Senate bill change. So that and then out of the other changes. OK, you want a motion to approve the changes to the agenda? OK, someone be blind. So OK, OK, it's been moved and seconded to add two items to the administrative business vote. Yes, is about to approve the amended agenda partner comments. Yes, Scott Farris. Yes, David Henry. Yes, pretty fields. Yes, Jeff Morris. Yes, Edward Alvin.
 I'm sorry, David Bush. Yes. Okay. So we will move to the 2nd item on the revised agenda, which is the Southern Meadows written findings of that box as well.
 This item we will go ahead and place online as well for the public to have access to this. It is considered an administrative item, so let me just introduce what it is. So we had a petition for judicial review filed from CINL against the decision for the Southern Meadows preliminary plot amendment number two. So as it relates to that, we're required to put together what's called a board record.
 compiling everything for that board record. Part of that board record requires that we have findings. There were findings in the packet on the March 18th meeting, but when we look back at the motion and the decision, it didn't necessarily incorporate and exclude only those findings to be part of the case. So the legal department worked with us to come up with these findings, which are essentially a summarization of what was presented to the planning commission and what was voted upon.
 So it shouldn't be introduction of new information. It's just summarizing the facts that they want to have as part of the record. So you are able to approve this tonight. I believe Mr. Schilling will be here as well shortly. And he did say that if you did approve it tonight, he would want to make a recommendation that
 Also give authority to the Plan Commission President, which is Margaret, to sign on your behalf. So I just have one signature line on the very back for Margaret. So we do accomplish that tonight. It would be signed by Margaret and then entered into the board record. Mr. Schilling is present. He wants to also weigh in on the findings.
 We do have until the 18th, so folks would prefer a casual to the 15th regular meeting. We can drop this to that agenda to give you more time, but you also feel comfortable with this information and it's able to be approved tonight. Yeah, this is it. As you recall, this is a situation where someone just wanted to. Basically change the boundaries of their phasing schedules.
 didn't change, it didn't affect any of the subdivision standards that you're here to consider in granting an applied amendment. And the decision complied with all the rules relating to commitments and so forth. So, the findings are pretty simple in this case, unlike some other decisions where there's a lot more substance to it.
 So education. So you have a document and it's called. I need some back or whatever it's OK, but what where's this going? What is next? Yeah, you're required by law. I'll be the BCA and Blank Commissioner prepared by law to produce as our most administrative agencies to provide support for their decisions and the ultimate goal is to help if their decision is challenged through a judicial review process.
 the findings will help the reviewing court understand the mindset of the agency. And so we have to produce these and then they become part of the records, it goes to the court. And the way that they're analyzed is the findings have to be, so I've got that broken down into specific findings and conclusory findings. The specific findings have to be
 supported by evidence that's in the record. So the stuff that was presented to the agency that night, and that did the same. And the specific findings have to support the conclusory findings with the law. So in other words, if you say their request is to change the basic schedule of months, five and six, whatever, that's a specific finding.
 And then that with other specific findings relate to the impact that would lead to a closer finding that this change is consistent with the law and doesn't harm anyone, you know, doesn't impair anybody's rights. Administrative agencies decisions are granted great, great deference, not just a deference, but a great weight.
 I mean, it's nice to have as many facts as you need in the findings, because the court really keeps challenging if there's anything the evidence. And the standard is substantial evidence, which is more than the same total and less than the performance. So it doesn't have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. There just has to be some mention of the record. Thank you. I just have a question.
 So we don't do this. This was this treatment by. CI interest in this generated the work or we're supposed to do this. Usually the staff will find the extended report, which we did as a pattern of course. Yeah, and so if if we don't put things around the board.
 We're going to talk about findings because there's been a few approaches to that. They're very, very time consuming. It's a little bit easier on everybody and definitely can plus.
 So let's let's press. So we get more authority. Thank you, Mr. Simon. It becomes a legal document that's binding. Yes, I think so. Yes. Are there any other questions for staff or for Mr. Schiller? Subdivision. I lay out a different lots.
 And I can also, if it's helpful, look up. I don't remember if they were there at the meeting to vote on this if that's helpful.
