After reading through the agenda for the most recent Apple Valley City Council meeting, I noticed a line item under the Consent Agenda which referenced acceptance and final payment for:
4. L. 2. Livefront for Website Overhaul Project Phase 1 – $3,500.00.
Oh wow, seriously? Apple Valley is finally going to move out of the dark ages of the Internet and possibly bring their website into 2010? Skeptical as I was, I e-mailed the City Clerk and asked to receive, “any and all information regarding the Website Overhaul Project.” I received that documentation, which coincidentally you can all now view for yourselves (contract documents, design report).
While you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, prior to receiving the paper work from the city I did some quick mental calculations and figured $10,000 ($3,500 * 2 + some) would be a pretty reasonable price to do a nice website redesign for the city. Unfortunately, after receiving the documentation I realized the city had set aside $77,600 for this project… Now this isn’t to say that I don’t agree that the City of Apple Valley needs a new website. On the contrary, I have been asking why they don’t push agenda background information packets to the web like other cities do and I am always met with comments similar to, “maybe in the future.” If adding a content management system to Apple Valley’s website is what will make that happen, I am fine with spending a few thousand to do it. What I am not fine with is spending nearly $80,000 to make it happen.
The company Apple Valley has contracted with noted that they have redesigned at least two other municipal websites including Faribault and Northfield. As of today only the City of Faribault has provided me with the documentation I requested (page 11 and 12) a week ago about their own website upgrades but if/when I receive the information from Northfield I will post them for you to see below. Please note the similarities in the sites created. This is basically a drop in research and design deal and one I just can’t fathom actually costs the contracted company as much as they state especially that it is simply for the analysis and design and doesn’t include hosting fees, etc.
According to Faribault’s documentation, which was done in 2007, they were charged only $50,500 for similar services rendered. In three years I have a hard time believing that the price would really go up $27,000. I seriously have to wonder what other research the City of Apple Valley did as part of this process. Did they ask this company why another city paid 1/3 less only three years ago? I certainly hope so…
So I have to ask: do you think spending nearly $78,000 on a website is a wise investment at this point in time for the City of Apple Valley even if they do desperately need to bring their website into 2010? With the proliferation of free and very capable, easy to use content management systems (like WordPress which has been used here for over two years) do you wonder if that option should have been considered first and foremost especially when budgets are so tight and expected to only get tighter? Whatever you have to say about Apple Valley’s decision to use $77,600 to redesign their website go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear what you have to say.
Related posts:
- Apple Valley Businesses Hate Cedar Transit Plans
- 153rd St, Legacy Park, and Apple Valley Central Village: Apple Valley, MN
- Metropolitan Airports Commission Noise Oversight Committee Refusing Apple Valley, MN a Permanent Seat?
- Staples in the Fischer Market Place: Apple Valley, MN
- Apple Valley, MN Park Improvement Bond Referendum
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
June 8th, 2010 at 11:04 am
Wow, I’ll bet Dave can do a complete overhaul of their website & system for only about $50k. What do you say, Dave, up for it??
Are they out of their god-damned minds??
June 8th, 2010 at 11:07 am
I would have done it for 20 grand.. Just sayin..
June 8th, 2010 at 11:24 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by garciasn, LazyLightning.org. LazyLightning.org said: Apple Valley Plans to Spend $77,600 on Website: http://tinyurl.com/398mv8j [...]
June 8th, 2010 at 11:28 am
I’ll do it for $19,950.
June 8th, 2010 at 11:37 am
Having worked at a State funded non-profit for eight years these things always get pushed up way too much. Usually they start the process interviewing firms and they don’t really find out what they are actually looking for until the last one they interview. Then by that time all of the “nice to have’s” have become “must have’s” and the whole scope of the project has changed. It would be difficult even given the three bids that they are supposed to get to see the level of detail to compare apples to apples. I’m sure there is a bunch of stuff that is thrown in that is completely unnecessary. The increase by twenty seven thousand dollars in two years is completely insane, especially given this economic climate, besides I would bet there are a lot of web development firms that would gladly do it for less…
June 8th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Joe,
The #1 problem with this particular project was that all of the vendors chosen by the city had previously developed websites for other municipalities. When a contractor sees government entities their eyes bug out of their head with dollar signs.
