So we're going to follow the planning commission meeting to order. I'm going to go ahead and recall.
Thank you. Tron and Ray Randolph? Here. David Bush? Here. Jeff Morris? Here. Scott Farris? Here.
Rudy Fields? Here. Margaret Clements? Here. Julie Thomas? I'm going to try to stay as close as I can.
Julie, I'll come back to you.
I think the internet is freezing. David Henry? Here. Jovan Deventer? And then Steve Bishop? Here. Okay.
And I'll call Julie Thomas one more time. I am here. Okay. Eight voting members and one non-voting member
attendance in a quorum. All right.
First order of a business under the administrative business is the approval of the planned commission
meeting minutes from the October 22nd, 2026 meeting. I move to approve the meeting minutes from the
planned commission of October 22nd, 2026. Second. And everyone, did anyone have a chance to read over
that and have access to it? It was linked in the... Yes. Okay, great. I'll go ahead and call the roll.
Since this is an administrative business, we don't take public comment on minutes, so you'll
able to approve them here tonight. Yes is about to approve the meeting minutes from October 22nd, 2026.
David Bush? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Scott Farris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes.
Julie Thomas? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Ronan Ragranda? I'm going to
So I didn't get a chance to read them. Okay. Motion carries seven to zero. Okay. And so with that, I'll
go ahead and move on to the next item, House and Rollback 1001 next steps. So I did want to include
just some items for your review and I apologize.
Get this into the packet. So there's two code components to the House and World Act 1001. They kind
of put them in two different places. So the first code component is what we did, which is the hearing
requirement. So that we will link to the board, what we're calling the board record. That'll be the
packet that was presented.
the two items that were introduced as evidence during that night's meeting that were part of the testimony,
and then the meeting minutes that you just approved. So those are set in stone. I do need, based on
this submission, when I look at it from the state, I do need some sort of vote or understanding from
you all. We can have a broader discussion. Based on the hearing, are there amendments that need to be
moved to the ordinance review committee?
That's part of the requirement that needs to be submitted to the state by December 31st. And I can show
you kind of what we'll have to submit. So there's a submission form. It'll say basically, this is the
how many version that'll be next. Thanks. Okay, so this is the requirement that we did the hearing.
um, the housing studies, and then it will say any newly adopted or amended UDO as discussed in section
three. So we have to upload something or leave this blank, um, as a result. And then, um, they do ask
just for any like general comments. So I'm guessing if this is blank,
that's going to flag them pretty quickly on different jurisdictions that didn't amend the code based
on the hearing requirement. I bring that to you just to let you know that that's how we have to submit
the record and then ask if you would all like me to put something in that box saying we're going to
be working on an ordinance amendment or if
would have liked to vote as a group to say, we heard the comments at the hearing and nothing is moving
us to make amendments to the CEO at this time. Yeah, there's a hand raised. However you want to proceed,
let's get the... Okay, I think Julie had a hand raised first. Okay.
I don't think that there would be any way possible to get anything passed, ordinance review, plan commission,
and board of commissioners before the end of the year. So I think in a way, we're pretty limited in
what we could do. I think it would be good to put in a copy of the ordinance, the ordinance reviews
that we are doing, the CDO,
amendments that we're looking at, the ones we have done and the ones we are doing next. I think if anything
comes up at any time, we can talk about it and determine a path forward. But I don't see how it's even
physically possible to do anything before the end of the year. Okay. Troy, you're next. I just needed
a couple of questions to clarify.
They're asking what we're working on, not what we can pass by January. Yeah, let's see what the letter
says. So like if we're going to put the prioritization list and other things that are being discussed
at the ORC. Developed or amended. Section three is
Section 3 is a requirement for the hearing if I didn't put it in here. Section 3, not later than January
1, it must conduct a public hearing to review the UDL, which in our case is the CDO, entities
only regulations and land development rules with the goal of increasing housing development by using
the following factors. So looking at
Section three, it's these questions we ran through, one through nine. I guess, are you understanding
my question? So your question was, could we put in something like, say we're working on something? What
are they asking for things that we're going to look at that are going to be amended? And is there a
firm date, as kind of just stated, that we can only put things in that could potentially
be passed by like January 1st, or they're just wanting to know what we're going to put in. Yeah. And
that's just kind of half of- It says newly developed or amended. So I'm- So developed is like, conceptual,
working on potentially. Can we go up to the sentence that says what in fact we're going to do at the
very beginning? Okay. And let's just read that and follow the letter of the law per se.
I want to make sure I understand it. A unit conduct a public hearing to review the unit and zoning and
inland, et cetera, with the goal of increasing, et cetera. OK, so what we did here is I believe there's
nine items, right? Correct. Of those nine items that we answered questions of, are we planning to change
any things relating to those nine items? And so that's the question in my mind. OK, well, that's not
what I kind of heard about. Is there anything that compelled us to discuss
and upload on to what you were just referring to. Since any newly developed or amended CDO has a result
of the review under section three, which is what we just went through the nine questions, the unit must
provide a written description of the ways in which the CDO has changed and to support increased housing
development by using some or all the factors set forth in section three.
So I would look at the nine questions that were asked. Were there any holes in those nine questions
that we were not providing a satisfactory response to with respect to their question? And if that is
the case, then that would be something that we would want to take and identify. And then you guys can
take and debate this as well. But I mean, you would identify that as actionable. Now, I don't know if
that's the case or not.
I think you answered all nine questions. I do too. I guess I'm just trying to further the conversation
about what you mentioned about uploading something and those would have to be strictly based on the
nine questions. That's what I see. Okay.
My interpretation is a bit different or my understanding of adverse impact and overlap is a bit broader
than just the nine questions. Personally, I would like to discuss the septic and sewer and how that
restrains everything in our ordinance. That does include several questions that were discussed. I do
think that impacts it if we look at accessory dwellings.
You know, if we look at other lot sizes, there's a lot of different things that are conditioned due
to having septic and sewer and model next our ordinance. You've actually brought this up on numerous
occasions. Yeah. Yeah. So personally, I feel strongly that, you know, if the planning commission would
like to move that conversation back to the ORC to redress
re-address what we can potentially do with the septic and sewer, I think, relates to several of these
questions. It's a lot of adverse impact, but it does relate to them. So. So as it relates to the question
number two. Yeah. Accessory dwelling units, you want to bring up that to ORC as possible amendment?
just to have the conversation of what can we do with the requirement to have septic and that requirement
forcing large lot sizes or even not permitting some of these type of developments unless you can have
the sewer. So that's how I feel. I'm always going to feel that way until we actually address this conversation.
