I'm going to call this work session to order. Katz, are you ready? Sorry. TSD, are you ready?
Thank you. Sorry. I'm going to call this work session to order. It is January 15th, 2026. And we will
begin. I'm going to make a motion to approve an addendum to the Anthem Stop Loss Agreement. Can I get
a second? Yes, I will second that motion.
I was just looking good afternoon I think it is yeah so this is an amendment to the stop loss agreement
so stop loss is the like a separate insurance that we have that helps us control
cost for high claims on our insurance plan. And so this, and I will tell you, I'm gonna fumble through
this as best I can, because this is the first time I am experiencing whatever this.
reduction in commission situation is, but my understanding after talking with Apex yesterday about it
is that it's a reduction to the commission that they receive for being the third party administrator
of our self-insured plan. So it's going from, and I think that that commission is typically between
one and 15%. Ours is going from 15% down to 10%, which basically just lowers the premium for the stop
loss insurance.
if you need more than that. Don't ask. Do you have any questions? I don't have any questions, actually.
It makes a lot of sense and anything that reduces our costs is a win-win. Let's see if there's any public
comment on this item. Can you raise your hand on teams or come to the podium?
Well, let me say it this way. It's not going to impact employees at all. Nope. There you go. All right.
I don't see any public comment. All those in favor of approving the Anthem Addendum for the Stop Loss
Agreement signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries 2-0. Thank you. All right. All right. So do you
mind if we go ahead and do planning next?
Is that okay with everyone? Great. Richard has something too, right? I don't think it's on there. It's
not on here. Yeah. It was added late last night. Okay. So we'll do that next. Yeah. Is that okay?
All right. Thank you.
Good afternoon. So this is just a work session item. This will come back at the regular meeting at a
date that you all would agree to. This is a preview of ordinance 2026-01. This is an amendment to the
county development ordinance regarding the sliding scale subdivision. And this amendment came out of
the county development ordinance hearings. It was tabled as item number one due to its
amount of times it came up by the public and there was a discussion by the Plan Commission to review
this after the adoption. So they kept the CDO the same primarily as what it was as the prior ordinance
and then this text amendment was to discuss if there were going to be changes specifically to the 25-year
reservation of the parent parcel.
Text that you have before you in the packet was forwarded by the plan commission by a vote of five to
four on December 18th, 2025. And this text amendment has been discussed at length. I have in here a
cover sheet for you all. I'll update the date on here since this will be heard at a later date at the
regular session.
But I just want to point out that the Ordinance Review Committee, the Planning Commission Administrative,
and the Planning Commission Regular, they have all heard this several times. So it's not for lack of
discussion that we are here today.
So I do have some key takeaways that are in the cover sheet just in regards to the Ordinance Review
Committee. It had a little bit of an interesting timeline on it, whereas it went to the Plan Commission
and was sent back to the Ordinance Review Committee and then sent back to the Plan Commission. So that's
why there's a little bit of back and forth on those key dates.
but the text amendment itself is listed as exhibit one. And the majority of the amendment has to deal
with the addition of photos of the examples of subdivisions that we have in the county development ordinance,
as well as some additions to the purpose statement, and then also a reference to the original ordinance
that created the sliding scale. So I'll walk through just the red text
that is being added to the amendment. So first one is an example of a minor subdivision, four lots or
less in a rural area, and each of these lots are 10 acres or greater because they're connected to a
septic system. The next example is a minor subdivision, same subdivision type, but this one is connected
to a sewer system, so they're able to meet a smaller minimum lot size that fits the zoning district.
And then we have an example of a sliding scale subdivision, which is only available in the rural area
zones. And it's an example where you have the parent parcel that equals the 55% or greater, which would
be subject to the 25 year reservation without being able to be resubdivided for that time period in
return for the creation of three lots that are two and a half acres in size exactly here with a septic system.
