Local Planning Agency - Regular Meeting

summer. There's two boats sunk in the canal right now. [Applause] Call to order the June 5th regular meeting, local planning agency. Could I have a roll call, please? Steve Coats, Sam Concade, Tonwin, James McFersonen, Melissa Ozik, Rob Renie, Jamie Ciphford, Janet Wilson. We all stand for the pledge of allegiance. Ice to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. And could I have a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. Second. All right. All right. Motion carries 8 to zero. And a motion to approve the minutes, please. Some moved. Ready. Second. Motion carries. Nothing. And any public comments not on tonight's agenda. I think she raised her hand. Good evening. My name is Kate Weathers. I'm a resident living near Seab Breeze Park in Port Walton Beach. I'm here to share my opposition to the proposed change of zoning for my neighborhood park located that that's an item on the agenda. He was asking for public comments on any item not on the give you'll get an opportunity. Okay. Thank you. I think he said

he said he said he said not. Okay. Gotcha. I missed. Okay. Number six. Okay. And uh this is ordinance number 2184, an ordinance of the city council of the city of Fort Long Beach, Florida, amending the city's comprehensive plan to amend the future land use map for property describes 35 Memorial Parkway Southwest. More particularly described in the body of the ordinance from recreation to civic, institutional and utility, provide for authority, provide for findings of fact, provide for consistency, provide for severability, and provide for an effective date. And this is a quasi judicial hearing. It's staff initiated. So uh Mr. Gibson, you raise your right hand. Do you swear? Tell the truth. Hold the truth. Tell the truth so you got it. I do. Okay. You're on. Okay. Good evening. Tim Gibson, planning supervisor for the city of Corval Beach. Uh so the background on this one, um on April 22nd, 2025, city council approved ordinance 2180 authorizing the disposition of real property located at 35 Memorial Parkway Southwest to the Monasuri Learning Center of Fort Walton Beach Incorporated. Per Land Development Code section table 2.3.2 two schools um whether it's academic, charter, public or private are not allowed on property zoned uh wreck u but are allowed on property zoned as CF community facilities. Uh currently the property is zoned wreck and has a future land use of wreck. Um additionally on that table it does show that CF zoning is not allowed in the wreck future land use. So in order to get it into a zoning that would allow for the monastery school to be there, we have to change the future land use and the zoning on the property. And that's what the two ordinances before you tonight are. Uh so did staff did initiate the u this request to change the comprehensive plan future land use map uh designation from wreck to CIU civic institutional and utility for the property located at 35 Memorial Parkway Southwest. Um and again we will be doing

a reszoning but I'll brief that more thoroughly um at the next ordinance. Uh so for this one the site is approximately 3.42 acres. Um and currently with the surrounding properties around it um to the east of it is the uh the science center uh that's right there. And that property is um does have the future land use of CIU and the uh CF community facilities which would be the same zoning as this property here that we're proposing there. Uh the rest of the surrounding properties um to it are all um lowdensity residential and zoned as R1 single family residential. Uh with this the staff finding the facts staff does believe that the future land use designation of CIU is compatible with the surrounding area. Uh we do believe that that uh future land use is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and the land development code. um and that this this property is not uh subject um of a or not located within an area of state critical concern. And with that, staff respectfully recommends local planning agency approval to recommend city council adoption of ordinance number 2184 to amend the city's future land use map for the designation at 35 Memorial Parkway Southwest from Wreck to CIU Civic Institutional Utility. Okay, questions. I've got a question. Why normally the applicant is the property owner, but in this case it's the city. Why is that? Uh, this is just kind of following along with what's been done there before. It is a city-owned property that's being disposed of to the monastery school. So, just to kind of get into that there. Um, the city's initiating that process for it. It's the same process that we went through when uh the city disposed of what was the um senior center uh when it turned into the the Fort Science Center. The city initiated that process as well to do that for them there. Okay. So, it hasn't transferred ownership yet. Uh it has