I guess my satisfactory that we've really tackled it in a way where I've seen any change. And I understand
that that is my position and I'm more than happy to always be out voted on that. But I think it's time
to have a conversation again. I will go back to what I said in the very beginning and we were tasked
to answer these questions. This is a data column by the staff of the legislators.
and it's going to result in some sort of language. And so they're looking, they're going out and they're
drilling down to see if there's issues that potentially could become new law. And so you need to be
really careful when you respond to a question and be absolutely crisp in your response and be very specific.
Be very careful about opening the door for other things that might down the road result in some new
legislation impacting
us, Margaret. Well, I had Jackie, she recommended because I thought it was very erudite, succinct and
perfect, you know, Jackie, repeat what you had stated initially that you could respond. Sure. So I think
that the next steps that we would like to vote on is whether, you know, we've taken the
the hearing and the public's comments under advisement, and we move to make no amendments to the CEO,
or we can start a process and look at one of the nine questions or some of the questions and start an
amendment process at the ORC and upload that as a start. Not that I'm suggesting this, but to build
upon what you just said, as some of us had this conversation right after the meeting, and that is that
we had X number of people come in and talk to us. Quite frankly, there were some things that were relevant,
some things were other. And so of those things that were discussed and people were concerned about,
was there any relevancy at all for things that need to be addressed within our ordinance? Or they're
just a blanket statement of whatever they were saying. So is there anything actionable in those things
that were discussed that we might
want to consider in our ordinance? I personally didn't think so, because our ordinance is relatively
new. And we heard some of the same things during the public hearing that we heard during this recent
public hearing. Next year, it may be different. But I didn't feel that there was anything compelling
there to make a change one way or another.
So I guess what I'm saying, was there anything actionable? I have my hand up in the room. I don't know
if you all see that. Yeah, I was trying to get to you. I'm sorry. Thanks. All right, Dave, you're next.
Thank you. Appreciate it. So Colonel Farris, I agree about keeping it to the letter, I think, as tightly
as we can. So the first part of the conversation as I heard it was that if we were to add things like the
current working list of updates to the CDO, that was not a result of the hearing, right? That's like
ongoing work. So, am I coming through okay? Yes. Okay. So, if the logic model and there were things
said and we're taking, then the argument would be,
you had to include those things that we heard in the hearing as future work. The ongoing work is not
something I would think to include in this to the House because it wasn't brought up as an output from
the meeting, right? So if it's for the sake of filling space, I wouldn't put that working list in there.
And it wasn't an output of the meeting. Now, I think to your point about was there anything actionable
from the meeting,
You know, I think given Commissioner Thomas's comment that we're probably short on time to address that
now, I don't think it's something we need to address now. But I most certainly think that there are
things that were in that meeting that will be coming up after January 1st for revisitation because they
keep coming up. And that's what's compelling about it is there may be some fatal flaws in that ordinance
that need to get further exploration. But at this point, I would leave it alone. I mean, we held the
hearing. There's nothing actionable coming out of it. There's nothing to embellish on it.
Keep it sweet, short and sweet. Thank you. One thing, and I just kind of want to clarify since I went
over the questions again, just my concern impacts question one, impacts question two, impacts. It can
even impact
three as far as the commercial building. If they want to do adaptive reuse and it was already existing
and now they want to try something else, it's going to trigger compliance and that compliance might
require a sewer or a commercial type septic. It also impacts. Where was that?
like a timely manner, you know, having it could eliminate a couple steps. Anyways, long story short,
I'm on board with moving it, but my real question goes back to director, Mr. John, you said something
about, like, we don't put anything in there that you thought that that might highlight our submittal.
And I guess I'm trying to understand,
Do we think that that would be a negative highlighting of not having anything that was uploaded? Or
do you think it would be neutral? Or do you think it would be positive? And if you don't want to answer
that question, that's fine. I guess I think part of the discussion is if we don't put anything in the
portal, is that going to bring extra attention from the legislators? Do we comply with House and World Act
1001 in a good faith effort. And I think we did. So I'm fine with just kind of moving along and leaving
that blank. And I also want to just mention I support what Colonel Farris and Council Member Henry was
saying that like we shouldn't play anything that's outside of those nine questions in there. If we did
not hear anything from the hearing that is based on those nine questions that the team or the commission
has unanimous
you know, we are, we should move forward in this direction and change this thing about the CDO. Then
I wouldn't put anything in there that, you know, won't move. But if we want to put something in there,
it's like, we're going to, we, we do have on the board record at the end of this report, you know, they
ask the same question. We state any changes in the CDO following the public hearing will be determined
after October 27th, because it's just too soon.
I do want to say something since this has been kind of something I've been focused on for quite some
time. There were people that did come in and talk about lot size. There was the letter that was written
that talked about the difficulty of them putting an ADU on their property and some of the reasons why
I think are due to kind of the process and also lot size septic and sewer.
We did hear those comments. So as much as I've been talking about that, that was expressed at the hearing
by completely fine to move along. I just want to make sure people know this isn't just my position and
my opportunity to say if this was things we did hear at the hearing. So let's go back to the block that
we have to take and put comments on and read what it says. And it's sort of a short.
version of this, but any newly developed or amended CDO as a result of the review under section three
of this chapter, the unit must provide a written description of the ways in which the CDO has changed
to support increased housing development by using some or all of the factors set forth in section three
of this chapter. So we're going to have an ORC in December then? No. Do you see where I'm going with this?
Okay, and so we're not gonna have an ORC, so there's no form to have any discussion. Before they just
do. Before they just do. Okay, so we'll go down to the block that we're supposed to put our comments
in. We'll see what it says. And then it does give us another statement to say, using the space below,
please describe the ways in which the CDO was changed to
Yeah, and I think that's a slippery slope. I think that's a slippery slope to answer those questions
myself. I think you leave it empty. Yeah, it's too small. Do we need to vote on that? Is there anyone
in opposition of leaving it blank? I guess it would be better. Is there not a statement in there that says that
There's no, there's no reporter. I mean, blank looks blank, right? I mean, it looks like you didn't
fill it in. Is there a neutral statement? That might be fine. Colonel, that might be fine. I mean, no,
not at this time or no action at this time.
