Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Yep. All right. We'll go ahead and call to order our regular meeting here, November 18th, meeting of the Hancock County Area Planning Commission. We ask that you please turn off your cell phones and other electronic devices. Uh our first order of business uh this evening will be the adoption of the previous meeting minutes that were submitted electronically. Did you hit that button? It's not working. Is it on there on your screen?

Do we trust it recording? You don't have to do anything in the back room anymore. Or did you already do that? I already did. Okay. [cough and clears throat]

[laughter]

You think we're good? All right. Okay. So, that first order of business will be the adoption of last month's meeting minutes that were submitted electronically. I think all of you were here, it looks like. So, we have five. We can vote on that. Move to approve. Second. Right.

Then moved and seconded to approve last month's meeting minutes submitted electronically. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Motion carries. Uh this evening we have of our nine members. We have uh five here. We have Mr. Fel, Mr. Holden, myself, Mr. Long, Mr. Hester, and Miss Willard. Uh, absent would be Gary McDaniel, Derek Tol, Renee Oldm, and Scott Waldridge are absent. I'd like to advise you this evening that all testimony is being recorded, taken under oath. Uh, we actually are not we don't have any hearing items this evening, but I'll go ahead and run through all those things. Uh, we if you do come up to speak, uh, we will ask that you face our attorney to my left, be sworn in before speaking. All persons speaking will be asked to give their full name for our record spelling your last name for accurate meeting minutes. Uh Kayla gives a staff report and then the petitioners are given 10 minutes for presentation. That's followed by 10 minutes of remmonstrators. 5 minutes are offered to any government government officials and then 5 minutes for a petitioner's rebuttal. Our attorney gives a two-minut and one minute uh warning with time is expiring. We ask that everybody conduct themselves this evening in a civil manner. If you can't do that, we reserve the right to ask you to leave. This meeting is being recorded and streamed for public viewing. By participating, you acknowledge that your image, voice, and comments may be captured and made publicly available. This meeting has been properly noticed in accordance with Indiana Code 514 1.5. As I mentioned this evening, we don't have any hearing items, so we won't be voting on anything this evening. Uh, but we have six items for discussion. Are we going to uh do the plaque committee?

No. What's up with the plaque committee? Well, normally normally we vote on the plaque committee because they are before we meet again, but I don't think it matters. We had that we have would we do that in January? But do we need to do that this evening? Because they'll meet they'll meet prior to us in January. Yes. So they are all good.

Um no one has submitted any notice of resignation. A couple of the members did let me know right away that they would be willing to serve another year. Um so unless we hear otherwise, um I would say it's safe to reappoint them all for a year if that's what you would like to do. Motion to reappoint. Second. All right. It's been moved.

I've got one question about that. So, do we have in place right now this body what we would have in place in January? Because is this our plan commission in January? Because really the plan commission, the new plan commission that the um appointments for the new year. Maybe uh amend amend my motion. Um motion to endorse the existing slate subject to uh confirmation by the then seated members of this commission in January. All right. It's been moved and seconded to Oh, did that did we get the second? Second.

Okay. It's been moved and seconded to endorse uh the reappointment of the plat committee members appointed by the plan commission uh based on uh our board makeup in January. All those in favor signify by saying I oppose. Same sign. Motion carries.

All right. Thanks for the reminder on that, Byron. Um item number one is election of officers. That's just to uh alert everybody that uh January uh we will have the elections of the three officers for the planning commission. Uh if we have a bit of a mixup, we might want to continue that a month just to let everybody know. But you'd be thinking about uh your desires to hold the chairman, vice chairman, or treasur or um secretary positions. Any questions on that? No. All right. Uh item number two is the UDO update and transition plan discussion. Not too much to add to this today. Um I've been thinking about how to best pro proceed with this. One thought that has crossed my mind is um I've got some additional money um actually in our attorney line item thanks to the council's last um contribution to that line. Um and I was debating if we should try to get uh an additional contract underway for like a transitional uh UDO before the December 8th claims deadline, but I realize that's coming up really really fast. Um, so this is something I would like to explore more with the plan commission and especially our council and commission member. We're not here tonight, so I'll take that up with them outside of this meeting.