The city should have looked at the dollar amounts paid by other municipalities and then cut that number in 1/2 and then started from there. Clearly $25,000 would have been more than enough to get this website off the ground and running in the direction they wanted. Unfortunately because they haven’t done it in 10+ years they had no idea where to even start.
This is the kind of thing that should not be left up to city government staff and instead should be left up to the public to decide as there are plenty of people in and around the community that could have provided a much more sane grouping of requirements and cost structure that would have done the same thing–and probably done it better–than what we ended up with.
June 8th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Wow… this is absolutely ridiculous! I work in marketing and have relaunched numerous websites, both on my own and with the aid of outside vendors, including much of the complex operation/management they have discussed in the design report. The highest we ever came was $17,500.
While I live and die by the internet and the need for quick gratification of information needs, $77,000 is definitely inappropriate. I think someone was dazzled by the fancy speak of their web designer. (People are willing to pay just about anything for things they don’t understand.)
June 8th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
I’ll bet the company promised to make it “more webby,” which sealed the deal.
That, or they promised it would be “green.”
June 8th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
I have very little intimate knowledge of Web site architecture and operations. For that amount of money, I would expect the new site would achieve a number of significant things like video-on-demand, clean live feed of meetings (including to portable devices), sophisticated e-commerce, host communities (e.g. live chat, forums) and other highly interactive experiences.
Are they planning for any of that? I don’t have time to read the documents, but I just quickly glanced at City of Northfield and City of Faribault web sites and while they look marginally better than Apple Valley’s site, they don’t look any more feature-rich than the current AV site. I could probably make something better looking for $100 using software off-the-shelf at Office Max.
What am I missing?
p.s. — My wife is undergoing a Web site revamp for her business and I at least know you can accomplish all of the features listed for less than $15,000 from scratch.
June 8th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Well it is long overdue. I just hope there is value in this price. All city’s are looking for ways to cut costs, so hoipefully this will eliminate the need for some staff time and thus save money in the long run……..I doubt it though :(
June 8th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Two things.
First, this is obviously an area where the tech-savvy readers of this blog have lots of opinions. But these opinions don’t necessarily mean much unless you know exactly what the city asked for, what features they wanted, the timeline they demanded, and so forth. Not saying the amount isn’t excessive, but one reader’s experience with the topic might not jive with what is actually being delivered.
Second, having dealt with governments and other large organizations, it’s a huge, major-league hassle. Lots and lots of committees and opinions and hoops to jump through. If it were me, I’d charge double just to deal with all the impending hassles. You don’t know what that’s like till you have to deal with it — it’s a lot more time involved than with a normal project for a smaller firm.
June 8th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Mike, the documents are there for you to wade through. Nothing will be provided which is worth that kind of money. Sorry.
June 8th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
I’m just saying it’s twice the work to deal with government stuff than it is to deal with other stuff. Not saying that this particular project is worth the price, just that there is a hassle factor involved. (So much so that many companies refuse to work with these types of clients…)
June 8th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
I work for an architecture firm that regular deals with city, state and federal agencies on projects of various types. While there is some credence to the challenges of working with these organizations, we certainly do not bill them quadruple what we would charge a private client for the same service.
I am sure that the exact expectations outlined by AV are more complex than that of most commericial websites. But given the state of economy right now, I will admit it bothers me quite a bit to see this unnecessary expense when there are more affordable solutions.
June 8th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
I wonder if the citizens of Apple Valley would rather have a fancier website for their City, or maybe 1 or 2 extra Police Officers on duty.
Not to be too simplistic, and I realize that in government $1 doesn’t allows equal $1, but that seems to be a part of the overall problem with our officials these days. They can’t seem to see that this kind of waste is why their budgets are in such trouble.
June 8th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Well said, Greg!
June 9th, 2010 at 9:08 am
Disclaimer: I work for a web design company (although we do not work with government, or really any site of the magnitude of a city website). I also do not know anything about the selected vendor, although that is not a surprise as there is a huge number of companies who build websites.