I think Jackie had a very clear statement that was very airtight. It said, based on the hearings and
our deliberation, no changes to the CDO are being entertained at this time. That's good. That's a good
one. I think that's good. Jackie, are those the words that you used? I certainly agree with some of
the comments.
that have been made, if we leave it blank, then it does. I would like to raise that question. I'm not
going to be able to support that. I understand that based off the timeline, we can't have subsidence
changes. That's fine, but I'm not comfortable with supporting that statement. OK, we'll get to that.
I have, I guess, a question or clarification as well. It seems to me we're premature on trying to put
anything in here. And if we do tackle
some of these questions that were raised at the public hearing, or if we, for whatever reason, if we
go down the path of tweaking the CDO in 2027, then this time next year, I think all that needs to be
put in there because it has changed at that point in time. Right now, nothing's changed. Right, I don't
know if that's, they're not gonna ask for it, I don't think. We submit this and then we close the book
on it. And this is the one and done?
That's what my understanding is. I thought that was every year. Yeah, it's annual. I know that they
want to roll another version of this out. I mean, there were also people at the hearing who said other
things that less density was required. Going down that, we deliberated
as a client commission, and we decided that no action was necessary at this time. You know. If you're
not going to have an ORC in December, there's no forum to even have a discussion prior to January. So
this is the progress report. So it says beginning January 1, 20.7, each local government that exercised
spending and zoning under this Indiana Code Authority, which includes us.
shall submit to the IHCBA and to the executive director a housing progress report. This will have to
be done every year. Yeah. Well, when do we have to do it? It says... Beginning January 1 for the preceding
year. So it's going to... It doesn't give a deadline right now. That's what I mean. There's no suspense,
although we submit that. January 1st, 2020. Steve. So this is an annual report. I think
Yeah, it hasn't been said out loud, but you're setting a baseline they're going to compare you against
every year following this. So whatever you put in, if you don't have demonstrable changes year to year,
they're going to notice it the first year. So I think it needs to be fully filled out in an actual good
faith effort because the next year is going to be different. And it doesn't say changes have to occur.
So to the comments maybe that we're talking about less density and things, you know, like that
That is as important as like the septic and sewer. What I'm saying is like, those are discussions that
we can have good faith effort doesn't mean it has to have ordinance changes. And I guess my main thing
is I'm fine with saying we can't get anything done in this type of a timeline, but I'm not okay saying
we're not going to work on that in like 2027.
Sorry, I know Julie has it, but Mr. Schilling wants to say something. As our legal rep, I think it's
important to hear what you have to say. I agree with Dave Henry and Scott that what came out of this
hearing, what changes were prompted by this hearing, and there are none to this day. They are going
to have the transcript of the hearing. They can figure that out for themselves if they think there's
a problem. But I just, you know, this is going to be getting
hundreds and hundreds of reports from towns and planning commissions all over the place. They've leaned
so heavily to AI and they've gotten awards for the amount of AI they use, the amount of data is not
going to matter. Yeah, but the quality is. I mean, there are places like Brown County where they can't
do anything. I mean, there's so many places, so many different environments that I just
I just think you just have to be honest and say, look, we just changed the CEO to promote housing and
we didn't hear anybody come and say that we didn't go far enough. So we're not gonna do it. My whole
thing is there is nothing we can do based off of this timeline, but it does compel me to want to have
those discussions, I guess, you know? So like, I think the statement I heard Jackie say makes it seem like
nothing from the hearing compels us to want to have discussions. And that's what bothers me with the
statement the most. I totally understand the timeline. We just can't get it done. And I support that
a hundred percent. And you can always add a sentence that we have a process, the World Workers' Review
Committee to take and address whatever. Exactly. We have a process in place to address them.
I see Commissioner Thomas has her hand raised.
No, that's all it is. Thank you. Thank you so much. So this is a, this is this whole thinking about
from a Republican majority legislature, super majority legislature, where about a third of the people
are developers. Okay. So, but there there's been an election.
and things are changing a bit. So I don't even know that this is coming back next year. I also would
say that as much as we can discuss the things that were said about density, we can also look at the
other things that were said about density that say don't fall into the city's trap. So I think
You know, yeah, we should talk about all of it, not just handpick a few things that were said. So yes,
we should look at it. So my suggestion is that we say something in that box as has been written so far
that adds, we will continue to review this in 2027. And just leave it at that. We don't want to be TMI.
Dave, I have a question for you. Yes. Dave, I have a question for you.
Dave Schilling. Since the commissioners asked the planning commission to do this, do we also, as the
board of commissioners, need to approve this before the end of the year? Yeah. The resolution that was
adopted said the planning commission was going to put this together and then pass it to you for consideration
of the commissioner. Great. Thank you so much.
So I would amend what Julie just said with respect to tackling the issues in the next calendar year,
but stipulate that we do have a process called the Ordinance Review Committee, where, in fact, we take
up on these issues and discuss them as part of the State Commission Four, et cetera, something like
that. You want to tell them you have a process within your own organization to address these issues.
No, that's important. I guess that's my take.
Very valid. It's not for just put down the back burner. It has to go through a process. Something like
that. So make it into English. You know, that I remained really proud of how we considered every single
comment that came in from the public when we did we're deliberated on the CDL. It was really
You planning staff did a wonderful job in guiding us through that. Thank you. Okay, so in very
few iterations, I can try and put something together for everyone's vote, if that's okay? Yeah. Okay.
So is the intention to vote on some
I think that's a good question. Is there an iteration of that tonight? Then Jackie, are you putting
that together for next time? Well, so the next step based on the resolution is to, uh, have the meeting
minutes approved by the commissioners on or before December 3rd.
We have a little bit of time, but not a ton of time. I would probably prefer we get something agreed
upon tonight. So what I've heard so far is we could state something such as no action will be taken
at this time. We will continue to review the CDO into 2027. Monroe County has a process for addressing
and reviewing text amendments to the CDO.
which is the ordinance review committee and their next schedule meeting is January 11th, 2027. Do you
want me to say something like that? So it's. That's pretty strict. I like it. It's not until next year
essentially. OK, it's clear, concise and factual. Is it necessary to plug in the next date? The date
of the next meeting if you wanted to just.
Basically state, we're out of time for the rest of the year. That's the only reason we put it in there.
