City Council - Regular Meeting

The Anderson City Council to order. We will begin with invocation by Councilwoman Culp, Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilman Dixon.

Councilwoman Harless, would you do that? Absolutely.

Thank you.

Lord, I just want to come before you right now and just thank you for the fact that the weather has cooled off a little bit. Lord, I just want to thank you for the people of Anderson, the hardworking people that make this city go. I just pray, Lord, that you will help give us the wisdom to make the correct decisions on what is presented to us today. Thank you for everything that you've given us, Lord. Without you, nothing is possible. In Jesus' name I pray. Amen. Amen.

United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. I want to welcome everybody here tonight. Thank you for your interest in local government issues. Tonight's schedule has a couple of things on it and dealing with land use and a police merit commission ordinance. So we'll move right on in then to the roll call from the clerks.

Councillor Turner?

Here.

Councillor Harless? Here. Councillor Dixon? Councilor Freeman?

Here.

Councilor Wagner? Here. Councilor Landers? Here. Councilor Culp? Here. Councilor Newman? Here. President Graham?

Here. Thank you very much. Let's move on into approval of the minutes.

Mr. President, I would like to get the minutes approved for the regular meeting June 11, 2026.

I'll second that.

Councilor Turner?

Yes.

Councillor Harless? Yes. Councillor Freeman?

Yes.

Councillor Wagner? Yes. Councillor Landers? Yes. Councillor Culp? Yes. Councillor Newman? Yes. President Graham?

Yes. The minutes have been approved. We'll move on now to an introduction of an ordinance that's had first reading done last month. So we will do that. Tim Styers will speak and explain the ordinance.

Mr. President, I would like to introduce... Ordinance number 9-26 for the second reading.

Second. Ordinance 9-26, an ordinance for a zone map change, rezoning of real estate within the city of Anderson, Indiana.

Thank you. Mr. Steiners.

Mr. President, council members, I'm not going to rehash everything from last month. I'll do a brief summary of this ordinance. Ordinance 9-28 submitted by the Bex Farms LLC, Tyler Hancock and Jeff Lilj, and their attorney, Tom Beeman. All are here tonight. They are seeking to rezone or do a zone map change for almost 22 acres located at the rear or west end of the Beck's Farms property. It's also Best Way Company. This property is located at 1128 West 66th Street. It's also in the 6500 block of South Madison Avenue. One note, we do not have projector tonight, so I cannot put the maps up on the wall. That's why you have the paper maps to refer to. As far as how we got here originally this went before the Planning Commission back in late May The vote by the Planning Commission was there was only seven of nine members there The vote was five to two in favor of recommending approval for this proposed rezoning again rezoning from r2 to i3 The two no votes were cast by, just reading through my notes, David Ikes and Matt House, the City Engineer and the Board of Works Chairman. The concerns that the two of them expressed dealt with buffer yard near the residences to the north, possible drainage issues, and also potential future traffic increasing on Madison Avenue should Bestway expand their operations. Again, the plan commission is a recommending body, so they are recommending approval for this zone map change from R2 to I3. Last month, city council took up this same ordinance. The vote was 7 to 1 on the first reading. This is back on June 11th. The one no vote was Ollie Dixon. Just in summary, R2 allows single-family homes only. I3 is a planned industrial development which permits industrial uses and dwellings, but businesses are not permitted. Looking at your paper maps, looking at the zone map, the one on top, the proposed nearly 22 acres is surrounded by R2 residential, which is on the north, northeast, northwest, and west sides of the property. Property to the east and inside the city limits of Beck's Farms is zoned I3. Land to the south, southeast and southwest is out of the city in Madison County and has a county zoning of conservation residential. In summary, the whole purpose of this proposed requested rezoning from R2 to I1 is to allow the owner and petitioner, Beck's Farms, to prepare the nearly 22 acres for possible future expansion of their current waste disposal company, Bestway. Right now, they're kind of landlocked in with the R2 to the rear. So by going to I3, which is the same as what Beck's Farms is currently zoned, it would open up that acreage to the rear for their future endeavors. In summary, the expansion will permit Bestway to expand their solid waste disposal and recycling services to their clientele in multiple cities. I think we had close to 12 or 13 different cities, towns, and counties that utilize Bestway as their refuse hauler. Certified letters were sent back for the plan commission on May 11th. Legal ad was published on May 15th. Also at your seats, you'll see two emails that were left for you this evening. Those arrived shortly after 1 o'clock. The two emails came from City Engineer Matt House, who is not here this evening, and also a follow-up email from BEX Farms Consulting Engineer Adam DeHart. Those two emails are in front of your microphones. I can summarize the emails if you would like. Basically, Matt is pointing out his position regarding the proposed rezoning. Again, you have the emails in front of you. I'd be happy to go through it as best I can, summarizing his positions. And then we would have the response to those positions by Adam DeHart from the consulting firm. They are here so they can get up and make their own points. But you do have their comments also in black and white in front of you. I'm open to whatever you want me to do as far as the emails go.