 I'm not sure if I think Jackie. I'm not so people are pretty big. Something I haven't read yet. It was so if we brought it to the. Or if I are those ones I'll find and think. Try to find the bus.
 For the meeting on the 18th when this was approved, everyone was present except for Edward Olman.
 have these people hit all their marks? Are they doing a good job if they did everything at the time, for instance, that they were going to? This is something that's... Are you talking about for Southern Meadows or Southern Meadows? No, they have not paid all the marks. So we did talk about it during the bush meeting on March 18th.
 But what their request was, was to revise the phasing. And as part of that, they did an addendum to a written commitment. And eventually at first staff did not recommend approval. We recommended denial. But after several months of deliberation and discussions, we came up with a written commitment that we felt was at least
 more helpful than what we had in place with the prior approval. So we were able to recommend approval with the requirement that they record the suspended rent commitments. They haven't done so, so they are fine in that regard. I would make one that's like, for example, if you talk about during the flying condition, you need to choose
 Make certain improvements on the original requirements that require to make certain improvements to South Barbara streets. As part of phase one. It's noted that phase one. So there's a little ambiguity language, so the new the amended. For example, say that certain things have to be done before the final five.
 or phases five and six. So there's definitely a computer there that provides incentive for someone to get those students accomplished because it locks up about 19 locks per day. I guess there's a lesson when we do commandments that we all stay part of, say, at the beginning for the commencement of these things.
 In three months. Yeah, we'll face it. Just just it gives us some specificity. If we're going to be hearing this. Is it? Possible. To ensure that stormwater factor. Sir, we can have a very good time. Thanks.
 I have a question. I noticed in several spots in here, they're referencing CINL. And I don't see anywhere in the initial introduction. Spell that one. It's not been joined in property.
 Yeah, but in this document, in any document, it's not customary the first time you introduce an acronym. This is the whole name of it, what they have been, parentheses behind it. If you're a reader like me, you'll know what we're talking about as we go through it. If you would like us to clarify that, you say, representing speech
 What is it? C-I-N-L? C-I-N-L, yeah. An adjoining property. I don't know if I know what C-I-N-L is. I do not know what C-I-N-L stands for. Oh, okay. Explain to me. Explain to me. Yeah, that's the property. I think they're separate. Are they a separate entity than blind squirrels? I understand. They're both on the bed scene.
 This is a business records. OK, so it's the Cassidy. It's not under two different names, so we're saying it's a very possible language. That might be helpful. Yes, you know you're talking about somebody down from picking it up. It's supposed to be. Our history of fat and. They probably won't know this.
 Any other questions for staff? Drew, we don't have any questions. I don't believe so. Other than that, if there are other edits that you would have more time to read through those, if you wouldn't mind sending those as an email, I'll make sure Dave and I edit that and get it to people for the blank, which, oh, well, next week. So it sounds like we're wanting to hear this at the July 15th meeting rather than voting on tonight. Is that correct?
 Okay. Okay, so we can move on to the next item on the agenda then and that is the playing commission rules of procedure. Sorry, so that's before 25. I put that at the back. Sorry, sorry, my phone. Okay.
 procedure conversation that we had at the last plan commission meeting. I think there was just some discussion on not over complicating these procedures, but at the same time, making sure that they're for comment and full comment. So I made some very small adjustments to the conduct of hearing section, which is basically
 Just to state that to maintain orderly procedure, each commission member shall speak without interruption. And as follows, the commission chair shall call on all members to make comments as requested. Members that wish to speak more than once can be called on by the chair. Once comments have been made, the chair shall close the commission comment period. And then that's when we would move on to making a motion.
 I do think the only complicating factor to this is sometimes as people vote, they wish to make a subsequent comment. If that's something that is allowable by discretion, I think that's something we can continue to do. But if we just want to say where comment period is closed, you may not make a comment, just vote. We can't do that. If you don't mind, I would ask you to go through.
 So, uh, what does, what does as requested? Like mission sure she'll call. Does that mean hands raised? Does that mean. Right. Okay. So you're saying you have to read your, I think you have to. Visibly raise your hand. This is open for interpretation or I think.
 or typically has done a nice job to just say anyone to my left, right, and to my right, and kind of comes together. But if we want to switch up the order in which comments are made, because someone doesn't want to always be first, or someone doesn't always want to be last. If you do that, I don't necessarily have to write it in, but that could be something you can write in. Questions on this section?