actually transferred ownership to them. Uh is not actually that closing actually. The closing was not Yeah, it's been authorized to do the the disposition of it. I guess it has not closed yet. Sorry. Yes sir. I have a question. Um the science facility will maintain access then through the monitory property. That's correct. So it is on a deed actually for there. There is an access easement um across where that driveway is right now. That's actual deed access easement in there for the science center. Okay. And then our second question um have there been any ordinance changes regarding to the height of the monastery facility due to flood plane concerns for the well so the science foundation has been there for x number of years ordinances change based on um climate change or whatever is going on. So is the new monastery school going to be built under the same provisions as the science facility or No, it would be built under current standards. So does that then bring in height differences or any other uh esoteric features that just the planning agency should be aware of? Right now I don't have any of those details. Um this is just to reszone to change the future languages in there. The actual civil plans have not been submitted. I don't, you know, if they're development just yet for the school development on there. Okay. Uh what I can tell you is when those are developed, um the rule for that is if it is in a regulatory flood zone, uh whatever the base flood elevation for that property is, um per Florida statute, they have to build 1 ft above whatever that is. Um so if the base flood elevation is 8t, then 9t above sea level would be the the b minimum of that will be the bottom of the I'm sorry, the top of the bottom floor. So, the foundation would have to be at least 9 ft. Um, I'm not sure what the actual elevations of the actual land around

there are. Um, I don't believe it would be that significant of an elevation that it would be a problem, but that's just for the structure. They wouldn't have to build up the entire property. Right. Understood. Thank you, Mr. Gibson. Isn't this current currently a baseball diamond? That is correct. And it's not being used. That's correct. So this is one of the fields that when the rec center um how many what 10 11 years ago when the rec the large rec center expansion was done um and then also the rec center is doing they're working on another expansion process with more fields and everything on there. This was the kind of the intent at that point was to take kind of all these little small outline fields and consolidate them at the rec center. Um and so that's been kind of the plan with wreck um to do that. So the monastery school wouldn't want to purchase it if it doesn't go through as a change of zoning. Uh well I mean that would be their decision but ultimately a school would not be allowed per zoning to be there if the if it stays as a as a rec future land use with an REC zoning district zoning designation on it. A school would not be allowed to be there. So that's where I mean for them to be able to utilize it as a monitored school uh it would have to go through um there's several other zoning districts that would allow for school there felt that especially with the science center being the the community facility zoning um with the CIU future land use we felt that was the most compatible to get them into there. That's also the most restrictive one um as far as development wise um that does allow for a school. I believe it's also all the schools in the city limits are the same except for St. Marriers which is obviously on the church but I think every other school own CIU or or just the vast majority of them CF CF the feature lane is map CI happen

that's you guys done a traffic flow estimation like any of that stuff not yet so that's actually part of the development order process um when the monitor school is ready to develop they will have to to create they'll have to go through the the um expedited development order process. Um, and in that process, that's where they'll have to have all the civil site plans that are developed by an engineer. Um, and that will address all the stuff for like the flooding and elevations and all of that kind of stuff in there. Part of that is also that they have to do a traffic assessment um on what are the impacts and how is that mitigated, is it going to be an issue to the roads and all that sort of stuff. That's correct. That that is specifically drafted by an engineer and reviewed by um Daniel Payne, our public works director. I know the condition of that road now and it's got a lot of heavy traffic and if you add a lot more traffic on there, it's going to get even worse. You know, that that road that's up where Liza Jackson is, that's a disaster to kind of come down that road. And if you want the truth coming around by the ballet academy that is even worse onto it. How how schools get put into neighborhoods that or on roads and they're approved with no study for roads first to even consider it. Yes. Well, I mean this is not approving the school necessarily. This is changing the future land use in the zoning that would allow for the school for the school to actually go in there again. and we have to go through that development order process where all of these things are examined um and and figure out okay I have another question because that development won't necessarily come before this board am I wrong that will not so we don't know what the results of any traffic study would be that that's correct typically um with that one it would more than likely be an expedited development order um there's a very few circumstances where it would be considered a major