Go ahead. Sorry. No, you should go first. No, go ahead. You're probably going to ask the question.

Will you summarize the email on the proposal for Matt?

Okay. And it just so happens the email was directed both to Ollie and to Jennifer. His concerns are as follows. Bestway expanding closer to the existing future residential neighborhoods to the north, preventing expansion of the waste operations closer to the residential areas will be dependent upon verbal commitments from Bestway and dependent upon future boards and commissions denying waste operation expansions towards the neighborhood. Matt goes on to say, I would like for us to have voted no and then asked Bestway to readjust how they were doing the rezoning so that the above aspects of the rezone that I see as a slight risk would be reduced to no risk. Bestway can accomplish everything they stated on the property without rezoning the whole parcel as industrial or I-3. Negative aspects that could potentially happen, according to Matt, are as follows. Waste operations, again, too close to residential potential uses, won't end up happening because of the following. Best way is committing to only expanding certain operations that don't directly involve waste. Bestway isn't going to build as far into the property as they could. Bestway is barely expanding into the property and only wants to rezone because of the difficult buffer requirement on the existing parcel. There are buffer yard requirements that would prevent the waste operations from getting too close and there are IDEM approvals necessary to expand the waste operations and Bestway wouldn't be able to get approval from IDEM to close the residents too close to the residential areas and there are special exceptions required from the Board of Zoning Appeals through staff to obtain approvals as well. In Matt's opinion is that the rezone should not be dependent upon verbal commitments or hopes that future approvals and special exceptions aren't received. There is a very real possibility that a company like this could be sold in the decades ahead to a larger, less locally connected company. There are options out there that Matt goes on to say would probably have voted yes for that don't require verbal commitments and denials from IDEM or other boards to protect the residential areas from the impact of the waste operations, such as splitting the property and only rezoning the southern portion of the area. proposed rezoned property into more of a business zone since the expansion is only going to involve office buildings and vehicle maintenance, which we were told of last month's meeting. Some sort of easement that permanently prevents expansion into the buffer yard along with the recorded documents stating that the rest of the rezoned property won't be anything other than vehicle maintenance or office building. And number four, other options that are equally strong as not having the property directly adjacent to the residential areas rezoned from residential to an industrial zone class. And this is signed Matt House, City Engineer. And then we have a response because the consultant received Matt's comments earlier this morning. So they responded with their email and they are here and they can respond to the comments by Matt.

Okay. Questions? Questions for Mr. Stiers? Anybody? Okay. Tom Beaman?