And can we maybe see a summary of what the specific direction from the commissioners were in terms of that might be nice to see the minutes or see what the direction was. the direction that I can briefly summarize if that'd be okay. Right.

Um they had mentioned that um there was still some anxiety about certain portions of the UDO um and that they were not under any rush to proceed with the UDO. At this point, there was some interest in adopting a uh UDO structure but with all of our old uh content and then slowly go through the new content and pass it as uh as it was being reviewed. I've looked into the cost of this. Um, our existing consultants would do this for $20,000 uh with the condition that we not pass any new ordinances over the the time period when that is happening.

Yeah. So, the commissioners Yeah. That's that was that was in fact the idea was to just reformat our existing zoning ordinance into the UDO format and then um over some number of months um we would recommend changes to the ordinance from the steering committee so that each item would be uh essentially getting addressed in our normal order of business. Um you I saw you had alerted them to the $20,000 fee. Did you get any feedback from commissioners or the council or anything on proceed, don't proceed? No. Get more proposals or anything like that?

No, not really. Um, I probably need to reach out more. Yeah. Yeah. I know that there was some the the only feedback I got was that there was some hesitation of is GRW the right firm? So, should we get a proposal from somebody else as well just to see kind of make sure that they fully understand what we're wanting to do and before we start maybe have a meeting with commissioners, the consultant, couple people here, make sure that we know what we're exactly what we're doing. So,

it'd be ideal to have a lessons learned from the last round minutes appropriately tagging in the minutes if any steering committee is participating um mapping to our existing and new I I would have extreme pause in re-engaging on the product we received with the same if we haven't been able to take action on that, we're not going to be able to take action very easily on something they propose for another 20,000 thoughts. So perhaps other uh competing bids would be appropriate. Mhm.

And it should be a pretty straightforward thing. Um, in my mind anyways, it seems like it should be, but at the same time, you're taking two very different documents and blowing them into one new format. So, some things aren't going to read quite right. So, we're going to have to have some sort of summary of what are the things that are perfectly aligned and what are the things that aren't. It's probably more complicated than it is in my mind right now. So, we probably ought to talk to a couple different consultants about that before we engage. Something that has come up as I've been thinking about this and how it would really play out is um kind of a reverse approach as well. Um is there content matter that we really would like to pass that we have in draft form in our draft UDO right now that we really need to just go ahead and do an ordinance update in our existing zoning ordinance structure. For example, I I'm getting a lot of emails from the general public that was really excited about the ADU update that is a a use standard. It's more or less trading out like for like um portions of our of our zoning ordinance. Um similarly there's a home occupation section that was um pretty nice and it might be a good time to also just take portions that we know these worked, these were great. Let's see if we can update the ordinance [clears throat] that we already have in place.

Yeah, that's a good point. I think if we do that reformat, those were two things that we're in dire need of an update there. The BCA is tripping up like crazy on the on the UDO or the U ADUs and home occupations. So, we need to get that. It's so outdated. It's not working well at all. So, [laughter] we need to do something with that. So, yeah, I'd be for that those two items because it did it did work nicely in the new format. But yeah, I don't know who is there anybody else that you know beyond GRW that could give us a um simple proposal for that.

I'm not sure about the cost effectiveness of it or the scope exactly, but um HWC was a competitor um in the bid process for the original UDO. Um, and I could ask uh definitely ask Greenfield about their experience with their consultant um in case that was something we wanted to pursue.

Okay. Well, let's uh put that on our to-do list to maybe have some proposals ready for the January meeting and then we can make a decision on how to approach that with the council or the commissioners from there. All right, sounds good.

All right, anything else on UDO and transition plan discussion? All right, then we'll move on to I did have one question. Go ahead. When are we going to see the what's in each category? you know which type of business it goes the use matrix uh I'm happy to provide you with a copy of that in the draft format you mean? Thank you.