development uh major development orders actually go to city council for their final approval. Expedited ones are on a staff level approval. Um but that's where we do evaluate every single thing against our land development code and public works uses what's called the engineering standards manual um that they evaluate these things against as well. Um and you know Florida is a by right state and so if it if they meet all the requirements that are in the land development code and the engineering standards manual by right they they have the authority to do development. So, was this property put out to bid? It it Well, it was declared surplus and then it went out to bid for several things and that was the property that was the purchaser that was selected out of that process. There there's an entire process for declaring property surplus and everything. Okay. Tim, what kind of other facilities could go on the current property if it were to stay as as it is with just wreck zone or Yes. Um really I mean that's going to be very restrictive to recreation type activities only. There's a few other type things on there like you know certain utilities and stuff can be in the wreck um and stuff like that but as far as like that nothing real otherwise development would be allowed on there just recreation. In theory the city could put a park in there for like the kids. Is that considered wreck? Uh in theory yes. Okay. However the city wants to sell it. That's that's correct. This has already gone through city council. City council has made the decision that they they have determined that this property is is what's known as surplus, which means the city has decided they don't necessarily have a need for this property anymore. It's gone through that process. They've put it out to bid. They've selected the buyer and they they've already chosen them to do this to move forward. So, city council's already looked at this and said, "Okay, you know, monitor school there. We think that would be a good fit there." And that's why they chose them specifically. Um because when it does go out to bid, they do look at

that as well. It's like not necessarily okay, what's the highest bid, but okay, what are you planning to do with that property and how are you going to handle it on there? Um they actually it was back in 21 actually they entered into a lease with an option to purchase with the city and at that time they exercised their option to purchase the property uh last fall I believe is a or either December or January they exercised their option and uh that's now gone before the council I think twice once to approve of the uh actual signed written agreement that they that they submitted when they exercise their option then they uh to fix an issue with the original surplusing ordinance. It then went through the council again a couple months ago. So, it's recently been in front of the council. Not to reszone the property though and definitely not to design a school. So, that's So, it did not go out for bid. It it went out to some sort of bid back in 2020 or 21 uh prior to that lease without optional purchase being entered into. Am I remember correctly again? This is like four or five years ago. we're talking about there. It was there. I think there was three or four bids on the property um for various uses um and they did select the Montory School out of those and nobody Okay. Am I wrong in feeling that the city council has already decided this is what's going to happen and we've not done a count for traffic for the homes that are on that road or what other traffic congestion and what roads will need to be improved or anything else like that? I have we not put the cart before the horse a little bit or they just city council has already decided that this is what their desire is with this um you know as with any other future land use or zoning change it comes to this board for your recommendation to city council um on what they will obviously the final

decision on that one um but again with all the other stuff with you know road impacts and all that sort of stuff that will be addressed um it's just not at this stage um right now this is simply looking at the future land use, not the actual development or anything else on there. This is really just determining whether or not that CIU future land use is appropriate for that area. Um, honestly, in in reality, um, the fact that it's going to be a monatory school is is I won't say irrelevant, but it's it's not that pertinent to this process because and that's why we um I usually caution you on a lot of things when people are like, "Oh, I'm going to do this specific development on this." We want to reszone it to mixed use. Um, and it's like, okay, well, yes, that's what they're saying they're planning on doing, but that's that's not locking them into there. Anything that is allowable under that that zoning district is allowed to be there. So, it's really important to look at the zoning district and the future land use specifically in there for what all could be allowed in there. um rather than just specifically what that proposal is because theoretically they could they could not develop that property and end up selling it at a future date and not developing a school there. Um then that whoever they would sell it to would be still bound by all the rules and requirements on what would be allowed there for the with the CF zoning. But ours is a recommendation. That's correct. And the council can do whatever they want. That is 100% correct. Okay. Mr. Gibson, how's the how is it currently being used? You said they've been leasing it for several years. That's correct. How has it been used? It it really has not been utilized by them. Um and that's really where it came came back up with they they did get the they they leased it with the option to buy like Mr. Burn said. Um that there was a time frame on there where they had to make that decision to purchase if they were going to do that. Um and that's what initiated this latest contract, this latest thing. Um I I can't tell you

specifically when they're looking to do the development, but they are still planning to move forward with it. Okay. So the zoning again to go back, the zoning is going to match the exact zoning for the science center behind it. That's correct. That those two parcels will be zoned. That is correct. Now again, not not to get too technical and stuff in here. This right now, this ordinance is for the future land use. The next one will be for the zoning, but they do go very handinand obviously. Right. Where's the current parking lot for the science center? Is it that purple on exhibit D? It's between there's a parking lot between that unit, that parcel and the science center and there's also parking beside the science center. So on on Rosemary Lane, there's parking and then on Santa Rosa southwest there there's no access from Rosemary into the actual science center. It does above that road, but there's a fence along that entire area. The science center has um all the parking that is required for their development in there on their property. All of that is self-contained on that property. It's all accessed off of Memorial um down that ement that we talked about. It's a paved ement. We go to the science center once a week. I have a grandson that's three and a half. So, we're there a lot. So, if I'm looking at the satellite map right now and there's that road that goes down that he's calling an easement goes down the west side of the science center and then to the north of the science center. So, all of that is parking for that facility. So, that's not an actual road that is beside the I mean, it's a pave. It's it's like a driveway. It's not an access ement. So they you know for for all rights I mean officially that property with these easements between other parties though they have in in this case the monastery school will own the property but the