Good evening, Council. My name is Tom Beaman. I'm the attorney for Best Way and Beck's Farms. And I won't be too redundant from last month, but the basic reason we're here is we need more service maintenance facility at our location. We only have two bays for over 90 vehicles that service all of our contracts in this area, including the Anderson contract. That's not sufficient for us. Additionally, we need more office space for our existing employees. This plan and this project that we're working on does not involve additional employees or additional space involving the transfer station. Okay, I want to make sure you understand what the transfer station is and how that works. The transfer station is a heavily federally regulated entity. And the state of Indiana through IDEM administers those regulations very strictly. So we have a license to operate the existing transfer station as is and nothing more. So if we ever try to expand that, we have to go through the whole licensing process again, which involves a lot of legal work and public hearings. That is not what we're here for. That is not contemplated at this time. What's contemplated is a need for additional facilities to allow us to function as a business with the existing customers we have. There won't be any more traffic generated at all by this project. It'll just make us easier to do the work we need to do. It's a substantial project. We're talking when all is said and done, this property is difficult. It's big, it's over 20 acres, but it's very difficult. There's all kinds of, there's pipelines, there's drainage easements, there's probably going to have to be some relocation of storm drains. It's going to be expensive. It's going to be a five to six million dollar project easily. So this is a big investment. It's a big capital investment that would increase the assessed value of the property substantially, which would obviously be a benefit for everybody in Anderson as far as the tax base goes. The reason we're here... is just one reason, and that is because we need to rezone it in order to have any type of ability to put these facilities on the property. With the current residential zoning, we don't have the ability to do that legally under the city ordinances. The only two ordinances that I can see, after looking at it, that would apply to our case are I-2, I-3. I don't believe any of the other business designations would help us at all. They wouldn't allow us to file special exception. These are buildings accessory to a transport station, and I think I-3, just like the neighboring property, is the proper designation. This particular parcel has no potential as a residential property at all. That would never happen if you've ever gone out there and looked at it. It's rough. Now, the property to the south we also own. However, that used to have basically wetlands, kind of a marshy area, and was filled in with concrete fill from the interstate. That's not buildable area at this point. It's just not practical to move anything over to that area right now. Financially, the whole thing would have to be dug up and started over. So that's not something that could be done. So all we're asking for tonight is a rezone of the property. Adam, our engineer, is here. Austin Masters with Bestways is here. He can answer any questions about the actual transfer station operation. And they can explain... the planning process is going on right now. And we have determined that there's a 300 foot buffer that we'll have to build into the project in addition to other buffering means like mounding and trees. So we're not gonna be able to build, we're not gonna build something right up to the edge of the north end of this property. That's not happening. plan that's not what our plan is going to be but that's not what this council is here to really determine so we're just asking for the rezone so we can proceed forward with the bza and then they can crunch the details on how to plan this project in a way that fits all the residents of the area So I want to turn it over to Adam. Oh, go ahead.

Questions for Mr. Beeman.

Real quick, you have to go to the BCA after us. Can you tell me, I mean, it's probably in here, but can you tell everybody what those special exceptions are that you're going to be asking for with the BCA?

Just development of the two facilities for the service bay and the office space.

Okay. Why do you have to go to the BCA for that?

That's just in the ordinance, but you have to.

I guess along with that, do you understand Matt's like things that he would love to see in this zoning about, you know, best ways committee to only because I think it's fine. I don't have a problem with what you're doing. Like as a council member, I don't have problems rezoning this like in general. But his concern is that one day I'm not going to be here. You're not going to be here. Somebody, you know, Bestway might sell, you know, we're talking 20, 30 years on the road that is not as, you know, good friends to Anderson as they have been. So that's why he's concerned about this.

Yeah, I mean, I think that's part of the whole process is the BZA has to make sure the proper plan is approved, and that's what the owners of the property are – They're stuck with that. They can't change it later without going back again and asking for changes. So once you get that approval and your plan is approved, it's in stone at that point. So whoever owns the property is going to be subject to that.

Like I wrote that down because I know what you meant. Well, I mean, you never know. We don't know, but we do have to plan for the future.

Yeah, you never know, obviously.

Any other questions for Mr. Beaman? Yes, sir. When you say service, what are you talking about? What are you doing in there?

A vehicle service on trucks.

Oil changes?

Yeah, that kind of stuff. Mechanical work.

Where are we putting it? Where are we taking it? What are we doing?

Yeah, they're heavily regulated, so they have to follow all the laws on that. They do a lot of the... Well, there's a lot of lifts and things they work on, too, so... It's pretty complicated machinery, some of it.

Any other questions for Mr. Beaman?

If I could add, answering Jennifer's question about the special exception. They'll be seeking, when the time comes, a special exception similar to what they sought when they first were created. The actual wording of the special exception is for an I-3 planned industrial development. And with that... is a sheet of figure nine requirements, and there are 13 separate requirements. Again, I'll summarize them real quick. Minimum lot area, at least 20 acres, they've got 22. Building setbacks, landscape plan, screen planting plan, parking spaces, number of loading and unloading berths, distance of the loading berths from residential uses, maximum number of principal entrances, must have an acceptable relationship to a major thoroughfare, must be adequate also to carry additional traffic, disposal of liquids and other waste with approval from the State Board of Health, outdoor storage shall be permitted only in the interior rear yard, and then lot coverage, they can go as high as 80% lot coverage by building in hard surface, 20% has to remain green. These would be the Figure 9 requirements that are enforced during this special exception hearing through the Board of Zoning Appeals at one of their monthly meetings.

That's what I wanted to know. Thank you.