 Um, so the, there's actually, I should share a shower home. Can't be called on. Someone pretty not be calling or is it going to be a shower? If someone raises their hand for a second round, they're honored for that verse. Can't. I don't have any thoughts about them. I would also ask one way to control, make sure that.
 We're not repetitive, right? Someone keeps saying the same thing over and over six times to go back for the other person. To constrain that. Yet to suggest you have to keep your comments. So they're doing a second round of comments. We're saying the same thing over again and try to keep it to a point. Maybe it's been addressed or raised as we would. Sure.
 the cancer, you know, if they want, as long as it's new or addressing something fairly. I don't know whether the comment was definitive until they stated it, but just I would hope that it follows. So the point of this is.
 clarification on the point of this is to have initial comments before secondary comments. I think in the event that somebody is really quick to make a motion and then someone is saying I didn't get a chance to comment and there's a motion on the floor, it might help.
 hesitating. I look at the word without interruption. Common courtesy tells me that I'm going to take it loud, that if I'm running a meeting, I'm going to allow somebody to say whatever they want to say, as long as they don't repeat themselves. In the military, we used a term called repetitively reduct.
 reach a point where people are talking and repetitively redone it and all of this to feed up valuable committing time. I'm not suggesting, but I would just offer as a discussion point, should we have a time limit? Or is it just a gentle person's agreement that that is the rule of thumb? You make your point.
 and you move on and you don't repeat the point endlessly about the last meeting, the endless discussions. And I think probably, I won't say all of us, but some of us have been caught up in an endless discussion at some point in time, and it's counterproductive. My own sense, I hear things in the RRC, I hear them in the admin, I hear them in the flagship, and it's the same discussion over and over and over, but you're talking to the same people in these forums.
 And so from the care and feeding of running a meeting at a time. If you're going to have without interruption, we need to have some sort of agreement or whatever to live with the discussion and be clear, concise to the point and not being repented from something that's sort of stated in yours. Restating it. I'm not sure that time limits will help that, but I would say that something to be.
 mindful of is yes, the comment may be made at an admin meeting and then at a regular public hearing, but there are different audiences at those meetings, right? And just because something was said at ORC, that's going to not be the same audience as planning commission. So I just don't know about time limits. I just, and I don't know who adjudicates clear size.
 Although I agree with you all. Well, I don't have the objection. I mean, I think that I agree with that. And I also agree with the idea that unless all members are going to watch every subcommittee meeting, it's time for those subcommittees to report out stuff so we don't have to be limited in the group of severity. And I don't think there are too many report outs generally.
 So there's that. I think to the point of the kind of preamble or like the voting statement, that's another place where I get caught up where someone wants to qualify their vote or have another round of speaking. I personally don't like that approach. I think once we're voting, we're voting very quickly. It should be good to make the signing statements, I guess, on top of that. But that might be a way to get
 Avoid avoid some redundancy and sometimes do that. I should say. Definitely experienced that. That might be a separate ceiling. There's those those. That's called is that it does open up. Certain people want to debate that while they're voting them. That's not the procedure. So, I know this is no fun, but it's useful. So, we need the phrase without.
 That was copied and pasted from above for the public. So we do like, it was something that we kind of tried to create consistent language throughout. And so that's a tracking fix with what we do with a public hearing. That's right. We help the public to that. I must feel like blindfolded when you speak without hearing. Any other questions or comments on this?
 I think that just really kind of gets to the point. You know, people are going to act gentle people and that interruption means it goes a lot to the leader of the meeting as to how well they can handle issues where someone must be more than less gentle. Yeah, Mr. Bush, a question and clarification, I guess, to what the team had said. Will we do reach the point where
 you know, the vote has been called. At that point, are we saying that we don't call that which is vote? Because that would be my preference. I agree. I think once you're to that point, either get off the horse or. And something we do still have in here in the maker of the original motion may accept or incorporate an amendment.