science center will always have right to access that property through that area. They can't go out there the monastery school would not be able to go out there and put up a fence and block them from being able to use it. That even requires them to leave it open for them to be able to access that property. Good. Any more questions? Public comments. Public comment. And if you could begin to state your name and your address for the record. Sure. And thanks for letting me have a dry run. Uh my name is Kate Weathers. I live at 241 Coral Drive Southwest. my house actually um empties out into the park and so I just wanted to come this evening and share a little bit with you. Um I'm a resident living near Seab Breeze Park in Fort Walton Beach. I'm here to share my opposition to the proposed change of zoning for my neighborhood park located at 35 Moro Parkway Southwest. I was born here in Fort Walton and when I came back after graduation from Florida State University, I was looking to plant myself in a community and I thought Fort Walton was the best place. I chose my neighborhood in Seabbze because of the spacious land, the active residents, and especially the park behind my house. There is actually a playground. There's picnic tables. It's a beautiful wooded area there. Um, from my neighborhood, from my house, I can hear children playing, hear the sound of birds, including a new nest of ospreys, and I enjoy the shaded breeze from the park. Our neighborhood receives numerous benefits daily from this park. The tall, mature trees provide beauty and shade and a natural habitat for us to enjoy. The trees keep the temperature cooler in our area. The surrounding area can be up to 60 degrees cooler from the trees and under the pavement uh the comparison there can be up to 25 degrees cooler. They also those trees also keep our air cleaner by absorbing about 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per tree each year. And living near a park is proven to have

positive impacts on your stress levels and general mental health. This park adds beauty to our neighborhood, provides a habitat for local plants and animals, and gives all neighbors a place to relax and enjoy green space. It benefits our quality of life. Our world's only getting hotter, busier, and more isolating, and this park is active and in use today. Its land should not be considered for reszoning or for sale. Thank you for your time and consideration. Anybody questions? All right. Well, I guess we need to Do I have a motion? I I would like a motion to deny the change to not allow a school to go in there and to keep it only parks. I'll second. So, the motion is to deny that application. Yes. Okay. Right. city. Correct. Recommended. Yeah. Seconded. [Applause] All right. Well, we don't really even have to do that then if we just don't make a motion. Period. It's considered a denial if y'all make a motion. Okay. Yeah. But we've made the motion. Okay. Okay. So, And Mr. Gibson, will it be explained to city council what some of our concerns with with the U? Yes. Is it denying or the traffic to not change the zoning? And that's a legitimate. So, you vote yes to not change the the correct the zoning or no, you Well, the problem with that is the city is going to sell this property to somebody. Well, in my opinion, they can sell it as long as it stays

recreational use. You know what I mean? I I understand that's the city's prerogative. They can do whatever they want with it. No, I wanted to vote. No, I screwed up. Okay. Doesn't matter. Well, I can't I can't hear. Okay. So, what did you intend to vote? You intend to So, I'm confused. The motion is to deny the application, right? The motion is to deny. Okay, then I'm good. Okay. So, the pass is passed. Yes. Okay. Okay. So motion passes that the motion to deny and the recommendation is to deny the application has not been reszoned. Okay. And I voted it wrong but okay. So you abstain? No, I didn't abstain. I didn't. Okay. But do you do you have a reason as to why? I think you're missing the point. Um, but it's I don't agree with the motions. So, uh, I guess Mr. Z under the floor law, if you don't have an ethical conflict, you do have to vote yes or no. So, then change me. Okay. Den, please. And then you want to change yours? Well, yeah. I want to change mine back then, too. If we're I was confused. I thought when we made this motion that this was going to be to deny it. Yes. I I when I voted on here, it looks like we rerun the vote. Yeah, how about we rerun the vote and yes, let's rerun the vote. Just to clarify, the motion is to recommend city council deny this. So, if you vote yes, you are recommending that city council deny it. If you vote, you want city council to approve it, you would vote no for this vote. Okay, let's do it again. Let's try one more time. All right. So, the motion is carried.

