50 and no corresponding increase in the seniors' contribution, the total annual Village cost would be $32,529. Subtracting the RTA subsidy of $18,730, the actual annual cost to the Village would be approximately $13,799. This is a substantial increase over the current annual cost to the Village of $6,363, and any future cuts in RTA funding would leave the Village in a difficult position. The advantage of this approach is that the seniors will continue to enjoy a very reasonable one-way fee of 750.. 2. Senior Fare Increased to 91A Increasing the senior fare to 90(,', results in a projected annual Village cost of $11,010, after subtracting the RTA subsidy. The projected Village costs are less than if the senior fare remains unchanged, and 48% of the seniors indicated that they would be able to ride as often at this level. M 3. Senior Fare Thcreas-edto $1."00. At a senior fare of $1.00, the actual annual Village costs are $9,152. Although this is a 44% increase over current actual costs, more of the additional cost is shifted to the users of the system. Another advantage of a $1.00 fare would be a decrease in the amount of time required to handle change. (The seniors' portion of the taxi fare has remained un changed since 1980.) 4. 'Senior Fare Increased to $1.25. At a senior fare of $1.25, the actual annual cost to the Village will decrease. However, at this level of funding, our RTA Grant would be slightly decreased as well. Therefore, the actual costs to the Village would decrease by only about 9%, and the ridership would drop substantially, in our opinion. JMB/rcw ACTUAL NUMBER OF RIDES TAKEN BY SENIORS IN 1983 - 18,588 CURRENT VILLAGE COST PER RIDE - $1.35 18,588 x$1.35 $25,093 Total current annum Village cost $18,730 Current RTA subsidy $ 6,363 Actual annual Village cast SENIOR FARE COSTS PER RIDE ALTERNATIVES BASED ON $.40 INCREASE VILLAGE COSTS PER: RIDE ANNUAL VILLAGE COSTS' ANNUAL VILLAGE COSTS LESS RTA SUBSIDY .75 $1.75 $32,529 $13,799 $ .90 $1.60 $29,740 $11,010 $1.00 $1.50 $27,882 $ 9,152 $1.25 $1.25 $23,235 $ 5,809 Current RTA subsidy guaranteed through December, 1984 - $18,730 or 75% of Village cost, whichever is less.