I didn't know if we want it to be locked into a date when something happens. They don't really see it.
I prefer leaving out the constraints of time from the statement because it might create a reaction that
causes more response from us. It's like too much information.
Maybe they'll have us starting on this in July and have other items they want us to deliberate. We'll
never get the work at the client page, you guys. So just cut it off at Ordinance 30. Yeah, okay. But
no action is taken at this time. We will continue to review the CDO in 2027. Monroe County has a process
for addressing and reviewing text amendments to the CDO, which is the Ordinance Review Credit. Would
you support that? Yeah. Would you want to say the monthly process?
I think that shows that we're not just picking inside and it doesn't, as long as Ms. Holmans is over
there. I mean, I just think less is more than you're dealing with. Maybe you could just say regular
scheduled meeting. At the next regular scheduled meeting. I wouldn't even put next. I just put at the regular.
Yeah, at the regular scheduled meeting of the ordinance review committee. Yeah. All right. We're splitting
here. Yeah, I know. Good. I just don't want to get put in the corner.
Yeah. So will you give us the official rendering of what you decided we're going to say? No action will
be taken at this time. We will continue to review the CDO in 2027. Monroe County has a process for addressing
and reviewing text amendments to the CDO, which is the regularly scheduled ordinance review committee.
I make a motion that we approve that statement as stated. I'll second. It's been moved and seconded to
Approve that language to submit to the state under our obligation. Go ahead. Stockers. Yes. Rudy Fields.
Yes. Margaret Clemens. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. David Henry. Yes. Sean Enright-Randolph. Yes. David Bush.
Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes.
Motion carries 8 to 0. Now do we also have to present to the Planning Commission for us to take and
recommend approval to the County Commissioners, or is this it? The resolution already did that. So you
can go from this body to the County Commissioners. And then to the state. I just want to make sure we
all understand that. Touchdown.
So the other part of the House and World Act, just to let you know, is the housing progress report.
So we would like to bring this for your review. We're going to try and set a goal on January 5th. That
might be too quick. Well, I know we'll have the full numbers by then. It might be the first meeting
of February at this point to give you that
We want to make sure you agree. We might have some questions. So I highlighted in red some of the questions
that they're asking for which I may come back and say, here's what this source says. Here's what this
source says. Because I don't know. It doesn't exactly say use this source. Right. So everyone could
be using a different source. So
I just want to let you know that this is still something that we'll be talking about into 2027. I wouldn't
put the 5th of January. I'd say the January meeting, because you might change the date for some reason.
I know we're splitting. No, this is just for our working view. I'm not going to submit anything like this.
Well, they haven't given us a deadline, but I'm guessing it's not here. I'm guessing they might say
it's like January 31st. I thought I read that in one of our forms. I thought I did too, but it's not
on the form that they gave us to submit. I can go back to the form. There's no longer a super country.
But I don't want people to get up to speed. This will be on the... Yeah.
So yes. So I'll triple check our, um, I heard about 31st. I did too. Okay. So we will bring it back
to you. We want to do it quickly, but there, there are going to be some questions that we have. And
if you all have a chance to look at this and have thoughts on sources where we should agree upon,
you know, using that, cause we're going to have to do this.
at least for probably two years. And I guess maybe you may not, but we might want to be setting a good
template for ourselves to then iterate next year. Because if we use a certain source this year and then
switch sources, it doesn't give you room to talk and explain over it. Are you going to provide those
questions? Because it's not in the packet, correct? Yes, sorry. I meant to put this link.
this in the packet and so I can email this to you guys. That would be awesome. Thank you. Okay um but
it's not ready yet because I the starting point is to have all 2026 data and we don't have that yet.
So you need a breath are you ready to move on? We're ready to move on.
So the next item under the packet is the fee schedule. So this was continued from March of this year.
And we do have some spare copies, 31 in the room that wants to look. We are proposing some changes to
what's on the screen. So I'm going to pull up
The change most accurate I've printed off some paper copies for those in the room after working with
our staff this afternoon. One of the things that we did was.
because we were able to succeed in the council request and we did get a cost of living adjustment and
a re-grid for our positions. We plugged that into our labor analysis to make sure that these fees and
our hourly work to accomplish these different petitions and permits equal that. So this is reflective
of 2027 salaries.
Some of the changes that you'll notice off the bat from what's in the packet, we did separate out the
conditional use with
it being a home waste business conditional use and a conditional use just general. Okay, Devil's Epic.
That's the old. This is the one that's in front of you. And that's very funny. 25 B's as well. The ones
I'm looking at on mine are the new one you're asking us to vote for and this is the old ones. No, the one is.
Drafted new, but we drafted another version, which is in paper. So we want to kind of walk you through
it and then we can bring it to the next meeting. That was my devil's advocate question. These are the
new. This is the latest. Yeah, it's on the screen right now. And was there a paper that in changes.
Yeah, we could only seven just from
what's in the packet, which we weren't proposing to now what we are proposing, right? Is there a red
line or an old? I mean, I don't remember every single fee and I don't understand the increase amount
on each one. So I didn't want to redline every single thing because it would be a lot of red, but these
are the two new font-like categories that we added. So these were never in there before, but I can go
ahead and redline what the fees were.
And the next year, you can compare it. But I'll say just generally speaking, we're looking at about
15 to 20% increase. We won't be able to change this for five years. So continuing with my levels advocate
question, if I look at these fees, because they're new and improved,
Is there a logic on the increases? I mean, like, could you do a 2% increase, a 5% increase across the
board? Are they selected in nature? I mean, what's the logic behind the fee increases? Because that's
the question that people are going to ask. Why did it go up? So we use the salaries as the basis for
increasing the fees across the board. So they're going to look pretty similar. I will say that some
of the changes that
we are struggling with the most are the ones that have this plus after the fee. So plus $100 per acre
of development or plus $25 per acre, or even the plus $75 per lot. And the reason we're struggling with
that is because you essentially have to predict how many lots you get up to a total average fee and
try to equal the labor cost.
So I'll tell you that for a major subdivision five lots or more, we estimate that takes about 20 hours
of staff time, which equals let's say $1,750. If we aren't getting at least that number of lots to reach
the $250 mark, then we have to increase the base fee. So we had to look at kind of an average of what
the number of subdivision lots that are being created under these different types
to be able to get to that salary analysis. But generally speaking, this number, the flat numbers, are
moving about 20% for most of them. I will say the permits are a little more streamlined and straightforward.