62. Now, if I can, just to clarify, I want to make sure I'm bringing your stuff home. So, we will recommend or pass along if you all recommend denial. Um, I understand um traffic concerns was the big one for that. Um, and I guess what other words would you like me to specifically bring forward to them to address you? So, it seems like we're the city is bringing more industrial into the city, which I get and we're taking away less land and my kids are grown, but just having a place for kids to go play seems to be getting less and less and less in this city. I understand the rec center is growing this way, but that is a centralized location where these little parks are going away very quickly. What you're not understanding though is the city's not going to put any more playground equipment there. They're done with this parcel of property. So, they don't own it. They're not going to own it in the end of the month. Yeah. Or that's fine. But the deal is is that if it still stays a recreational, there's another group of people that could open a beautiful recreational center for kids. Well, and it's not necessarily the problem's not necessarily doing school, but the problem is there's been so much construction that takes place without proper studies of the infrastructure surrounding it, such as the roads. Yes, that's I'd love to see the school there, but I I think we need to do our studies first on infrastructure and especially if we're going to have to repave Memorial Parkway and widen it probably. Is there is there enough movement there or wide enough for school to come in and come out? Because I can tell you those other two schools that I mentioned are absolutely horrible to get out and

people don't park correctly. They back into the lane going in the other direction in front of you and that's what you don't want to see on this area. So is the next I supported the comp. We still need to consider that even though you all denied the future language, we still need to consider and and even though you all will probably end up most likely vote the same way, we still need to have it presented officially for the record. So, all right. Ordinance number 2185. Oh, sorry. That's my concern that it remain a park for use by the local residents. We won't do that. No. And the city's not going to replace that piece of equipment that's there with det. So is 2185 a moot point? Nope. No, we still Okay. Ordinance number 2185. It's ordinance of the city council of the city for Long Beach, Florida provide for authority, provide for finance and fact, provide for property described as 35 Memorial Parkway Southwest. more particularly described by the ordinance to be reszoned to community facility zoning district providing for the amendment of the effective portion of the official zoning map provide for severability and provide for an effective date. Uh Mr. Gibson's already been sworn in and he's presenting on map and staff. Yeah. Before I get into this, I just think to clarify for everyone, these are two separate ordinances. They have to be presented separately typically. I mean, even if it was recommending approval for the change, more than likely you would recommend the zoning of change. Um and so typically it's going to be the same recommendation from the board, but they do have to be heard separately. There's separate criteria for each one um for the zoning versus the future land use. So that's why you do present both of them separately on there. Um I won't go into the background um or the property specifics on there. Um however, I will

go through the staff analysis on this one as section 2.1.5 of the city land development code outlines the criteria that's used to determine the appropriate zoning districts. Uh the first criteria is whether the requested zoning district is consistent with the future land use category according to table 2.1.5. Um and that's where with the future land use if that ordinance is approved to change it to the CIU, the CF zoning would be appropriate for there. Uh however, if that um ordinance is not passed by city council, then the CF would not be an appropriate zoning district on that property. Next is whether or not the requested um the uses within the requested zoning district are compatible with the uses in adjacent zoning districts. Uh proposed zoning district would be compatible with the uses in the adjacent zoning district specifically with the uh to the east with the Emerald Coast Science Center uh with the proposed use of a monastery school. Staff does believe that it would be compatible with the single family residential zoning to the north, south, and west of this property. Third is whether the requested use is substantially more uh intense or less intense than allowable development on adjacent properties. Again, this goes back to this would be exactly the same as what's allowed on the science center. However, would be more intense than the uh single family zoning uh on the rest of the sides of this. And the final criteria is whether the requested use is based on soil types, topography, protection of natural resources, and protection of designated historic areas. And like I said earlier, all of that would be determined through the development order and building permit process for this. Uh, one of the specific things we do look at specifically in this area is that designated historic areas. Um, and this property is not in a designated archaeologically sensitive area. There are many areas in the city that are just because of the history of the area. This is not one of those designated areas by the state. Um and with that staff does find that the proposed zoning district would be consistent with the future land

