6/24/25 Council Meeting [89:14-94:15]

Is there a safety issue? No, it is... Safety. It certainly helps with efficiency and we operate two shifts. So it helps me become more efficient, where I'm loading with an operator, and then automatically transporting back and forth to the pressure. And that will allow us to reposition those people more in the operating facility of the cement manufacturing. Interesting. So is this all high-burps investment on the whole corridor like you've lost? I mean, if you don't go forward with that thought of your investment? Well, that's a really good question. So there was three other grants from the Department of Energy that funded this study. And those continued to be active. One of them is just near complete, I think, within the next two weeks. We have a meeting in Washington DC with the BLE to present the findings of the first grant. And it was like an 80-20 share between the BLE. They spent 80% of the funds, and we spent 20% of the funds. There is a carbon-safe grant, which is where the drilling took place on an archery to explore the viability of storing CO2 in the ground there in the Mitchell area. That grant is probably 75% spent. We're waiting on approval for a modification event, so we can finish up the injection testing on the road before it's capped and closed. And then there is a third grant that we have not started spending on, but we anticipate. We don't anticipate a problem without moving forward. And that's the combined feed study where you take the plant as well as the carbon capture and compression and storage. We've put all that together in a business package that the family would be able to go for. We've presented to our board in Germany for funding. So that work, at this point, will continue on drilling as and then any withdrawal of those grants. And we'll work to finish that up. We'll have the information with study that's needed. So if the road to project then becomes viable, we would be ready to go at that point. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Best of luck, too. Okay. Moving on, then we've got items for consideration which is among the sourced ones. Again. I think we're back once. That was, I think we'll need. I think we'll need. Yeah. That was the one we made. The position I mean, Sam. The last good result. The position on the cross cruise office, in the section as the position is he gave up in moving terms to the legal secretary. He would not need that. So that position was eliminated. Yes. And the other one was with the voter registration that, that means the wage scale scheme and wage scale B. And she is crossed through with the clerk's office. You voted on that once. You vote two points five, three, three, five. And it became effective on five, one, two, three, five. So we want to get to that one. Yes. Okay. Any questions on that one? I'm moving to the new salary order to be approved. I've got a first from Jeff. Second. Second from Amy. Any further questions? On public motion, please say aye. Aye. No. Motion passed. This one was changed. Okay. And then we've got another one. Actually, that's one here too. In the year way, I know it's been that multiple, multiple times on these yearly salary increments. It's been tossed whether the people were going to get away from them and whether the money people were going to keep doing it. I guess what I'm asking is, do we want to go over moving the salary increments? I make a motion to. Genius. To do away with the salary increments. Okay. I've got a first and this will begin in 26, correct? Which one would be? Not this year, but 26? Okay. I have a motion and a second to remove this increments begin in January, around the 2026.