So those are seeing a smaller increase overall from what there is now. Like right now,
The reconstruction from damage to the disaster. This is $50 and it's changing to $75. Multi-family
residential, I think, is $25 per dwelling unit. That's changing to $50. So continuing the devil's advocate
question, part three. When I'm asked the question or you're asked the question of why the fees went
up, what is the answer you're going to provide to the petitioner or the public, et cetera?
Why the increase? I mean, that's the why question, as opposed to a 20% salaries or whatever, but is
the answer we're going to demand to the petitioners. I would say that all of these line items are based
on a calculated labor analysis that begins when the petitioner actually submits for the petition or
the permit. That doesn't count all the phone call time asking questions or talking with neighbors in
advance or even
you know, extra work related to some of those outlier cases. This is a labor analysis from the time
of application, averaging amount of staff time that it takes to carry a petition or a permit through
the process. Just one question under permits, ILP, there's multifamily residential. Yes. And I see my
interpretation of that is that
And please correct me if I'm wrong. But like if a triplex goes in, that would be less expensive in terms
of the fee than a two-family residential. So it would be $150. Am I reading that incorrectly? So what
I would say is that some of these, so for instance, a triplex would require additional
Permit review so it might involve a site plan review. I see which is I see. And add on yeah new site
plan is 1400 plus $100 per acre if that development requires landscaping parking. So they're doing the
multiple triplexes. It in multiple starts at three.
Multiple starts at three, yes. We have multifamily three to five and then multifamily five plus or three
to four and then five plus. Okay, that just stood out to me and I didn't understand all the background.
Thank you. So this never offsets the personnel expense and planning regardless of how many permits you
get throughout the year, right?
I would say that of the time we spend on a daily basis, I would say more than half of it is, yes, talking
to the public or answering just inquiries that aren't necessarily permits or petitions yet. Of those,
they may never become anything and we don't charge people to answer that question. Permits cover what
would you say like ballpark of your
personnel expenses. How much does it cover? Are you including insurance costs or not? Yeah. Okay. Because
it would be a lot less. Okay. So year to date so far, just to give you an idea, could we start a new
fee schedule this year? So we've collected as of today, $159,000.
And you want just personnel costs or do you want like office supplies? Just personnel. I did an analysis
the other day, including insurance for stormwater. But my whole point is, I understand the increases
to kind of help offset the costs of kind of increasing the salary for planning. It's really hard for me to
get a sense of where I'm at without seeing the before and after. So my one thing is if there was someone
that is out of compliant, like let's say that we change a zone and they now are at a five foot setback
or they were at five foot setback and now the
the new zone is a 10 foot setback and now they have to go through a variance for a setback. But it was
because of us rezoning it. Is there any type of variance here for something that's like pre-existing
non-conforming? Because I hate kind of just adding extra things when we make changes that put them out
of compliance and then they have to pay the same for folks that want to have a waiver. And I'm just
wondering,
have we ever considered a different type of fee for that? That's a good question. I will say, though,
that it will be hard to base the fee using non-performing status fee. What I mean by that is
So impervious cover is a good example. Setbacks, impervious cover, minimum lot sizes, a lot of things.
Right. So it takes quite a bit of research to determine, you know, was this legal pre-existing non-conforming
or is it just non-conforming? I understand. Which we do. And then to assess the fee upfront, we try
not to make it so that the planners have to expend a lot of
time and energy, but I do understand that point and I think it would be a relief valve for some people.
Especially when it's our actions that then make them non-compliant and just so we don't have that currently
and it hasn't. So I'm just offering that up as like some thought of like as we keep changing the zoning
and different standards, more people might find themselves out of compliance and
if you look at some of these variances costs, they're quite expensive for people on fixed income. So
I think if the county changes things that make them non-compliant, maybe we should consider a fee that's
less for them to get the variance, even though it takes the same amount of time, I understand that,
but it's because of our doing and not what they would wish to do, if that makes sense. To answer your
original question, John, extrapolating
this far, year-to-date costs, we cover 32% of our salary overhead. That's without. Which is another,
so it's really covering 15% probably. Okay, thank you. I also want to note there was a discussion by
staff if we're wanting to take up rezones of communities, we could leave that as a lower fee to
We wanted to line item rezone out of a PUV as a lower fee as a goal of the Planning Commission to reduce
the number of PUDs and get them into buy right zones. That could be something. Of course, if it's authored
by the Planning Commission, there would be no fee. But if we want the petitioner to come to us and do
the work, that could be something that we encourage.
I think that that cleanup on ILPUB probably should start with us, you know? I don't think it's necessary
to change the fee schedule for that then because we initiate it. Okay, yeah. Is there a process to alter
the fee structure when somebody is bringing something forward as a result of a variance?
We can waive the fee. When you take something to the Board of Zoning Appeals, is there a way to waive?
I haven't participated in that forum. Is there a fee waiver in that process as well? So we're talking
Plan Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals, right? And there have been instances where we've tried to waive
fees and we have to stop it by legal. And then there are other times when we've waived fees and it was
successful. And I don't remember the exact. My recollection is that there is another part of the county
code that says you cannot waive fees. Yes. But if somebody comes in and they've applied for something
that they didn't need, you return a fee.
for them. Yes. I think the commissioners if there's they'll waive a building department fee or a planning
fee if there's a natural disaster and people need to get going to do it in those situations. And in
the case of pre-existing income farming and they come in for
something else altogether and are forced to go through the other variances that they might need to get
the property in compliance, how would that fee structure be charged to them or could we waive it as
a body or not? I don't think we can. I mean, we did include on permits the reduced fee, which I think
is at $75.
It's for reconstruction after a natural disaster. We reduced it. It's almost smacked out in the middle
of the page right under permits and ILP for $75. It wasn't $50. I think one of the most important parts
here is these are locked in for 20,
or for five years and whatever we leave as is, is locked in for five years too. So, yeah. Once we get
to other numbers, I can actually tell you more. Do you want like to see a red line in the next? I personally
would. That kind of make a little, it'd make it easier for me as far as a numbers person and seeing
what kind of differences I can do rough math, you know, a thousand dollars, maybe it's a $250, right?