While we would not automatically double (or quadruple) the cost simply because the client is government, the number of people involved on the client side is a significant factor. If there is one person who is the “decider,” it is a much smoother project, but I would be surprised if that is the case. Quite often, the person who’s managing the project on the client side is not the final decision-maker, unfortunately. That’s the reality of a *lot* of projects, not just government. Project management is often undervalued, but it takes up a lot of the time of a project. (Yes, I am a project manager.)
Bill, while your idea of citizen decision-making is great, that still takes a lot of work. I am assuming/hoping that citizen input is a significant part of this project — but someone needs to manage that. How exactly would you get consensus from the public on what is most important, what lesser-important things to include or exclude, or how to organize the navigation? Everyone has their own priorities, which are of course all valid — but someone needs to be the one compiling and analyzing that input and then figuring out how to organize it.
Finding out what the actual users want and need is critically important, but focus groups, surveys, analysis, etc. take a lot of time. While there are likely a lot of similarities, Apple Valley is not Northfield or Faribault. I’d guess that for a site of this depth, $10,000 or $20,000 for the research and discovery is not unreasonable. (I didn’t see a breakdown of costs to find out what they’re estimating for this part — was there a Phase 2 document that I missed?)
In addition, while it’s really important to figure out what people need *now*, presumably they’re planning for the future too. Maybe the city is not ready to be on Twitter yet (if not, boo!) but they need to be thinking about how to develop the site to be able to relatively easily add features like that in the future, so an entire redesign is not necessary when the next thing comes along.
Add to that the sheer amount of information and materials on the site. One estimate I’ve seen for converting content from an existing site to a new site is 20 minutes to one hour *per page*. That’s because the content needs to be audited to make sure it’s current and correct, then transfer to what is (hopefully) an entirely different system, which quite likely is coded differently. Presumably the city and the vendor will split this task — it’s usually wishful thinking to assume that the client has the time or even the staff to devote to the content (even though they should, since it’s the most important part of any site). And if there’s any content missing, it will take even more time to create — and who is responsible for that?
Hopefully they’re taking advantage of some third-party software such as Google Calendar — but even these “free” solutions take time to implement and integrate, and that costs money. Then there’s file management with possibly some public and some private files (intranet), and allowing for different user permissions so some people have complete control and others can only update their own department — and we haven’t even started to talk about photography, design, or actually building the site.
You’re right that the *design* of a website should be able to be done for $10,000 or less. But that’s only a small part of a website project. Just as a starting point, I would say that any city website done right would be a minimum of $50,000. Again, I haven’t seen the breakdown of costs, but I don’t think that $77,000 is unreasonable.
Don’t get me wrong — I’d like to see it done for less too, and I don’t want this cost coming at the expense of other priorities such as public safety. But this isn’t about being fancy, it’s about being done right.
June 9th, 2010 at 9:33 am
Crystal,
Thanks for your comment. I understand all of what you are saying but think you are confused as to how this should work for government:
1. Please note that I was employed by the state when one of their agencies went through a website redesign project. Many of your notes above were part of that such as having one point of contact (or a small group point of contact) and having people internally audit the pages as that is the most economical thing to do.
2. Gathering citizen input can be done in numerous ways and while I realize that many public administrators absolutely abhor the idea of getting that input due to any number of reasons including lack of general citizen knowledge on topics, length of time to synthesize data, and their lack of facilitation skills, it’s still important when things cost as much as they do and the city obviously have very little in they way of knowledge or understanding of what needs to be done to keep the project inexpensive and taxpayer friendly.
3. As for integrating free solutions taking money because they take time. Well, I integrate free shit here all the time, including stuff that no one else has anywhere–including the sources I get the data from–and I did it all in my spare time. It might be high time that the city looks to other sources, like they have mentioned in the past such as DCTC, for those time resources.
June 9th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Not to be taking AV’s side (really, I’m not), but to Greg’s response, I hope it isn’t so much a “fancier” website but a more useful one. The point is that a lot of stuff can be done online now rather than make people show up in person, wait in line, talk to a person, have that person fill out forms, etc. If more government functions and information can be handled online, that saves a lot of money in the long term — plus is more useful for citizens. That would be well worth the money spent. Let’s hope what this is about.