 So if like if I make a motion, I forget to add waiver final hearing to add that. I wouldn't count it as a comment or so it's just a clarification. OK, so I could just add in here. That is the actual vote. It's actually actual yes and no. Yeah, it's the issue that discussion is complete. The plan should present will probably stand so I can add it right here under the five to say.
 At the time of roll call, no comments shall be made. Clean votes. Or something like that, OK. Same one or two teams up. What about the role of tech services when someone is? I mean, how far and they just without raising their hands keep entering the conversation while somebody else is speaking. How does that begin?
 And I do think, especially in this room, the audio is pretty poor for online attendees, but we can, tech services does not assist us with this meeting, but they do with the regular meeting at the PCA. So we can kind of staff, we can play a more hands-on role. If someone is interrupting, we could speak with people or we can, maybe there would be like a nice way of like raising our hand to kind of stop people.
 I have the impression that someone's interrupting just respectfully, and I just raise the ante and do that more. It's not going to help, but I'll try to play it more actively. Seven years that I've been on the committee, we found, well, let me raise my hand, sorry. Go ahead. Okay, seven years I've been on the committee, we found the roles to enter on the side of the committee, comments from both our colleagues,
 that the structure is going to get in the way of discussion. Are you talking about? It's saying. Seems to be clear. So this is under specifically the plan Commission after the public hearing is closed, so this is really just.
 associated with the planning commission's comment. But that's just my observation. And if it's helpful to have this as part of the packet or just link to it for reference,
 anyone I can add that as part of the agenda for regular meetings or however you would like to do it. So I know some of the members are not here tonight I would want to make sure they would be informed. Do you want to go ahead and vote on this change and then with the change under five to say when discussion is complete the language president's route staff for a vote on the motion and then
 I can either put it under five or six to say, plan commission members shall not include additional comment with voting. Or do you want enough? That is item six. Okay. Yeah, I think. We've had some major substantive saves by people comments after voting this time. That's awesome.
 clarification and the motion is made and it saves the plan commission at the planners and our department and from making up the state. That happens frequently. Well, that would be a motion like for complaint, clarification or information. Interrupting a vote at that point sounds same as someone. Give me a speech about their vote.
 I can also reflect their application. That's one of the three to interrupt everything. Yeah, that's not the eruption. That's not the business, right? So my understanding is this is about. A Planned Mission member who is engaged in debate. And then when they're ready to make their vote, they launch and restate their points of debate again, right? It's it's.
 that we're trying to do, not related to the motion itself, but just there. I think what I'm hearing is, I'm voting no, and this is why I'm voting no. Is that acceptable? I don't think that's necessary. I don't think it's necessary.
 I was going to call, I can call the roll on the red text and call the roll on the no comment when voting. So let me go ahead and call the roll.
 I have this exact same language down below, whether the plan commission is the petitioner or if the public is the petitioner. So it's just the section. So I will call the roll on just amending the rules of procedure to include the red text as shown on the screen. Scott Ferris? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Bertie Fields? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush?
 Yes. Yes. And then the next edit that I would like to call vote for is under seven, which is the secretary shall conduct a roll call vote and announce the result. I'd like to add my commission members shall not include additional comment. David Henry.
 Pretty fields. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
 So the next few pages are some exhibits related to this request. So through engaging in some discourse with members of the public regarding this particular property, it has been found that there was an error in the zoning map that ended up with it being zoned as PUD. So if you look on the screen right here, there's a parcel that's long and skinny right through here. It's at 3521 South Rogers Street.
 On the current zoning map, the PUD Somersby stands past this property line and captures this property. And looking through local records, including this city of Bloomington map from when the PUD was created, as well as this subdivision that was created from the PUD, as well as referencing the acreage and the original ordinance, 92-43 from the city of Bloomington.