use zoning category if the previous ordinance is passed. Um staff does find that the uses uh within the requested zoning district are compatible uh and it is not substantially more or less intense than allowable development on adjacent parcels. And with that, staff does respectfully recommend local planning agency approval to recommend city council adoption of ordinance number 2185 to reszone 35 memorial park southwest from wreck to CF community facilities. Mr. Gibson, may I ask a question? Of course. Was the we're of course where the applicant in the city is. Was the Montasur school made aware of what the zoning was at the time that they or period across the board when this property was put out to bid? Yes, that was all part of the process and that's all part of the the um surplus property process. Uh that's actually been out through real city and they handle all of that and that's part of that disclosures to them is that this is what the property is and they do all it's just like any other purchase of property where there's lean searches and all that kind of stuff that's out there. Um, yep. I would say I do believe that the they were under the impression that it would be allowed to be reszoned. Um, which is why they did that. I mean, cuz again, it is like some of y'all mentioned, city council's already said, yes, we'll sell it to them for this uh prop property. So, they kind of assume, I believe, at that point that it would be allowed to be there. So, was it public auction back then? I'm sorry. Was it a public auction? Uh it goes out and bid through the city's um realtor which is realy house. Um I don't know if you want to say auction but it just it just goes out like any other property up for sale. People can place a bid on it and it goes that way. All right. Let me ask you something here just for simplicity sake. As I understand this if somebody was to move to pass this all we would need and then

you could pass it as it is and everybody could vote no. Correct. That'd be even though even the second could go. So So yeah, just to get it on the agenda. So if you Yeah, that would be if if that's simply approve from a yes or no perspective. If you do the recommended motion, which is to approve of the application, then all y'all can someone can make the motion and all y'all can vote no. If that's easier from a yes or no perspective, it doesn't all vote no. Exactly. The second and the second and second would be yeses. No, the second can still vote no. You you can you can even make a motion and vote against your own motion. There's nothing that says you have to vote yes on your own motion. It it does not come through the system like that. It doesn't come give us an option. Well, the second does. I think it you just have to change it. No. I remember we had something like this a couple years ago where they said the second does not have to vote yes. Technically the motion maker a motion too. they can decide they don't like. Okay. I mean, that's up to you guys if you want to do that or not. Okay. That's what I was trying to make it as simple as possible. Just yes or no. And that's but the only way to vote yes or no is for somebody to make a motion. If we don't have a motion though, it's declined. It's considered a denial if if yall decide not to vote. I would strongly recommend we do have pass motion to recommend it either way because that way it's actually sending that clear message. If no motion is taken, it's really not sending that clear message. And if you do want to send that to them, I would recommend passing. I'll recommend either way. I'll make a recommendation to city council to deny this until a proper study has been done for traffic. I don't think you can commit that. Do I? I don't think you can commit the alternative because that's giving them the just telling them the reason we're doing it. It doesn't matter. They're going to do what they want anyway.

Yeah, but then they understand why we denied it. So, a vote yes on this is a vote no on the resoning. Right. All right. Second. All right. Miss Kade second. Oh, okay. No problem. What was the motion again? To deny to deny recommendation until a study a traffic study has done. So a yes is to not to deny to deny to recommend recommend but this just think of it as denial because it's a recommendation anyway. All right. So it has passed. Yes. 6 to2. Okay. All right. And there was one other item I think I asked yall about at time. It would take a motion. Uh but uh I would make the request that we move the September meeting one week later in the month. And Nick, what day would that be? September 11th. September 11th, actually, if y'all don't mind moving it to that day. I'm fine. Do we need So we need to make a motion. I'll make a motion that we move September's meeting from the first week to the second week, which will be September 11th. All right. Second. I won't be here. So I'll still have to thank you. And like any of our normally scheduled meetings, I mean, it may or may not happen. It just depends on whether or not we've got any items to present to you. All right, director reports. I guess I Oh, yeah. I guess we need to vote. Are we voting on here? Oh, yes. I have to add to [Applause] it's catching up. So many bites. Quite a few.

I'll remember to change to add afterwards. Just don't want What are we doing? Wait, this went back on this. Yes, I know. But I I will add to the fact. Um, so we're just voting. Yes. Yes. Okay, that's fine. Good second. Same. I'm confused. Are we voting on changing the date? Correct. Thank you. All right. Director reports, board member reports. Anybody? Anybody? All right. You're return. Thank you. Thank you.