June 9th, 2010 at 10:37 am
Bill probably just hit on the single most logical option available.
DCTC has degree programs in:
-Software Development
-Multimedia and Web Design
-Electronic Publishing
-Graphic Design
http://www.dctc.edu/future-students/programs/multimedia-web-design.cfm
This would have been win win. Save the taxpayers some money, channel some money from the city to the school, get the teachers and kids some real world experience on a visible project, etc.
I dont have any clue what something like this should cost, although my guess is they could have hired a fairly high end contractor to work for the city full time for 6 to 9 months for 80 thousand dollars.
June 9th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Chad,
Congratulations on being the first commenter to hit 1000 comments (it took Chad two years, 55 days, 14 hours and 25 minutes to do so)!
The site wouldn’t be the same without those who contribute with their thoughts every single day and I am always amazed at the ideas and conversations that happen here.
In appreciation of your on-going support of the great discussions which we have here I am proud to offer you a $10 gift certificate to Ramy’s in Apple Valley ($5 of which was donated by Ramy’s themselves) which you can pick up and use the next time you head in there. Make sure you give them a big thank you from me for helping celebrate your big milestone.
Enjoy!
June 9th, 2010 at 11:09 am
Michael M, the problem is that even though the technology exists (E-commerce sites, SSL protection, document/form storage & downloading, etc.) local governments are not set up AT ALL to conduct business over the internet.
It would be great if you could get your building permit online 24/7 and pay for it with a credit card, but that simply isn’t the case. (I take a Building Permit as a generic example only). You have to go down to City Hall, during their (oftentimes) goofy hours, fill out everything by hand, then pay with cash or check. No credit cards allowed (at least in Farmington).
As Bill mentioned above, integrating other off-the-shelf solutions isn’t that hard, and I tend to guess that all Apple Valley is looking to accomplish is a graphic overhaul, not a total rebuild from the ground up, nor an entirely new way to conduct business with their residents. Just a facelift.
June 9th, 2010 at 11:30 am
Congrats Chad!!
Curious to see how many people show up at Ramy’s today looking for their $10 Gift Certificate!
June 9th, 2010 at 11:45 am
“Hi, my name is Chad.”
June 9th, 2010 at 11:47 am
While Chad has no interest in meeting the rest of us……he has been seen, in the flesh, (MSPD thinks Chad is really me just trying to get more comments on posts), by the guys at Ramy’s. I have a feeling that won’t fly :-)
June 9th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Sweet…I’m almost at 1,000. I wonder what I’ll get?!?
June 9th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
MSPD, keep it up and you’ll lose a comment every time you post one.
June 9th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
First, its not that I have no interest in meeting the rest of you, its just it never seems to work out quite right. My whole life is a scheduling nightmare it seems. For example, this week we are trying to juggle a wake and funeral in South Dakota on Thursday/Friday, a three year old, work (trying to minimize vacation days), tickets to the Braves/Twins game on Friday night, a friend from IA coming to visit on Friday/Saturday, a different friend (also from Iowa) coming to visit on Saturday/Sunday, and a baby shower on Saturday, which my wife is hosting. Wow, I feel better just typing all that out. Cathartic.
Second, I would be deeply hurt if Ramy or Esham gave my gift card to anyone else, as they should indeed know me by now. In fact, they know my child and he greets both of them by name!. Is has been a month or two since I have been lucky enough to stop in though, so this is a great excuse to get over there.
June 9th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Chad, the explanation wasn’t necessary although I’m glad it made you feel better. We were just trying to have a little fun at your expense :-)
June 9th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
I feel the budget is in the reasonable range for what the City is looking for and who they let the bids out to. From their contract document, it appears they made the choice to have something custom made for them vs taking a packaged solution with minimal customization. I’m not a big fan of that type of choice, especially for a government body with no existing internal resources to maintain and service the site.
Why government bodies feel like they need to always re-invent things that already exist, I don’t know. I would much rather the city find some off the shelf package that does 80% of what they need. Then tweak the last 20% either through customization to the package or through simple changes in how they do things to work better with the software. The big advantage of going with something already out there is that upgrades are lower cost, and you are going to have a wider pool of experience to draw from if you need maintenance.