Okay. Are there anybody here in the audience that wishes to ask a question? If you do so, please come over to the podium. Give us your name and your address. Anybody in the audience that wants to ask a question?

Okay. I do have one question because you brought it up. So before, even if we pass this, it still has to go to the VCA to get approved, and they could deny it there.

Yeah, they could. And then, I mean, to Mr. Riemann's point, You know, and Matt talks about this in his letter. I mean, what they're asking to do is not complicated. They're just asking to office space. Like, it's not that complicated. But the fact is, is that, you know.

Well, I'd like to have some of that stuff in writing, too, that we're not going to do anything else.

But I do know, like, EDM, you brought that up, would have to approve, like. And again, they are a little bit landlocked in a sense, except for a little bit of this property that butts up to the neighborhood there. That, I mean, looking 50 years down the road, it's not best way anymore. They want to build more of a transfer station. The likelihood of the, because you would have to go to EDM again, BZA, even 50 years down the road with the neighborhood right there, they're probably going to deny that, I would think. Or hope.

Right.

So...

When we sent out the letters, no one sent anything back in that they didn't want anything in there.

Staff-wise, Micah? We did not, I don't think, received any phone calls either.

And that's part of my district, and I've heard from no one either.

It's not a complicated, I mean, like to your point, it's not complicated. It is just Matt's concerns are legitimate for when none of us are here. Yeah.

Call for the question in order. Question's been called.

Councillor Turner.

Yes.

Councillor Harless. Yes. Councillor Freeman.

Yes.

Councillor Wagner. Yes. Councillor Landers.

Yes. Councillor Culp. I'm voting because Bestway has been good to Anderson. So just say please continue to do that. So yes. Councilor Newman?

Yes.

President Graham?

Yes. Ordinance 9-26 has passed its second reading.

Mr. President, I would like to introduce Ordinance 9-26 for the third reading.

Ordinance 9-26, an ordinance for a zone might change rezoning of real estate within the city of Anderson, Indiana.

You need a second on that?

Yes, we do. She's got it.

Oh, you got it?

Okay.

What's that? No, it's fine. So it's been introduced and seconded. Very good.

Okay, anything else to add?

I should have mentioned as I was talking about the Figure 9 requirements, if there are any one of these 13 that they feel like they can't meet or they need to modify, they can always file at the same time the special exception is being heard. They can hear a variance on any of these they want to change or if they're not able to meet, explain why they can't meet those requirements. That also would be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals at the same meeting.

Is Matt on that board? I don't remember. I'm sorry? Is Matt on that board?

He's on the planning commission. I know he's on the planning commission.

No, he's not. He's not on the BTA.

No, it's five-member layman's board.

Okay, okay.

Mr. Beaman, your clients don't have any thought about doing that, do they? In other words, saying they can't meet what's required and ask for a variance?

We're still in the planning process. I can't say one way or the other. But the property's so large, I think we'll be able to meet those requirements. Usually when you have to do that, it's because of the size of it. But this is almost 22 acres.

And it's been pre-existing. We figured out probably the mid-60s.

Yeah.

Okay. Council, do I have any last questions? If not, anybody from the audience, one last try here if you wish to speak. Question's been called.

Councilor Turner?

Yes.

Counselor Harless? Yes. Counselor Freeman?

Yes.

Counselor Wagner? Yes. Counselor Landers? Yes. Counselor Culp? Yes. Counselor Newman? Yes. President Graham?

Yes. Ordinance 9-26 has passed its third reading.

Thank you so much. I appreciate your help.

Mr. President, I would like to introduce Ordinance 11-26 for its first reading. Second.

We have a motion and a second for... Ordinance 11-26, will you give us a reading?

Ordinance 11-26, an ordinance amending ordinances 72-82, 10-84, 52-04, and 1590, Chapter 35.225 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Anderson pertaining to the police merit system for the City of Anderson.

Welcome, Mr. Lannan.

Thank you.

Seems like old days.