Yes, that use matrix that that's a good example of when we do the reformatting it'll it'll be exactly the way it is today and then they'll we'll we'll adopt the new use matrix as one of the things that we do as we're like updating it. What the commissioners were kind of wanting was this new formatted document that takes the subdivision control ordinance and the zoning ordinance and puts it into the UDO format so nothing changes and then they'll adopt the new formatted UDO and then we'll make these changes like the use matrix change the um ADU change and all those types of things in our normal process of ordinance changes. So it'll be a slow process but it'll be more transparent that way. Okay.

That's our idea. So, okay. Quality of place discussion. This can come off of our agenda. Okay. Nothing to discuss there. No, the commissioners endorsed or the proclamation. They had a proclamation on it. Yes. Okay. Uh, surely enter local agreement.

Nothing new there. I would say I'm working with Rhonda on trying to figure out why our most recent update with the town of Shirley didn't show up on American Legal the village overlay. Um I don't know where we went wrong on it. The town of Shirley passed yeah their portion and it didn't make it onto our American legal. So I don't know if there was um some confusion on our part there or if it needs to go to the board of commissioners or what it needs to do here. Um but I've working on that.

Okay. Uh item five is the trail plan update. So, one thing that has been discussed is a um updating the trails plan uh to show a route that's currently along 1050 east to 850 east due to the busyiness of 1050 east between US 40 and eastern Hancock mainly. Uh however um looking through the trails plan map a little bit more in our existing plan documents I am hesitant to open up any plan without thoroughly looking through what processes were set in place. Um there was an extensive resolution at the beginning of our trails plan on when we last updated it in 2018. final map actually shows 1050 east as a preferred route for a multi-use trail, not a shared road. So, it seems like um maybe the Oh, and then the final plan programs and policies in that plan um of course say that as part of the plan, we need to maintain and update maps. Um and we need to review the plan, the trails plan once a year to update it. Um, future Hancock added four routes to the trails plan in 2023. Um, so it's been amended already as part of our thoroughfare plan. Um, so where we're at right now, and I've checked in with Gary P. He this isn't going to prevent signs from going up on 850 East. Um, but I would hate to remove 1050 East as a good route for a multi-use off-road trail uh in favor of um just shared road signage if that's the long-term vision is for us to have a multi-use trail along 1050 East. If we need to put shared road signage up on

850 East in the meantime because it's safer, that's great. And if the highway department's willing to do it, also great. So, let's move forward that way and not open up the plan at this time um for revision without looking at the whole plan. So, that's where I'm at on that. It would be ideal if we had some sort of criteria to do spot updates such as uh maybe there's a new funding source that comes in for maybe it's signage or or maybe there's a Department of Transportation change in in the way that they anticipate. So, it's a it's a trigger for us to take a look at the plan and make those changes and then have a a comprehensive view uh once once a year that I mean both a comprehensive look and then something that triggers us to look at these such as an appro approval when we have PUDS back um of of any changes there that that'll it might be nice to have that as a kind of plan. What is the status of all these signs? They're going up in some locations. Um I'm not sure a fair number of them are up on the committee to discuss this will meet tomorrow actually at thrive has been or the community foundation has been um the lead on this project overseeing its implementation along with county departments. get our update once a quarter.

Okay. Highway department's been handling all signage.

Okay. All right. Any other questions on trail plan update? All right. We can move on. And our last item is power generation facility staff research. We'd asked Kayla and the staff to take a look at the definitions of power generation facilities uh due to some recent looking at potential projects and uh just the fact that we wondered if maybe our definition and our current zoning did not anticipate such large um facilities that are in the marketplace today. So, and it looks like you did that. You got a nice report here.

You want to walk us walk us through?