What I ended up doing is we could put the old, the current B schedule in and this one. And I just did
a downline like that. And it was, that's just as easy for me. Okay. I'm more concerned about the rationale
for the increases and the logic behind it. Because that's the answer that you could, or that's a question
you're going to have to answer from the public for why am I paying more? And so I'm more concerned about
our argument on why we're increasing it in the first place in the rationale. Okay. So.
When was the last time it was increased? We did increase it December 1st, 2025. And then before then,
it wasn't since 2012. OK. So what's our next step? Well, what's the next step of this? I think we were
going to continue this to the December admin meeting, and I'll produce a red line version.
Or side-by-side. Side-by-side would be good. Could you come up with a bumper sticker to explain the
rationale and the increase? And I think one of the biggest things is we're locked into it, so we have
to think proactive of what that cost might be five years out with other inflationary costs and what's
that middle ground where we can
go ahead and charge now. So we're not, you know, under recovery. Yeah, exactly. Um, as far as a statement,
I think Mr. Paris is right. I even helped him. Um, I think that's a good way to discuss as much as it
is, uh, increasing salary of planning because the, well, I guess you just brought it up and I wasn't
going to bring it up. It'll bring it up now. I've got a five year window.
and I've got a fixed set of fees right now, why aren't I taking and putting inflation factor in there
with those five years and having an inflationary schedule built based upon a five-year program? Now,
if we're gonna live with what we did in year one and year five, and we're not concerned about inflation,
or if you said 120% on some of these things,
Maybe the 20% has covered that inflationary period over five years, so much each year. I mean, you can
go on and on and on about this, but you're bringing up a point here. I think you're right. If there's
a way for us to consider a fixed increase every five years, so there is some type of metrics to this
whole increase instead of us kind of arbitrarily going through it. I know you guys didn't do that.
me I'm just kind of going to run through and try to get a sense of what the rationale and how much time
and effort but if there is a percentage out there that seems to be safe and we can just fix that every
five years so we can stay with the increase of costs doesn't seem like a ridiculous idea to kind of
try to think out maybe for the next five years you know to that point. Commissioner Thomas has her hand raised.
Julie. Thank you so much. A couple of things. I think unless something changes in terms of the amount
of time that it takes to deal with an item on here, I think all we would have to do is every five years
add up the total percentage increase of cost of living increases or any staff changes and just add that
in after five years and that would be it.
But I do want to reiterate the importance of ensuring that the things that the average homeowner might
need or small lot owner or single family homeowner might need should be priced differently than a commercial
enterprise. A home-based business should always be cheaper than a big box store.
not just for the amount of time, but also for the fairness of it. And it seems like that's what's done
here. I have a specific question about the wireless communication new facility and the co-location.
My question is, what are we really doing with that at this point? Because I know there's a...
a speedy process and pretty much an assured permit. Given the speed that they need to occur, is this
a good permitting process, an amount to pay? Sure. Thanks. Good question. For some of these, and maybe we can
Maybe it would be a good addition to like Asterisk next to them if they need two items on this sheet.
But this one, a new facility will actually be going through first a site plan and then coming back for
a wireless new facility permit. So they will have this site plan B to go over the new compound fenced
in area, the landscaping required, the road that goes up to the
and then they will apply with this fee. But these, I do believe that the state law has been changed
in a way that says that basically you have to really closely address wireless permit fees with actual
costs of labor. You cannot just, in other words, they don't want you to just price it out because
You don't want them in our community or something like that. So it does have to be pretty closely tied
to the labor, which all of these really are. Well, that's good work. Yeah. Yeah, and I think that's
great work. But I guess my point is, because of the rush that the state's requiring, is that still an
accurate number? We can relook at that based on the latest change that just passed. That's a good point. OK.
Thank you. Any other discussion on this before we move on? I'd like a review of the action. The next
step and what's the action. I have a few. Here's some discussion points. The first one may be a shake
of the head for majority. There was a discussion about
adding a fee line for variance, residential variances for pre-existing non-conforming lots that were
made pre-existing non-conforming, having a different assessed possibly lower fee under this one. That
would be a change. And then I'm gonna do a side-by-side with the old fees just right to the side so
you can just quickly cross compare.
I'm going to come up with a statement and rationale for an increase in the second page. And some of
the things that I want to point out to the public will be that we cannot change our fee schedule for
five years based on state code. These fees are all based on a labor analysis utilizing planning salary
increases approved for the beginning of 2027. And also we'll want to continue to discuss whether we want to
in inflation now for five years from now, but typically the way we've done it is use concrete numbers
based on what's approved and in place. And then there was a request to review the wireless communication
facility items here just to make sure that like the latest changes, those fees are still accurate. And
then I'd like to, for now that you guys are bringing this up, maybe
asterisk or pull together permits that might need more than one thing on this fee schedule because if
something looks low, it's probably because they also need something else. I just want to make sure that's
clear for people. That'd be helpful. I think the inflation thing we could maybe just remove currently.
I think Commissioner Thomas had a good point that we could keep this with personnel expenses and as
cost of living comes in.
We can then adjust the numbers. I don't know. I think we should continue the discussion. OK,
that's fine. Because I think it's relevant. It's good work. Yeah. All right. Mr. President. Vice President.
That's true. I'm going to really try to stay my absolute longest, but I'm hoping to, and I don't want
to break quorum. So just, I guess, expressing desire to try to get out here at 730 if possible. If I
have to give up my personal plans, I will. I'll do it. I don't think so. We just have two items left,
one requiring that.
Okay. I showed up. I'm not going to break for me. Thank you for coming. So the next item is in the room
here and the petitions are in the room here. We have a item for one of our letters of credit.
So this is for Westbury North major subdivision. So as everyone knows, we've been working through our
liners of credit and trying to make sure that they comply with the CEO, which includes that 10% annual
adjustment of inflation, or trying to get the projects to get finished up and get accepted into the
inventory as the final step. This one is a little bit different. It was plotted and approved in the
private development, so the end
The end is just, do they meet the construction plans that they work through for? And then they put together
a business association to manage the roads, the sidewalks, the common areas, et cetera, which is in
the packet. So tonight's request is to, they would like to see their final letter of credit release,
which is in the amount of $35,826.02.
They do not have to have any kind of maintenance bond because this is going to remain private. And this
is a subversion that was plotted originally. It was built for this, but 2019 is the start date that
we have here. So we did bring that prior, but it will continue for the discussion about the as-builts.
is one issue with the subdivision, which is there's some areas of the private development sidewalks
that do not meet the cross slope ADA 2%. There is, staff estimates that the total, possibly 171 square
yards of, actually I think it's linear feet of sidewalk that does not meet the cross floods requirement.