 All things point to that small skinny parcel that is to the south of Somersby Subway and is not zoned PD. It should be a different district. So here on the zoning map, this is all from our current data on the GIS. You can see that this gray area, this is the parcel question, is showing as Somersby PD, but in fact, it's Chinatown.
 which would change to this fine green color, which is high development. Would have transitioned the RM-15 zones. So, since this was the Scribner's area, we would take it still through the commissioners, but we would like the Planning Commission to review that. We need to take this board as a public
 here in high number or can we take this as a script here? You know, I guess my preference would be to take it as a public hearing because that was done through the zoning process and just be safer. That question comes to the district. Does this have any bearing on any ongoing applications or activities? Not any.
 current applications, but there is a property, the property owner has engaged in conversation with staff and putting myself regarding developing property, but potentially multifamily. Um, but through the analysis of the history of the property, we found that that PD zoning should not. Does that have adverse effect on his moving forward or does it make it more streamlined for him? Um,
 Well, I don't know if I can speak to it making it more streamlined because it is an error. None of the PUD documents accurately describe that parcel, so I don't believe that we would even be able to maintain it currently as it is. It seems like. I mean, he has the option of questioning that as well.
 It's on PD, right? Yeah, yeah. Commissioner Tom said accommodate Councilmember Henry and Mr Bush. Yeah, I. I'm not sure that it's it's that something either, but that's my concern and there's no way of addressing that. So I feel the concern about that, so I don't know.
 multi-family housing on the general. Yeah, the development of the lot with respect to the multi-family use is very much up in the air. It's with the property owner once they have not been able to secure commitments from seeing you to accept services. So they are kind of just completely at a halt. But, you know, I wanted to bring this to your attention because it is not supposed to be zoned PV. It's supposed to be zoned.
 Thank you. That's just right away there. Yeah, so the roads aren't showing on this back here. A little bit better. Yeah, okay.
 Well, you answered one of my questions. I was questioning the access secrets as well. And I guess my comment would be given that the owner has had a conversation about developing it. It seems to me it all comes up to the public hearing, given the fact that there has not been as long as the screen returns error. And so it's true. It shouldn't have been.
 Including smart people. It's so. For us to just think. Change to whatever we decided on be at this meeting about having a comment, probably. That's good. We can add this. I just said it on to the. But if we don't have.
 maybe we could have a conversation with the petitioner because it may be that they want a different zoning district than what it would automatically assume to be. So if we can do that for them, I would be happy to think of that. Yeah, people without having to go through the whole process of pay and everything else, that this is the time. That's pretty simple. Maybe the plan should be the petitioner
 Thank you. One final question. Is this property for sale? No, I believe it was recently sold. Okay. Yeah, the new property owner has been the one that's been contacted. Okay, thank you. Okay, any other questions on that? Okay. Next slide, Martin Leah Jinda in SIA-22-12, the miracle subdivision to phase three final flag.
 I've got a few additional exhibits for one exhibit. This is written letter of assurance from the petitioner and came in at. Is there a requirement of being able to submit an agreement release request? This so.
 This is the 4900 block of North Muirfield Drive in the north of St. Patrick's Court. This is a performance bond release request for the Muirfield subdivision phase three final plan. The deciding body is the planning commission. So staff is recommending approval of the release of a performance bond guarantee for the public improvements of $10,500 as long as the positioner written assurance has been submitted by the time of this meeting. Just fall receives that.
 The Highway Informer does not require a maintenance bond. In summary, the developers are requesting the release of the Performance Bond and Financial Guarantee related to the New York Field Subdivision Phase 3 Final Plan. Required public improvements were accepted into the Monroe County Road Inventory by the Commissioners November 2008. However, sidewalks were not completed at the time and the Letter of Credit stayed on as a financial guarantee.
 As bills were submitted from the recently completed sidewalks and reviewed by the Highway Department, Stormwater Program, and planning staff, which included a spinal site inspection. The original letter of credit in 2005 was for $100,807, and a release occurred in 2006, flooring into the current balance of $10,500, which is about the amount for the sidewalks in the estimate, C2 and C3. The staff did not locate an updated estimate for the reduction in our storm funds.
 A revoked letter of credit dated May 21st, 2026 indicates the amount of $10,500 being held by the county for the remaining side oil improvements of the subdivision. The petitioner is requesting the release of the performance model. The petitioner does meet the ordinance requirements for performance model release as demonstrated in the packet. Items are listed in red here. You can go through them if you want, but I will go ahead and open it for discussion.
 for stats. Questions? In the case of SPP-24-25
 S. I. A. 22 days, 12, your field. So it's pretty fun. Black West from the police. Let's be granted. Just need to go to a plant commission or can we do this at the end of this year?