Emphasis on old, that's right. Thank you, Mr. President, members of the council. Good evening. I'm here to present 11-26. It has to do with our Police Merit Commission. Give you a little background on that. We've had a Police Merit Commission going back to at least sometime in the 1970s, the best I can figure out. In 1982, the Indiana legislature said, well, if you have a police merit commission, you can keep it. However, there is some language we want you to adopt. And in 1982, the city adopted Ordinance 72-82, which put in verbatim the language which was required by the Indiana General Assembly. Now, in that same statute, the legislature said, you can amend it. But for some reason, they put a period of time where you couldn't amend it until after the year 1984. Well, the city's never amended it in any regards. But recently, our police merit commission decided to take a look at the statute, the 1982 statute, and see if there was cause for there to be some amendments to it, to update it somewhat. And that's what this ordinance does in three particular ways. One's very simple. In the 1982 ordinance adopted by the city, there was a definition of the city. of Anderson, which was tied to a population parameter and said the term city in this ordinance is a city with a population between, I think it was 70,000 and 80,000, something like that. Well, there's really no reason for that to be the case. You just simply say, as we do in this ordinance, by city, we mean the city of Anderson, Madison County, Indiana, a city which has a police department. The second thing, the Second Amendment, which the ordinance does, is that in that 1982 legislation, they said that the members of the commission had to come from certain occupations. For example, you had to have a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist on the commission, a teacher. You had to have a business person and a theologian, somebody who had a degree in theology on the commission. Well, that was fine, except it has made it difficult sometimes to find those particular professions to serve. And so what this does in this ordinance is it removes those requirements. Now, certainly you can have people who are from those professions, and they should be considered, there's no doubt about it. But you don't have to do that. You get rid of that requirement to allow some discretion on the part of the appointments in that regards. And then the final thing is that in the 1982 legislation, it said that you could not have either an active or even a retired member of law enforcement on the commission. That legislation was changed. I don't know what point it was, sometime probably within the last 10 years, where they took out the restriction on not having retired members of law enforcement. So this would allow the commission to have a retired member of law enforcement on the commission. Now, you still cannot have an active member of law enforcement on the commission. So that's what the ordinance does. I know we have Officer Chris Burton who's here. I believe he's the president of the FOP. Yes. And I think he's going to speak in favor of the ordinance. But I'd be glad to answer any other questions you might have.

Any questions for Tim? Thank you, Tim.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Council, my name is Christopher Burton. I serve as the president of the Fraternal Order of Police, Anderson Lodge 48, representing the officers of the Anderson Police Department. I stand before you tonight in support of the proposed amendment to the original ordinance 7282. This amendment... is practical and necessary update to an ordinance that was originally written more than four decades ago. It modernizes outdated language and removes the restrictions that have made it increasingly difficult to identify and appoint qualified individuals to serve on our Police Merit Commission. Most importantly, this amendment allows the city greater flexibility in selecting knowledgeable, experienced, and community-minded individuals who can fairly and effectively serve in this important role. Experience in law enforcement should not automatically disqualify someone from contributing valuable insight and perspective to the commission process. The officers that I represent, which a few are here tonight, are in support of this amendment because we believe it strengthens the long-term effectiveness and stability of the Merit Commission while preserving the fairness, accountability, and professionalism within our department. So I would ask you guys to seriously consider it. So thank you, and I stand for any questions.

Mr. President? Yes, sir. I'd like to applaud you and anybody else that was involved in redoing this. High time it got done, and I applaud everyone.

I appreciate that. It's taken two years. Oh, boy.

Something that doesn't seem that complicated.

Other questions from the council? Any questions from the audience on this ordinance? Question. Question's been called.

Councilor Turner?

Yes.

Councilor Harless? Yes. Councilor Vicks, er, Councilor Freeman? Ouch.

Yes.

Councilor Wagner?

Yes.

Councilor Landers? Yes. Councilor Culp? Absolutely yes. Councilor Newman?

Yes.

President Graham?

Yes. Ordinance 11-26 has passed its first reading.

Mr. President, I would like to introduce Ordinance 11-26 for its second reading.

Second. Ordinance 11-26, an ordinance amending Ordinances 72-82, 10-84, 52-04, and 15-90, Chapter 35.225 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Anderson pertaining to the police merit system for the City of Anderson.

Thank you, Mr. Landon. Anything to add?

No, I just would like to recognize we do have a couple of the retired members of the department here. I'm so glad they're here. They served our city very well.

Michael, how are you? Yes. Welcome to the council. You've probably been here before. He never changed much. Very good.

I have one question. Yes. I know that Pete is here. I know he's on the merit board. Is our police mayor board, is it full? Do you mind coming up and speaking to that? And like talking about who appoints those people and those members?