It's a 2.2% in some areas up to seven and a half percent to the small area that I'll get your actual
in a little bit. Um, but we're bringing this to you anyways, because the, uh, essentially what we discussed
with the petitioner is that, um, it's a plan commission decision. And because this is remaining private,
the liability would be with the business association. So if someone did get hurt,
and it doesn't meet ADA, it would not be the county's liability for accepting it into the inventory,
for instance, knowing it didn't meet the ADA process. Should it be resolved? We do believe so, but that's
something that they can continue to work on. But this has been something that's been kind of lingering
as one of the last remaining things to get finished up.
So we have also worked with the petitioner on some of the common areas. They were able to successfully
design them with the right size and capacity. Stormwater has signed off. And then they just recently
fixed the paving at the entrance as of just the last morning. It looks good. There's repaving, so there's
not an issue as much at the entranceway.
There was some landscaping omissions when staff originally went out there. I think that there was a
plan or that the developer had, like, used some seed mix, native seed mix, and so that wasn't quite
grown out yet when we last did our inspection, but that's something that if that were to grow up and
mature and stay healthy, it would meet some of the requirements of the landscaping. We did repeat that.
But that was helpful. I want to move to the highway department comment on this. So when I get down to
the ad books, this will also make more sense. But Stormwater stated in February of this year that the
installed infrastructure will appear to match the approved plans. Comparing the as well to the drainage
report, the as well on capacities would capture a hundred year storm event.
a site visit on February 25th, 2026 showed the abandoned soils have been placed in the detention bases
and they had planted. No growth was observed at the time of the visit, but they did sign off on their
steps. Highway Department comments, if I can just kind of summarize these. So the intersection at Arlington
and North Canterbury, they stated there's ongoing complaints. It would be like any other private driveway
and they would
you know, contact the highway department will contact the owner and say there's been a complaint about
the status of your entryway. Can you please resolve it? Can you please fix it? And that would be on
the business association to keep up with the maintenance of that. Um, and like I said, we haven't had
any complaints, obviously in the last week, the complaints that we did know were prior to the repaying
that just occurred a few weeks ago.
Sidewalks not meeting the cross slope. We've had several conversations with planning and highway staff
there. So the Aspilton file since January 2025 show cross slope issues with the sidewalks. But highway
staff did meet with the developer, Mr. Rambo, and his engineer Kitty Stein in the field earlier this
year, discussed the exact same segments of sidewalk that require replacement.
Exact linear feet may require correction from what staff has put out there, because we're just using
the ASVILX and kind of guessing how much linear feet would be needing to be removed and replaced. But
once the engineer provides that information and could replace it, they end up being less than what we're
estimating, but we're not positive. But again, we're just noting that if this project did
If it was required to get accepted into the inventory, it would receive a negative recommendation by
the highway department and its request before the county commissioners accepting into the inventory
development that does not be ADA cross slopes is a liability to the county to not be ADA and we could
lose potential future funding. But since this development is committed to remaining private,
and it would not be a liability to the county or remain a liability to the business association.
And further, if they ever did want to make this public, it would require a new primary plan amendment,
which would come through this body, new construction plans that would have to meet the code in place
at the time to become public. So it would take some steps to become public if that were ever the case.
I want to go ahead and go down to some of the site photos. This is earlier this year. You can kind of
see the sidewalk as it goes up. Nothing extreme. It just follows the profile of the road.
ADA is strict. We acknowledge that, but it's the requirement under federal law. So here was the segments
here that were a little bit off. So this says 0.19%, but then it gets down to negative 4%, for instance.
So that would not be the cross slope this way.
And then over here, you have a 2.2%. So that's over the 2% threshold. So we estimate just like a kind
of an area by which it would have to like recover the cross-slope. So how many panels would essentially
need to be replaced? And then, sorry, this is 4.5% this way.
is the way we care is this way. And then this was seven and a half percent this way. But then this is
25%. So we don't necessarily count this number as the issue. It's not this slope that has to be ADA
compliant. It's this slope, if that makes sense. So if it falls in profile of the road, it can be pretty
steep and still meet the requirements. So this can be the overall just segments
that within those segments, there are problems or issues. And then I would attach the preliminary plans,
which showed sidewalks and grays that would, you know, they're required to meet the ADA cross slopes
in those plans, of course.
So I did want to note, just going back to the site photos, and I might be able to do a street view,
because I didn't get a super big one. But this is the sidewalk. So this is what they're asking, basically,
for us to take in as is and to release their letter for them.
Next steps, if the plan commission did decide to release a letter of credit, this project would be finished
out. We would close out the project and release the money back to the developer. Alternatively, if the
plan commission denies this request, we continue to work with the developer on fixing the cross slope
issues and ask them to come back. We also would need to assess a performance
timeline because their last one, I think, expired last year. So they needed to tell us a new date by
which they would be completed with the project. And we would assess the 10% inflation adjustment to
that with what's left. Does anyone have any questions? Staff discussion or Commission discussion?
Just a question, have staff walk with sidewalks and what's it feel like when you're walking it? I mean,
it's a business development. The requirement of the major subdivision at the time was to do sidewalk.
I think they ended up getting a waiver to just do sidewalk on one side. I wouldn't say it's like the
most well-used sidewalk I've ever been on.
Um, I didn't, you know, have any issues with, you know, you didn't feel like you're a fall off trip.
Um, I really find it difficult when it's close to that 2% to even tell it's when you get to the 10%,
8% that you can really, you know, you can feel it, but I wouldn't say some of these 2%, 4% we might not.
compliance. Are we setting a precedent for future petitioners? This, this had been approved. Yeah,
I got that. I'm just saying, is there, I'm playing a devil's advocate right here. Is there any concern
about precedent setting that we were to take and say, release the funds and close out the project? Could
I ask you a question about that?
Sure. So, um, well, it gets complicated because, you know, it was approved under one set of conditions
and then the conditions change. So that's then this is now. And so then compliance, are they compliant
with what they originally thought or are they compliant with what is required? When was the snapshot
taken? Was it yesterday or today? I would argue it's today.
So I'm playing the advocate here. I just want to... I've read this through this several times now and
seeing with my eyes, they condition the sidewalks and the overall condition of what they've done and
the retention basins look wonderful in my opinion. As long as this is committed to be
a private development, a private road, private sidewalks, I don't think you're setting any precedents.