Certainly a government body has some challenges related to a website that you and I wouldn’t have on our own website. In particular they need to consider how their site will be accessible to to those with disabilities and they have required data handling practices dictated by the government. As such, it makes sense that they let bids out to companies with experience in the government website building.
June 9th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
What I want to know is why isn’t the place called “Esham’s”???
June 9th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
I’m laughing a little bit, because 75K is a rounding error in some of the corporate website projects I’ve seen. That do less than this.
June 9th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Maybe the extra $27,000 cost is due to adding a sign on the website that says “Beer Cave.”
June 10th, 2010 at 12:03 am
Bill, I’m not sure why you think I don’t understand how this should work for government. In addition to the fact that I am a tax-paying citizen who wants to make sure money is spent as economically as possible, I have worked for and with nonprofits for the last five years (most of my company’s web clients are nonprofits), so I know all about reining in costs and trying to do things as cheaply as possible.
As I said, ideally the client will have one decision-maker and audit all the content itself. However, I have no idea whether that is the case here, as I don’t even know how many people work in communications for the city let alone whether they have the time on top of multiple other responsibilities. I know that having dedicated staff is often a luxury that the client doesn’t have. Terrific, if Apple Valley does! There is still a lot of vendor-side project management that will need to be done, regardless of how many people are involved on the client side.
I think you’re making a pretty big assumption that the city doesn’t want citizen input, if I read that part correctly. Again, I hope (and assume) that is a big part of this project. But also again, that will take time. I am all for having as much user participation as possible, and in fact, City of Apple Valley, if you’re reading this, I am volunteering to participate in a focus group for this project.
But the reality is that once again even using free survey tools to solicit responses from citizens, it will take someone some pretty significant time to come up with the right questions, analyze the results, and turn all it into useful information to shape the project. And as you mentioned, there will be some degree of “lack of general citizen knowledge on topics”so citizen input alone can’t make these decisions, which will need to be addressed by someone — I’d like to see that done jointly by the city staff who deal with the topics every day, and a vendor who has done similar projects and knows what to look for and what to ask.
Don’t forget that even if city workers are doing much of this work themselves, there still is cost involved. It’s just probably not in terms of the budget of this project, but rather as time (and therefore salary) it takes to complete the project and more importantly at the expense of what other tasks or projects (calculations that are not always considered). I’m completely throwing out numbers, but is it better for $6,000 of the city worker’s salary to be devoted to implementing a user survey vs. $3,000 to pay the vendor to do it?
And that assumes that the city workers even have the skills to do things like analyze user data. It’s often more efficient, in terms of cost and/or time, to have the vendor do it, especially since they have expertise that a client typically doesn’t have. I love to work with clients who came in with user data/feedback and take care of all of the content on their own. It does happen, but it’s relatively rare.
Another way to look at this cost is to compare it to the cost of printing and mailing information to residents. If people had an option to opt-in to receive an e-newsletter rather than a printed copy of the quarterly newsletter, for example, it could significantly cut print/mail costs, enough that the website theoretically could “pay for itself” after a certain amount of time. (I’ll admit I have no idea what print costs the city, nor how many people would opt-in vs. how many would still want the hard copy, so I can’t calculate this. I know I would sign up for e-mail simply to cut down on the amount of snail mail I receive, with the added bonus that it would save the city some money.)
I would be really interested in finding out what other cities of this size have paid to create their websites.
Separately, at the rate I’m going, it’s going to take me more than 55 years to reach Chad’s mark :)
June 10th, 2010 at 8:11 am
I was talking about public administrators in general, based on a variety of studies I have read on the topic, not just Apple Valley. But based on their old-school ways of handling citizen input, including their main avenue via the most ineffective way to do so–public hearings–I’m guessing they don’t much care for citizen input but you’re right, I could be making a very big assumption based only on the two and a half years I have spent closely monitoring their attempts to involve the electorate in the decision making process.
Size is of no consequence. The information created and stored by any city is going to be about the same. While some of the agenda backgrounds might be longer and the event lists might be more full the same functionality should be required regardless.