And then I have an example just on the screen of a major subdivision. This is area that's connected
with sewer. We do have major subdivisions in the county and this is just an example of one. So the two
text changes to the purpose statement came out of discussions by the ordinance review committee and
the plan commission regarding why we
have the sliding scale option. So number seven, we added to allow the flexibility to create smaller
residential lots served by private sewage disposal systems, i.e. septics, while also preserving a majority
of the track for agricultural conservation purposes. And eight, the black text is existing, the red
text is new, so permit development in rural areas that will not overburden existing infrastructure and
services and not adversely impact low traffic
roadways, police and fire coverage, emergency service response times, and other governmental services.
And then at the end of the section that's being edited, there's the section about the designated parent
parcel remainder shall not be further subdivided for a period of 25 years. That is not changing, but
we did add after as a matter of legislative policy in parentheses ordinance 2015-02, which is in the
packet and is the original
commissioners that created the science scale option under the prior ordinance. And that summarizes the
text changes for this one. Thank you so much. I will just add a couple things, if I might, as somebody
who's been through this process. I think a lot of the reason that
this question kept coming up about the moratorium was because somehow there was a conflation and then
it was publicized and then repeated of the 25-year moratorium and somehow that relates to everything
in planning, and it does not. It's just the sliding scale. And so I think that's the reason why this
was a hot topic, as it were. And so we still pursued it to look at it.
I think that there are questions about this is like another option. And what I like about the way this
is written now is that it clearly outlines what the options are, which we didn't have before. And I
think that's a real benefit to the residents. Here's what a minor looks like. Here's what a major looks like.
Here's what a sliding scale looks like. So that they see it all in one place. And so I think that's
the benefit here to revising the sliding scale ordinance is providing that information. So do you have
questions or comments? No. OK. So when do you want to hear this? Do you want to wait till the 29th?
I think we can. Do you want to wait until next? Do you want to do this? We can do it any time, I think.
OK. Can we do this on the 29th of January? That should work. That will work for us. Thank you so much.
All right. Appreciate it. In the meantime, if we have questions, we'll reach out to you. That's good.
All right. Thank you. I've already asked my questions 100 times. I did all of it, so. Yeah, yeah. OK, so.
Mr. Crider, what do you have for us? Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you for working this in.
As Ms. Purdy mentioned, I didn't receive all the necessary information until late yesterday afternoon.
This is an election central renovation change order. This is change order number two for concrete slab repair.
Strouser Construction Company at Showers North. This is election central. And when we began the project
and evaluating the space, it was full of meeting rooms, offices, suites, walls, cubicles, and you couldn't
really, the floor all looked level and flat.
However, during the demolition process, they uncovered many areas of the floor that will require leveling.
And so I am requesting approval of a change order to repair damaged concrete subfloor areas uncovered
during demolition using a floor leveling compound. These conditions were not visible prior to demo and
must be corrected to provide a smooth, stable, and level substrate for the new flooring system.
Completing this work will also allow the installation to fall within the flooring manufacturer's warranty
specifications, which is very important. Yes. Okay, so this is a change order. Yes. And what is the
total amount? I didn't tell you the dollar amount. $30,332. And what fund is this being paid out of?
20-25 G.O. Bond. G.O. Bond, 4820, Showers Building Repair. Great. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and
make a motion to accept this change order with Strouser for $30,332. It's fund number 4820 for the 20-25 G.O.
Bond. I can second that. Thank you. And we do obviously have the funding to cover this. Yes.
Excellent. All right. Any public comment on this item? You raise your hand in teams, you come to the
podium. Seeing none, all those in favor of approving the change order for Strouser construction signify
by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries 3-0. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So we've been, we were supposed to have
we're going to have a conversation with Council, and they're not. Coming today, and so we're just waiting
for Mr King. Um but in the meantime, um, since we're on the topic of. All things related to.
Justice Center. Um. Mr Cockrell. Can you? Provide some information for the
I'll do my best. I think the reason he wrote the letter was that in 2008-2009, the county was sued for
our jail for an unconstitutional level of care claim. And so as part of that process, we had an agreed
order. And that agreed order lasted a period of time. I think it was a year. But in any event, it wasn't until
it was a short period of time. And we've extended that on an annual basis, probably for the last 15
years or so at least. And in 2019, he added something to the agreed order in order for him to agree
to it, which was we have to do these jail studies because he did not believe that our current facility
was getting better and that we were doing a good job. And so we did that.