If we were to accept it into the county's inventory and not request certain ADA compliance modifications
to be made, then I would say then you are setting a dangerous precedent.
So Mr. Schilling, with respect to his comments about tidy versus in the camp in compliance, an issue
or not an issue. Legally, what's the what's the take on that? I mean, I believe it's private, it's private.
And it's not going to be taken into account and so on. That was the answer to the question. Yeah.
I mean, there's two ways I look at this. They're case by case, but then it's also a level of consistency,
fairness. So it makes it really hard for me to grapple with this one. I'll also say I attended the old
Ivy Tech when I was here. So I'm very familiar with the area. And I was actually here.
So original petition that was going to meet a standards and the amendments to take off that sidewalk.
Was that when our open road was gravel? Just curious. No, but there were no sidewalks at all. But I
was kidding. I mean, I guess my my thoughts is, you know, this does serve some connectivity to one building
to the next. There's a big
rope parking, which I would, and I know I want to ask the petitioner, but I don't know if that's appropriate
since this is an admin meeting, but does planning have any idea of kind of what the occupancy of those
spaces are during your sites? I would say not typically pulled outside of certain events.
These are mostly general contractor businesses and they've been going up quick. So I think, but the
businesses are, they're coming and going by vehicle and there may be a lot of people missing. Yeah.
So I don't think the sidewalks traveled that much. So it's a tough one for me. I could almost go either
way. I guess my concern is I understand it's private, but
Also, it's meant for folks with less mobility when we look at ADA standards. And that also compels me
when we look at other things that don't go into compliance and they try to ask for it to move into a
private holding or a private situation where they will maintain it. How do we grapple with all of those?
I'm comfortable with how their planning commission
tends to lead. I might not be able to favor that, just to put my cards on the table. So if others do
favor it, that's great. So just wanted to let folks know, just in case they're wavering and they want
to see this done, there's probably going to be a no vote. And if they want to see it done, they might
want to vote yes for it. That's how close I'm cutting hairs here.
Any other comments? And you're wanting us to take action today for this? There's not a lot of traffic
there. It can be an administrative decision. I think I'm in favor of, I think I buy your argument.
about private and we're not liable. And even though I think it's a slippery slope with the compliance
portion of it and setting a precedent, and I looked at the spacing out there, it's not well-traveled.
So I think we should release. I can't breathe. So was that a motion?
Okay. I don't know what the motion is yet, but I'll try to make something up here. I move that we release,
is the amount 35,826 and a couple pennies, is that it? Yes. 35,826. So I move that we release 35,826
and two cents.
not requiring the sidewalk to meet ADA and accepting the fact that this is a essentially private property
and it would not be something the account would be liable for, I move that we take and release those
phones. Second. It wasn't particular, but it's the point. Should we make a friendly amendment that we
encourage the developer and their business association to
I personally accept that amendment. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to release the funds for SIA-22-8,
which is the Westbury North major subdivision. The amount released would be $35,826.02 with
a note to the developer that we still recommend that the ADA cross slopes be remediated for the as-built
plans. A vote yes is a vote to relieve the fires. Rudy Fields? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Julie Thomas?
Yes. David Henry? Yes. Don and Wright-Randolph? Will you call me last?
David Butch? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Scott Barrett? Yes. John Maregrano? With a very reluctant no.
Class 71. Where are we at on our agenda now? We have one left.
Technically going to be new business, so we will keep it brief because it will be bad. Something cool.
First of all, thank you for doing this, but next thing is I haven't missed most of it. I had a really
good speech worked out. And anyone has any doubts if I had the opportunity to speak, I could have convinced
you business exactly the right decision. I don't really need to be convinced.
We see the same things in other petitions and I want to say no to them. I can't say yes today, but that's,
I almost second his motion just so I could be very, you know, it'd be floppy. I've gotten what I came
for, thank you. I appreciate the development you're doing. You're putting people to work and giving
them a place to work and can I say something about that?
I don't mean to, and we've been here too long already, but when we bought that property, it was probably
the only truly blighted property in Monroe County. The building's been vacant for 10 years. They were
growing up, no maintenance, no utilities, nothing. And we cleaned that all up and restored the buildings
and then built these additional buildings. And I'm real proud of what we did there. Now it's a thriving
place of commerce. It employs a lot of people.
And it's a place for small business to operate, which is extremely hard to find. Thank you. Thank you.
So the last petition won't take but a moment. That's all in field space three.
We did phase one and two a couple of months ago. And actually, Esther, I have a few papers for you to
sign. They're on track for what they're supposed to be doing. But this one, they are just doing the
performance period extensions for one year. So that would make it to December 12, 2027. And then we're
also doing the inflation adjustment for the performance guarantee
So basically they currently have a letter of credit of $58,890.05. We are adding the inflation of $5,889.21.
So we will be asking for them to have a letter of credit of $64,780.46. And I did speak with Don Turner
and his attorney today while we were in email communication. And they do plan to submit this increased
letter of credit.
and be compliant and agree with this amount. So we will be presenting that at the September 17th meeting.
One way to go on that. You give them to be in the meeting. Well, we want them to finish. This is their
last. I'm trying to take it back to September. Now the side note, if they cannot meet their deadline,
We will be also asking, as we did for phase one and two, that we turn it over to legal faculty. I think
we have done well. Thanks. Any other questions from the good of the cause? I just want to make one quick
announcement. So I just want to say thank you to everyone here for your support for the county council
changes that we've had. Really appreciate your help with pushing us through that. And we did.
We have an internal selection for the senior zoning inspector. So our current zoning inspector has been
selected for the senior position and we are able to open up the zoning inspector position. So we'll
get that position out there and hopefully hire as soon as possible. We can start them as soon as December
14th. Are you going to tell us who the senior, does it start with a DM? It's Rachel. It's Rachel. Rachel
Henry. Yes, yes.
this. Okay. Oh, inspector. Yeah. Yeah. It's still right. Okay. So we were excited and they hit the ground
running and appreciate your support. And you already got the variance too of the hiring freeze. We talked
to Kim about that. We're all good on that. Yeah, because they changed something about if you move someone up
that opens and then you don't really need a variance. Okay. Motion to adjourn. So moved. Thank you.
Thank you all. Thank you.