But that said, I’d be really interested in seeing what other cities paid for their websites. I limited myself to a fair apples to apples comparison by contacting Faribault and Northfield (both mentioned in AV’s packet and prominently displayed on the vendor’s website) but I’m guessing Eagan would be a good place to start (Burnsville’s website basically sucks).
June 10th, 2010 at 10:27 am
The city doesn’t need to put up a website to start doing e-mail distribution of literature they currently mail. they just simply start doing it. Use their normal methods of communicating the change and there. it’s done.
City employees are overhead and as such have a fixed annualized cost. Thus regardless of what they do, they cost the same. So anything they can do that we don’t have to pay someone else to do saves the city money. Only if this additional work they take on requires additional staff, does it make “cost” sense to consider an outside contractor and typically only if this additional work is temporary. I.e. there is a cost/benefit ratio for contracting someone for a period of time vs hiring them full time. If a project only needs 6 months of work, it may make cost sense to contract that position.
June 10th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Only if the contract costs the same as or less than what it would cost for someone internally to do it. As of right now, considering the average salary of even the highest internal employees, I would say that the $77,600 is above that threshold.
June 10th, 2010 at 11:20 am
I am fairly sure you can hire a fairly high end contract web developer for a 6 month contract for less than 77K.
June 10th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
My own disclaimer: I only read 1/2 of these comments before me and scanned the rest before posting my own worthless 2 cents.
A little background: I work for a small cabinet company south of the metro in Lonsdale that my dad started in 1977. In 2007 I launched our first website, using a what you see is what you get site building program offered by Network Solutions. As an amateur I was disappointed with the freedom that the program allowed me in the design. In 2007 (now I’ve launched into my life story, turn away if you still can!) I was 2 years out of college with an art degree. Granted, my computer skills were sub-par. I kept it updated as much as I saw necessary for the next two years. In November of 2009 an acquaintance through the local chamber of commerce clued me in to an online HTML class offered through MCAD. I enrolled for $350. I enjoyed the class and did well. I took the next class, offered in December, on CSS, for another $350. I was $700 in, and several hours, both my own and on company time, but still an amateur when I launched our new website. Now our website is not the lifeblood of a city. It’s not even the lifeblood of our company. It’s a very amateur web presence. However there are so many students looking for that thing that I had, the difference being that they WANT to do it and it fell into my lap. What a great thing to put on a resume! With the reality that I am more web savvy than most, though plenty of people (those reading this included) could find a lot of faults in my website in mind, thus is my conclusion: a RIDICULOUS amount of money spent! If I were a resident of Apple Valley I’d be outraged!
June 15th, 2010 at 10:01 am
Northfield responded to my request yesterday:
June 15th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Wow, that seems ridiculous. $53,000 for a website?
June 17th, 2011 at 11:13 am
The site launched: http://www.cityofapplevalley.org
According to Patch, it was done by CivicPlus and cost $26,000. Did I miss news of the change in vendor and price?
http://applevalley.patch.com/articles/apple-valley-launches-new-city-website-design
Haven’t spent more than 2 minutes on it yet to judge whether it does its job, but I’m glad to see they went with a company that only builds government sites — that must’ve cut down significantly on development.
June 17th, 2011 at 11:14 am
Don’t worry I have an entire post written all about it for Monday.
June 17th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
I just took a gander at the website. It’s hard to get past the “Is this a joke? It’s gotta be a fucking joke.” feeling I got when I saw that top banner graphic. The menu rollovers cause the page to jerk in an unsettling fashion, and drop-down menus that are longer than the page itself are unsightly at best. It’s like nobody even QA’ed this.
It looks like the intent was to vomit everything they possibly could up onto a web site. I seriously think the aforementioned free CMS platforms might have looked better. People get paid for this?
June 18th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
At least it isn’t using Silverlight or Flash. I was checking out the Minnesota DMV site today and they rebuilt it using Silverlight for pete’s sake. WTF?
June 20th, 2011 at 7:01 am
[...] in June of 2010 it was announced that Apple Valley planned to spend nearly $78,000 on a new website design. If there was any city in the South Metro that needed an upgrade it was Apple Valley. [...]