We had some reports, and then we did another study. That study was done by Ken Ray, and then we also
had an attorney group out of Washington, D.C. that had some justice attorneys who had dealt with these
kind of issues through that lens, put together a complimentary report about our assets in the community.
And so then after that, we had RQAW do a second study of our facility to kind of
look at it and confirm that the building was not being able to meet the level of care that we required
and the inability to expand that current facility to meet some of those, or to meet those requirements.
And so essentially what Mr. Falk's letter does is sum all that up. He went through those reports, he
pulled out the areas that they found were in compliance,
we're not in compliance with the level of cares and the things that our experts had said, hey, here
are things that need to be remediated. Here are the problems with our current facility. And the second
part, I want to be clear that he's not saying we violated the current agreed judgment because our current
agreed judgment revolves a lot around population numbers and
that's actually a capacity functional capacity is different and that it is important because of how
we classify people and make sure that people are. Classified in a way in our house in a way that that
maintain safety and meets a a level of care right and so.
The standard of that, kind of the rule of thumb is 80%. I know our people would argue that might be
high for this facility given how it's designed, but the general national standard is between 80 and
85%. And so he points out the days over the last few weeks before he wrote that letter that showed when
our male population was out of that 80% functional capacity. So that's essentially what his letter
that he was willing to extend the current agreement just for another 90 days, and I think that had a
lot to do with how he has to give notice to his clients, which is a class. It's a class action case,
and the class is all those individuals who are currently housed in the jail and basically all the ones
that were housed in the jail during the period of this litigation, which again goes back to 2008-2009.
this lawsuit goes away, that class goes away, and so then we are exposed to new claims from individuals
that are either currently or would be part of that class if this was extended, but we would be subject
to new claims and I'm
I don't want to comment on what those claims would be or how we would handle them for obvious reasons,
right? So that's essentially what the letter states is that, you know, we've held on and he's been fairly,
I think starting in 2019, he was basically fairly clear that, you know, he did not think that their
goal of this agreed order was being met at the time. He felt that we were using the population caps as a
crutch in order to not, uh, create a new facility. I think he said a couple of meetings in the last
few years, you know, essentially you guys all know that this facility is not adequate. You know, why
don't you guys just take care of it? You know, this should be your community decision. It shouldn't
be left to the courts. I mean, you guys, you guys know what the right thing to do is that that was,
that was what he was stating in summary.
and paraphrasing at those meetings. And so that's kind of where we're at. I think he left the door open
that if we did come as a county and had a viable path forward and could demonstrate that we were actively
working towards that, that he would revisit that decision. But he would have to be convinced in time
that we could agree to extend it
to April 15th because that's when this ends. And so that's kind of what, in summary, all the letter
and the interactions with Mr. Faulk in the last couple of weeks has indicated. Do you have any questions?
A thousand, but I will. Commissioner, do you already have questions? I don't. Okay, so is Molly in earlier?
I just received a note that she's
So I'll go backtrack a little bit here and after the council. So in 2024. The council agreed to a purchase
agreement for North Park and then in 2025. When we actually
At that point in November, we asked five questions. The first about constitutional care and safety standards.
Do you believe our current facility is meeting constitutional care requirements and providing the safest
possible working environment for Monroe County jail personnel? And our answer to that is no, we are
not meeting constitutional care and it's not safe for our staff.
The second question, so we've answered that question, right? Our community values alignment, are the
accommodations in the jail consistent with our community's values regarding humane treatment
and rehabilitation opportunities? And our answer to that is no, because we can do so much better. We
have one room allocated for all of the programming
which is ridiculous to say the least. There's insufficient care for mental health and substance use
disorder. We just don't have the space. And we all know that building is not in great shape. Renovation
feasibility, speaking of the building not being in great shape, given the completed studies by RJS and
RQAW, do you agree the current facility cannot be renovated to be made larger or to meet constitutional
requirements?
we agree that we cannot renovate that facility. So then we get to the questions for the county council
and and I will tell you our answers are very clear because we came back in October of 25 with the North
Park purchase with DLZ having completed design work and we're getting that number for how much
money was spent specifically designing for that space based on the council's approval the year before.