Thank you for calling me forward. Pete Bittar, 15087 7th Street, Anderson. So as of right now, yes, the board is full. We have five members. Currently, Tammy Wiley is our president. Then we've got with us tonight, we've got Steve and Mike here. We also have Adam Perkey and myself. So there's five people. The issue... that we kind of ran into with why we have this ordinance is that had we not made this change, I would be out, as would Mike and Steve, because of their involvement as police officers and because of my involvement, not as one of the defined career paths that were supposed to be there. Even though I was elected by the rest of the members of the board, that was my position originally.

Can you explain the makeup and how, because it is very different than the Fire Merit Board. So can you explain the difference between, not the difference, but can you explain, not just the makeup, because that's why we're changing it, but who appoints these people? You mentioned that you were voted by the other Merit Board.

Can you explain that? So I believe one or two of us are by the Merit Board. Two by the Merit Board. Two by the Merit Board.

By the Merit, and then commission members, those four kids.

Yeah, the police officers themselves vote for the fifth one. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Any other questions while I'm here?

Any other questions for Pete?

Hi, guys.

Any other questions for the council? Anybody from the audience have anything they wish to ask? Question. Question's been called.

Councillor Turner?

Yes.

Councillor Harless? Yes. Councillor Freeman? Yes. Councillor Wagner? Yes. Councillor Landers? Yes. Councillor Cull? Yes. Councillor Newman? Yes. President Graham?

Yes. Ordinance 11-26 has passed its second reading. So, I don't know. Yes. Yes.

If you don't mind, at the discretion, obviously, of the council, unanimous consent of the council.

Okay, do we have a consent?

Don't we have to suspend the rules?

Yeah, your motion is to suspend the rules to allow third reading.

Mr. President, I would like to recommend suspending the rules to allow for third reading. Second.

Motion is second to suspend the rules. Will the clerk call the roll?

Councilor Turner?

Yes.

Councillor Harless? Yes. Councillor Freeman? Yes. Councillor Wagner? Yes. Councillor Landers? Yes. Councillor Culp? Yes. Councillor Newman? Yes. President Graham?

Yes. The rules are now suspended.

Mr. President, I would like to introduce Ordinance 11-26 for its third and final reading. Second.

Ordinance 11-26, an ordinance amending ordinances 72-82, 10-84, 52-04, and 1590, Chapter 35.225 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Anderson pertaining to the police merit system for the City of Anderson.

Very good. We'll call the roll.

I have nothing else to add unless there are questions.

Yeah. Question.

Councilor Turner? Yes. Councilor Harless? Yes. Councilor Freeman? Yes. Councilor Wagner? Yes. Councilor Landers? Yes. Councilor Culp? Yes. Councilor Newman? Yes. President Graham?

Yes. Ordinance 11-26 has passed this council and awaits the signature of the mayor.

Thank you, Mr. President, members of the council.

Thank you very much. One thing before we adjourn for this evening. Back in March... we opened up our council rules for amendments. And we've not had like an overrushing number of amendment proposals come through. But we do need to, we voted to do that as a council. We need to close, finish that process by bringing proposed amendments back to the body to vote on. So I would like to get that done with the August meeting. So I think we've had plenty of time to think, talk, and go over those things. So Lisa, what is the date two weeks before our next meeting? Do you have a calendar with you?

Two weeks before August?

Two weeks before the August meeting.

It's going to be the 31st.

31st. Okay. Um, I would like to, uh, somebody make a motion that, uh, proposed amendments need to be to Sheila who's handling all of the paperwork by July 31st. Somebody wish to make that.

I make that motion.

Thank you.

It's just Friday the 31st. It's Friday the 31st, not Thursday the 30th. Correct.

whatever two weeks is.

Since Thursday. Okay, so that's the 30th. Yeah, okay. 30th. Just so we're clear, 30th.

Okay. Okay, everybody understand what we're voting on?

Yep.

Go ahead and call the roll.

Councilor Turner? Yes. Councilor Harless? Yes. Councilor Freeman? Yes. Councilor Wagner? Yes. Councilor Landers? Yes. Councilor Cole? Yes. Councilor Newman? Yes. And President Graham?

Yes. Thank you very much. The resolution passes. I hope all of you will take time to go through those. call folks and ask questions because there's, I mean, look, we don't even have the right time for our meetings on the current list of rules. So it is a little archaic. So anyway, with that, anybody have anything else to add?

I do. I can ask you after the meeting.

Okay, I can explain that to you.

Well, we can do it after the meeting.

Okay, that's fine. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir? I move for adjournment. We have a second? Second.