Yeah, sure. So as I did this as I put together this report uh this looked mainly at natural gas turbine plants and emerging technologies such as um battery sto energy storage systems, hydrogen production, high carbon capture um and also um another thing that came up was in emerging technologies was uh nuclear. Um so before we get into that um land use of course uh comes into play and when we layer uses like this with our particular community's uh situation uh with uh with the land that Hancock County sits on. We have kind of a three layer cake I guess is what you could say. There's the geography. There's the uh socioeconomic demographic situation that Hancock County is experiencing at this point as a growing county uh on the outskirts of Indianapolis. And then there's this land use which is booming across the uh across really the US as data centers experience a boom. Um so we layer these things all on top of each other and kind of see how they shake out in our community. Um in the case of these um commercial power generation facilities, uh natural gas turbine plants come in two forms. There's base load or combined cycle plants um which are what really fuel um everyday base need uh and then there's peaking plants which turn on to um meet high periods of demand. So I I'm definitely learning as I go on this. So, if I mess up, you guys know as much as I do.

Um, the facility acreage sizes occupy 10 to 40 acres producing 10 to 500 megawws. And just to be very clear here too, the these are taking uh natural gas um or methane from big pipelines. So where there are big underground pipelines that cut across the counties and they're powering these gas powered turbines and creating um electricity that goes onto the power lines. So where there are big overhead power lines, it is basically taking that energy and converting it from underground gas to electric in the power lines. I feel like Wendell's probably more knowledgeable than I am on this if I'm messing up. You're doing great.

All right. Cooling obviously is a major part of this as well. Um so u water usage comes up as a concern. Um from what I understand um there's a picture of a large 700 watt combined cycle gas turbine plant here. Um on page one um as we go through this there's also battery energy storage systems or BES uh which are uh once again battery storage to store excess electricity. Frequently when I've heard of these they're paired with solar um to store solar energy in battery form rather than be um basically uh just energy coming and going with the sun. I hope I'm explaining this right. Like I said, uh small small modular reactors are also something that have been discussed a lot uh here in Indiana. Um and uh more on this as we go through here as we were looking at the different um needs of land for the this particular use. Um it's it's really driven a lot by where these gas pipelines are um largely um and then of course where the electric overhead lines are too which is why Blue River Township in this case has seen a lot of interest. We have some really large underground gas that goes uh gas lines that cut uh across Blue River and Jackson Townships. Um but those areas are solidly referred to as agricultural uh both zoning wise and as far as our land use plan goes for um those areas. Um so for that reason uh the

commissioners uh move forward with your request to remove uh these types of commercial power generation facilities as a special exception in the egg zone. That is no more that's been removed. Um and they're very industrial. Yes. Yeah. They're very much industrial type uses. they belong in industrial parks.

Um so unless we have an area that we're willing to reszone to industrial probably IG our heaviest industrial category um this is not something that we would be looking at. Additionally, um there would likely be a height uh variance required and I would still also be concerned if a use like this could meet our industrial standards that's that are in our current ordinance um which basically state that at the um property line, especially near residential areas, you're really not supposed to be able to um smell, see u bright lights, that kind of thing. um this kind of a use. As far as environmental concerns go, um natural gas is uh less toxic than coal, but not as clean as some other um power generating um sources. From what I have seen, at least a thousand foot separation from residential zones is uh ideal or at least a minimum something to put in place. Um and obviously buffering and landscaping is beneficial for screening. We could look at, of course, putting in place a specific power generation facility ordinance to more clearly deal with these kind of uses and put standards in place. Um, as part of our uh solar ordinance, we did look at an overlay district uh that would go in place wherever