We believe there has to be co-location and we believe that a single floor facility is safest and we
believe the best place to do this is at the North Park property that the council agreed in 2024 we should
purchase. That's where we left it off. So the council's questions are
Is the new jail one or multiple floors? Should this be co-located with the remainder of the justice
departments, prosecutor, public defender, et cetera, clerk? Should that co-location, if it's co-located,
should it be phased or not phased? Or is there no co-location? And then where? We answered that question because
We've done the work. We used DLZs, studies and information all the way along. We looked at Fullerton.
We considered Hopewell. We looked at Vernal Pike. Obviously, we looked at North Park. We've been looking
at locations. Thompson, we did that too. We looked at all of this. And so having looked at all of this,
ah, having looked at all of this,
We came to the conclusion that North Park is the best site to build. Now, so DLZ spent of the approximately
$8 million they have expended so far, some of that was related to, oh, check out this property, check
out Fullerton, check out Vernal Pike, et cetera, Thompson. Some of it was that. Some of it was programmatic,
which you're going to have to do no matter where you go. How much space does each department need?
that taking out that out of the $8 million. More than half of that $8 million was spent to design for
North Park based on the council request in 2024. So now we've blown through another $4 million. And
we can't use that design if we're not locating there. But where are we locating? And I keep hearing
You know, here's a site, here's a place. They're small properties, which would tend to indicate multiple
story facilities. But even then, they might be too small. We know that those aren't safe. Mr. Falk says
that in his letter. We're just kind of stuck. We just would like these answers. And so Ms. Turner-King
is here. And I don't know if you want to offer any insight
because council could not be here. Well, it was last week and we moved it to this week because it was
just me last week, but yeah. As far as the Council's answers to those questions, I don't think I can
offer any insight. I do think their proposal is a joint session and I. They can do it. You would like
to schedule that we couldn't coordinate it between the two offices and talk thereafter.
And I could see a benefit to having a joint session, but really, I don't really have anything else to
offer if we've done the work. We have the answers as a board of commissioners with the sheriff. We need
to replace the jail. Here's the best place. Here's the design. Take out the whole state shenanigans
because that impacts
how we proceed, it doesn't impact where and if. But right now we are seeing no, we're seeing a lot of,
we're seeing the no, the answer is no. Okay, well then what is the yes? Where are we at? But I don't,
I feel like we've done the work and I don't, so I could see having a joint meeting, but I don't know that
I guess it's to receive this information. If they want to talk through those five questions and give
us the answers at that meeting, we can certainly meet with them. But I'm just kind of a little puzzled.
I don't know what your thoughts are. Yeah, I think we're kind of in a tough situation because we heard
last week that we're unlikely to receive special legislation.
at this point. And we're kind of stymied. We don't know what relief will be forthcoming from the legislature.
And we're kind of caught in a chicken and egg situation at this point because we don't know what relief
will be coming in terms of bonding. We don't know what our ability to purchase will be at this point.
And my personal feelings is that this should always be a values question first. And we're building for
the next 50 years. And we don't want to shortchange.
what, number one, our staff, and number two, the people who will be housed in this facility. And so
none of them should be shortchanged. And so we shouldn't compromise on the values that have always and
should always drive this decision. So my feeling is that this should be a one-story facility because
that's safer. But we have a number of questions that we should answer. First of all, should the current
facility be one-story or multi-story?
the question is, can we rehabilitate the current justice center in any sense, right? Not only as a jail,
but for any purpose whatsoever, even if we take it down to studs, that's a question that I think a number
of people in the community have. And that's a question I think that should be comprehensively answered,
because it has not been answered to a number of people's satisfaction in the community. And so I think
that we, maybe an evening meeting that is a joint meeting could be productive,
we all have to come to that meeting with definitive commitments and answers. And so in a willingness
to be open to new solutions. But we have to, I think, move forward on this question because we don't
have much time left. Yeah, we are running out of time. And I think the sad thing is we run out of time
is that any authority
on location, size, number of beds for the facility are no longer in our hands. And that to me is an
abdication of responsibility that shouldn't happen. And I worry for the community because even just deciding
Okay, well, we'll build the jail phase one, and then we'll do the rest of the justice center phase two.