 Second. Move and second to approve SIA-22-12, which is a performance bond guaranteed release for $10,500. A vote yes is a vote to approve the full release of the $10,500 back to the developer. Pretty Fields? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Willie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Carter Clements? Yes. Scott Farris?
 David Henry, yes. Moving on to the last item for administrative business, which is Senate Bill 425. OK, so. So. Senate Bill 425. This was a discussion that we had at the ordinance review committee. Basically what it suggests or what it.
 voted in place to start today, July 1st, is that certain properties are now counted as energy production zones and that certain energy production can occur in those zones without regard to selling. In the Senate Bill 425, they put in place an ability for a one-year pause by a local jurisdiction to, I think,
 understand and analyze the changes. So what we will be discussing with you at the 15th is the legal department has put together a draft ordinance to put in place a one-year pause and that needs a recommendation by the Planning Commission as part of a particular way to do planning commissions for a vote because it does have impacts to the CDO. So the ORC also discussed that meanwhile we could
 open up the county development ordinance to look at what possible amendments we can make to tighten or help clarify language in there. Probably the most, the biggest change that might come into play with the Senate Bill 425 is that things like nuclear power plants would be possibly by right in these energy production zones, which are extremely unclear based on the Senate Bill 425.
 So if we can make edits to the CDO in regards to this to help make sure standards are met or that proper zoning is in place for those uses to occur, that would be helpful. I believe that the energy production zone areas had to deal with old mines or prior electric generating facilities of a certain amount of water. I think it was like 80,000.
 sponsors. That's pretty significant. But if this includes old quarries, we would have sites in the county that would count towards this. But if it is just really more towards energy production or old energy generators in the county, I don't believe we have any of those facilities that are retired that would be a good fit for this.
 And just to clarify, this does not include wind or solar generating. Yes, it's the project. It's the griddle-style bi-ray, other energy generating projects that are not wind or solar. Guess what that is? And that's why we want to do a bi-ray for Torium so that we can go through. And it must follow our CDO. It's not a bi-ray.
 it has to follow our ordinance. So if we have to add something to our ordinance, then we need to do it this year, hopefully we'll do it. Thank you. Wow, I don't want to waste a lot of time on this, I think there's a lot of things to ask, but just trying to get a general idea of maybe it's too early to make a hypothetical here. This is for somebody, if there was a zone,
 was an energy energy production zone. And some of the first step that it could be referred to different energy production names, like conventional, where you decide to become the very small nuclear reactor under this, or is that, what are we talking about in terms of what an energy production zone is? If they go back to being personal, I'm trying to wrap my head around what the implications is. Do we know that much yet about it, or is it stuff that needs studying?
 I asked like five questions there, Jackie, sorry. Yes, so just to clarify for you and the public, so an energy production zone is not in the CDO, that term coined just in the Senate bill that they create, and they defined it right there. It says an energy production zone as used in this chapter, electric generation facility means a facility or infrastructure associated with a facility for the generation of electricity, does not include wind or solar.
 Um, it is, I think it does still need to be reviewed of what we were trying to move back. But when we got into the language about lines, we were wondering if that meant quarries. And so we kind of ended up in a circular conversation, but at the very end of the bill, it gives you that ability to have the one year timeline. So that's what we would just like you to focus on at this point.
 all the while looking at the bill itself. Still, not special. On camera. The size consideration of how big it was, because if you go down the B line, every one of those mills back in the day had dynamos. So they would generate power for their individual operations. So depending on the size of what the electrical production was they used,
 they were burning coal or burning fuel to turn crews to make electricity. So I can see that. Wow. We'll coordinate with the city to make sure they know about this bill. We've been making other bills, but it's a really good point. Any other comments or feedback on this? I assume we're not being voted on.
 No, I'll just read to you just the last section of this and I'll include it in the July 15th packet, but it says after June 30th, 2025, the political subdivision or a local authority may be limited by regulation or otherwise the siting, construction, installation, permitting or deployment of one or more projects within the territorial jurisdiction of the political subdivision or local authority for a period of not more than one year.