Even that decision is a $20 million decision. Now, we've already spent over $4 million designing. Some
of that will have to be redesigned to make it a two-phase project. Okay, that may be the legislature's fault,
You know, we have to take our responsibility here. We've made the hard decisions. We have studies that
demonstrate that that building cannot be renovated. So I'd hate to go over old turf because those studies
are out there. They've both been done. Nobody's questioned anything they've said. You can't create space
where there isn't space. You can't build up.
And to assume that building a jail somewhere, even if we said, hey, we're going to go multi-floor, which
goes against everything the experts recommend, but even if we were to do that, we still have a justice
building that needs to be replaced. So where do all those folks work?
because that building is in terrible shape. And I think that building is a key example of what happens
when you try to do it cheap and fast, because that's what they did. They didn't have a choice. I'm not
blaming the county government of the 1980s. But I will say that they were under the gun. They had to
build something. They built it as fast as they could.
And it turns out that this was, what, the second project that that builder had ever done that was a
jail. Yes, exactly. But hey, they got it done. And it worked for a while. It's just so that building
is so terrible. And the way it's built is so terrible. We know better now. We have the information.
We have the technology. We know better.
Yeah, so I. So I'm I am fine with having a joint meeting, but I but I don't know. I think at this point
I would ask the council to tell us what they plan to do. I don't. We've tried to give a path based on
their input based on all of we've worked at this for months and months and months and months. October 24.
And I said, hey, yeah, let's do this purchase agreement for North Park. A year later, $4.2 million later,
we're ready with a design, and the council says no. And now we're supposed to come up with an answer?
I feel like we had the answer. And I'm open to hear what other ideas there are out there, but I am not
willing to
to make this a facility that's less safe for our employees, for the people who are housed there. I'm
not willing to do that to save a few bucks or to make it in the city or whatever becomes the most important
thing. I just can't. I just can't. So it's the values thing. I agree with you. It's the values thing.
But I feel like we've had the answer. We cannot renovate.
are they on board with that? Are there some folks on the council who think we can somehow renovate that
building? I don't know how to get them past that if that is a firmly held belief. It's very difficult.
We'll work with
council office and set up, and it's not on the night of a council meeting. It has to be a different
night. It can't be a Tuesday night period because planning is the other two Tuesdays. So yes, if you're
okay with that, Ms. Purdy, would you try to book something in for an evening? And what does that mean?
Do you like 5.30 or 6.00 or 7.00 or anything? Okay.
I would agree. And I just would agree that we have to be. And I think, unfortunately, we're running
out of all the qualities that we need for this process, which includes time and patience and respect
and collegiality. And so those are all really in short supply right now. And we all really need a greater
quantity of those than we have. The other thing, too, is I can't
I compare this process to a situation where you have a very important job interview or some other.
you have to attend some other important event you have to attend, and you really need to dress up, and
your outfit really matters. And on the day of, you wake up late, and the power's out, and it turns out
that everything goes wrong. The outfit you laid out is entirely wrong, and you have mismatching socks
and your shoes. You put on the wrong pair, and you come in, and it turns out nothing matches, and you're,
you know, two different socks and two different shoes,
And everything's a muddle. And best of intentions aside, you botch it. And it just seems that with all
the planning and all the preparation we've done, we should have done a better job. And it seems that
we're in this situation because of SB1. And we would have been much farther down the road, but for SB1.
that we could have done better along the road, but, you know, again, I just throw the wrench in their
court, and I think, again, this starts and ends with them in the legislature, and, again, we're not
the only county that faces these obstacles, but it is very, very difficult to work and function under
these conditions. It is, but I also
I want to be careful when we have so this is going to be a joint work session so we wouldn't take public
comment. We will send out the agenda. We'll do the agenda. So I'm just kind of giving Angie instructions
here. So, um, but I don't. Yes, I want to lay this at Senate Bill one's feet and the state Legislature,
because certainly they made life a lot more difficult for a lot of people. Not just in this community,
but across the state agree, but
But the answer to that would have been last October for the council to vote to say, let's postpone this
until we have a legislative answer. Let's postpone this purchase agreement. Can we get this extended?
And let's postpone it. But that wasn't the answer. The answer was, I want it in the city. I want multiple
floors. I don't want that size. I like that size. We heard all kinds of bits of information about why
people didn't like
North Park, the design, et cetera. So if that is the reason, then let's do that. Let's tell the legislature,
look, we want to proceed. Here's the purchase agreement. We're waiting on the legislature. Let's extend
this purchase agreement. But that's not what they did. They said no for various reasons, which is fine.
Where have you been? We pursued this $4 million design starting in October of 24 because y'all agreed
to that purchase agreement. It's mind-blowing. I don't get it. So I'm happy to have that work session,
joint work session,
We'll send out the agenda. The agenda is going to be those five questions. And it's on our website right
now under our thing. So hey, if you want to look at the five questions that are going to be on the agenda,
that's it. I just don't know what else to do. I just don't know what. I feel like we've done everything.
We have done everything. We have followed guidance from the council and the sheriff and all
of the departments and all of the professionals involved in design.
to bring us to this point. And it's just really hard because I see this future where someone else is
going to pick the outfit that you're going to wear to the job interview. And that's a terrible abdication
of responsibility. That's terrible. Personally, I think that's a horrible thing. The community deserves
better. And it's hard to make these decisions. And we struggled all along the way.
to make all of these decisions. And I will certainly not be a person who goes, this North Park design
is perfect. It is not perfect. We had to sacrifice and make cuts and give up. And departments had to
make cuts in their square footage. And the judges didn't get individual kitchenettes. I mean, the list
goes on and on. But it's not perfect because we are constrained by the tax rate, by the lit.
And now we have more constraints. But I wonder if we could approach this issue in this joint work session
as let's not even think about what the state's done. Let's talk about what we're going to do. What would
we want to do? Let's say there isn't an issue with the state. Because if we can send them a strong signal,
they may help us. But time is short.
to hear that message. And if the issue is that different council if North Park if the council wants
to send a message and communicate to us that North Park is dead and they want to revisit other options,
then that is a very good opportunity for us to hear that message and us to hear what those other options
are. But the problem is. We
This is what we're down to after all of that research. This is what we're down to. And it's frustrating.
It's frustrating. Yeah, if they want to say North Park is dead, then they are essentially abdicating
responsibility for finding a location to some judge somewhere, potentially. Because I don't know where
that location is. I don't. I don't know where that is.
And I don't, yeah. I just don't. Maybe another county. I don't know. They make it sound like, well,
you just have to look. Well, yeah, every time you look, there's new lots for sale or somebody throwing
out something saying, hey, we could do it here. But they're so small. And if you really want a multi-floor
jail, you're going to spend another
4 million plus in design, plus you're going to be hearing from DLZ all along the way that this isn't
a safe facility. And I know there are multi-floor jails all around the country, but typically they're
in urban areas. And they're older facilities, much older facilities. Mr. Cockrell, sorry. I would say
the other thing, and I think everything you said was well said, right?
point I would make is that when we're dealing with, you know, there's a difference between a single
cell or a single story and a multi-story. There's also going to be some kind of operational cost difference
between co-location and not co-location, right? And so, you know, if we don't want a co-located facility,
you know, what are those kind of things? I mean, it's the questions that I think you read off. The answers
to those lead to different sets of questions. They don't lead to a
Here's what we're going to do. It leads to, well, if we're not going to co-locate, then how are we going
to deal with transport of inmates? What do we have to do with the current facility for transport of
inmates? What do we have to do in the new facility? So it's a process that we were, with the DLC, had
gone through a lot of those under a basic set of assumptions. And if those assumptions change, we've
got to re-look at them.
not saying we can't, not saying there's not a viable solution out there, nothing like that. It's just
those questions beg more questions. Right, right. But if we're going to come back to, oh, you should
try Fullerton Pike, it's like, we spent a year going through the planning process with the city to be
told no. It's actually farther from right here than North Park is. Why would we do that? So there are
some things I would say
on the table because we've already done the work. I don't know. I'm trying to be open-minded about this,
and I'm trying to, but I just don't. I just worry that if somebody says, hey, here's property X, let
me just say it this way.