 Prohibition under this subsection may not be extended or renewed for any length of time, regardless of when the Prohibition first takes effect. So I think what you will be seeing in July is that ordinance draft that will then go up to the commissioners, just stating that we would like the one year and then only one year.
 And then beyond that, the conversation at the ordinance will be continued and even eventually see an amendment to the CTO. That's right, Dave, do you want to add? So if you want to vote on hearing this at 15, that would be helpful.
 I'm going to move that this. Here's honor July. 2025 agenda here. Second second. Second to bring back the item regarding ordinance amendment to relate to Senate Bill 425 to the full plan commission on Tuesday, July 15th.
 about yes, it's about two places on the July 15th agenda. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Scott Harris? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. The motion is approved seven to zero. Thank you for following that and keeping us up to date on that. Moving on to new business, the first item is SPP dash point four dash four, which involves southern meadows, has been continued by the petitioner.
 So we'll move straight to item two, which is SIA-22-28. It's the Bella Vista Subdivision Section 3 request for extension of performance period. So I was able to get in contact with the representative of Bella Vista 3 Corp. this morning if they would like to request a continuous
 to work with their client until August. So I don't foresee much updates necessary at this meeting tonight, but we'll see this again in August. I've already put that on the agenda. Okay. So moving on to the last item on the agenda, SIA-22-24. This is the final item that's one piece crossing subcommittee request for extension of performance period.
 This one is, but I'm going to go ahead and cover this one. So. So we've been working with the developer on one Kings crossing. This is located right off of West state road 46 and finance driver across to that light right there. There's the.
 series of banks or credit unions right there. There's one more lot to be developed in that area based on what and so they have this letter of credit on file and so when we engaged with them they were like okay we've been trying to put this lot for sale for a while but understanding you have a timeline for the improvements to go and they were sort of waiting to build to sue and then do the improvements but this conversation came up first. So initially
 They have asked for a performance period until September 20th, 2027. We do have some updated estimates that we went back and forth with from their surveyor and then our highway staff. There is a bit of a discrepancy between the two estimates, and then when you add inflation, it's going to compound the difference. So we still want to work with the petitioner and make sure it's three year
 So we're two years, however they would like to. Right now we have this two years. If they want to reduce that timeline and get it done sooner as to not post that 10% inflation per year, we think that conversation might still be open. But where we left off was essentially we gave the two new estimates and trying to come up with an agreement on those estimates and add inflation.
 I want to add to these discussions in that sometimes people have not asked for a reduction to date, so I'm seeing the conversation start to lead into the discussion of reduction and update, right? So they may have finished 100 linear feet of road, but they still have an old outdated estimate for the remainder of 50 feet of road.
 So now the estimate's going to maybe remove the 100 feet and only have the 50 feet, but the unit pricing has gone way up because this was originally approved in 2013. So that's something that I want to keep in mind as we discuss these things and I want to make sure we're clear in the packet. I know these are quite complicated, but it helps us greatly to produce reports and send this off to the developer to start this conversation.
 and keep everyone kind of up to date on, OK, this is how I'm supposed to finish the year. And this first year is definitely more challenging here. But right now, they are working with us. They're interested in posting a new performance bond amount and extending their period of time to complete those improvements. And this is the lot from the year. And then this was the original amount. I think what we're discussing as of now
 Is two estimates that go back and forth and they're somewhere region. And then in the estimate amount of, I think 90,000 to 100,000 and then inflation increases quite a bit from there. So I think this still needs a little bit of polishing before it gets to you in. July, but I wanted to give you that quick update to let you know that they're working with us. We're trying to come up with that timeline and associated cost estimates.
 I'll vote needed tonight. OK, big questions for staff. Sports. One other thing the state did require now with the posting of our agendas that we have board members who appointed them and their term start and end dates. So starting today I put it out there. It's on the front door.
 You are in trouble because I didn't even know that that was a new requirement. John actually forwarded it around and Dave told about it. So we're getting to it. But if you see that packet with your name on it and your terms. We don't have any contact information. I haven't done my DNA testing on that.
 I don't have anything else to do.