Somebody says, hey, here's property X. We never, it was never available. We didn't know about it. It
wasn't for sale, whatever. By the time we even get ready to look at a purchase agreement, it's going
to be after April 15th. Honestly, I mean, we've, we've lost avenues of. There are going to be so many
contingencies in that agreement that it would be contingent of on
Yeah. Environmental, you know, which are, you know, basically if you get to the point where you have
a purchase agreement with all those contingencies in it, you're after April 19th before you're going
to know what the answer to those contingencies are. Probably even longer than that because depending
on where it is and depending on how it's zoned. Well, I mean, everything in the city of limits is going
to probably require
the same process that we did with Fullerton. I want to say there may be one parcel or one area, and
I'm going back my memory, four years, that was big enough and zoned appropriately. My memory is it had
all kinds of topography issues. But there was maybe one where you could just go and go ask for the variance.
If everything else worked out on that property, we didn't look at it because I think there were huge
issues with the property that weren't like that.
So just to get through all that process is going to be longer than 90 days. Yeah. Yeah. That's my worry.
I'm kind of, oh, look, here's this great property. But now we still have, I don't know. Angie, do you
have thoughts on this? You were going to say something earlier, I thought. No. OK. Yeah, I don't have anything.
One thing I was going to say is that, you know, this whole event, if you will, with the council not
approving the additional appropriation for the purchase of the property, you hit on it with, you know,
they could have said pause as opposed to absolutely no. That was not a Senate Bill 1 issue. The purchase
of the property, we have the money.
that was not a legislative issue. And so I just want to make sure that that's that's a good question.
Yeah, that was not a legislative issue. Yeah. But building but building was definitely and I would just
I think maybe we need to talk about this. With the council without that issue, because. You know, we're
either going to talk it to death, and then we're going to be in
or who knows? So let's take that off the table because we've missed opportunities. But let's take that
off the table and just look at here are the five questions, where are we at? Because all we heard was
a no, not here's what. But at the same time, I don't want us to spend money with DLZ
doing another property investigation when they've already done it, like Fullerton or Vernal Pike. We've
been there. We've done that. So I don't want to redo the work we've already done because the outcome's
the same. And so I think we do have those questions. And I think we'll get the agenda out once we have
a date set. OK. So doodle poll, whatever. Great. Thank you. Anything else on this?
That's just, yeah, don't understand. I don't understand. And the fact that some counselors seem to be
angry with us for doing something, I don't understand that. And I hope that's not the case, but that's
what I keep hearing and feeling. And there's no, yeah, no reason for that. So all right.
We have the other item on the agenda. The council's not here. They asked for a BEDC appropriation of
some sort. Ms. Turner-King, do you have information on this?
the only information I have on the BTC resolution is that the full council did vote on I think it was
the last meeting in December, maybe December 13th to in support of the resolution. There was a similar
resolution pledged in the previous year. And so I think this is just a similar practice to what they've
done in the past. And this is not for membership. So
In the past, we've asked for a report on how the money was spent. And I don't believe we've received
any report from the BEDC. So maybe if you could ask maybe Mr. Cockrell, if you could ask Mr. Griner
to provide a report of some, I mean, we don't even know what this is for. I mean, there was a great
deal of sweat equity poured into an hours long discussion about
I don't know. I don't know if I can pay for. Judges clerks this past Tuesday and. Yet Oh, here's 30,000.
I don't get it. But I do have a lot of questions like what is it for? What did they do at the last batch?
What? What's the plan? Um so and I know that that that's not. For you to answer. I don't
that we can consider this in due course. Um and so I guess we can pose all of our questions. And hope
at some point that we have more information so that we can consider this in due course. Thank you. Thank
you so much. Appreciate it. Anything else? I'm missing anything. Angie