utility scale or large scale um uses like this would go in. Um so that would be another kind of format to use here. A decommissioning plan once again much like was used with solar would be beneficial. I'll let you guys read through a fair amount of that. I'm going to go ahead and read that last paragraph that I wrote up on this. Um, while Hancock County has strong infrastructure for hosting a power generation facility, the high population growth now occurring in the county is at odds with the remote industrial areas needed for such development. Residential development would be at odds with the location of a power generation facility in Hancock County unless that facility was in an area envisioned as industrial in the comprehensive plan. Other considerations would be the airport overlay which limits height of structures around the airport and also limits uses that might be detrimental to air traffic. So there just might this might be a difficult location to site um this kind of a use. There are some articles that are um available simply by googling really uh power Indiana government things like that. Um, and I I don't think any of this will be news to you guys or anybody in the county, but um feel free to read these. Um, talks about uh a lead to kind of take a a state control of uh ordinances regarding power plant regulations. um some other changes that uh are funneling more tax credits toward uh natural gas plants um to so that might be one of the

reasons we're seeing them a little bit more um more of these proposals for them. Um, energy planning has become a big thing in Indiana and also on our local news as we have seen uh the um data center boom. Another article that I posted on there was off of a maybe I don't know about I don't know about this website but it was called Neutron Bites. Um and it seemed to have a very um interesting article about Indiana hosting advanced small reactor energy park and that was um the information in it was more or less uh reflected in an Indie Star article a couple days later. So, um, yeah, some very interesting news articles, um, that have been, uh, out and about lately. I've also included a list, uh, in the appendex of, uh, fairly new, uh, power plants. These are all, I think, combined cycle, so they're the big ones. Um, there's a couple others toward the end. Uh, and then I included a local example, the Henry County peak plant. So, once again, this is a peak plant. This pops on to meet high high demand times. Um you guys might know where this is. It's on US sorry State Road 38 uh just east of uh Katis one mile east. Um the address is Newcastle. So it's in Henry County. Um and it produces 182 megawws. believe it was constru it's a little older than the others in this list uh as it dates back to 2001 to 2007 right in that time period. There are a couple images on the next pages so you can see how it looks from the an aerial image um as well as how it looks from state road 38. But we can see how far off of the road

the uh cooling towers are located that it has a substation located in front of it. Um what appears to be some sort of detention or cooling pond. the um and I would say this is a pretty effective distance for the screening which has had you know a good 20 years now to mature um as you go along State Road 38 to see how it has is screening. Um I I believe I have seen this site at night and it gets a little bit bright so their lighting ordinance maybe wasn't in place at the time. Um but that would surely be something that um could be looked into and and we have a a fairly stringent lighting ordinance um in place. All right. So that that's my little memo on power plants and and the state of them in Indiana. Summary I think correctly correctly captures where we are at this point in time. We have new comprehensive plan that we're testing the limits all the time. People are testing that. um we really have an unpredictable population growth. We don't know exactly where they're going. We don't have an ability to track our utilities like the provision to where the population is growing either. And so for us to set a site like this and have a thousand foot setbacks in every direction and just sort of abandon some opportunities and we don't really know the industrial districts either. So I think it's a correct assessment generally. Um not a forever thing but certainly at this point in time given the different pressures that we have. So this I can see you take. The only question I have is how many brown fields do we have in the county?

Very few in the unincorporated county. Um yeah, I know there's one actually near Fortville. It's the one I'm thinking of. Um but it um yeah very very few and they're already kind of crowded that you wouldn't they wouldn't meet setback requis but but it just has to be presented

right yeah I don't think we need to to take any action but this is very helpful understand kind of where we are today. Um, what's interesting is that if one of these was to want to be built, it would require a reszone at this point because they'd need to be by that 30-inch gas line and that's all surrounded by agricultural zoned property. So, all right. Well, thanks for doing that. I appreciate it. Um, any other questions on commercial power generation facilities? None. Seems like the one thing we keep running into if it's a data center takes a ton of water generate energy generation of that takes a ton of water. We don't so much irrigate here but Shelby County and that they irrigate farmers irrigate a lot down there. Just seems like water is going to be the big issue no matter Yeah. Hang on a second. Hang on a second. Do we have any other um comments, questions from the from the board on any of that? You had a couple other things in here. Kayla, did you have some other things you wanted to talk about?

Um more just uh reading material. Um the big one to look at would be um the uh baggie or uh 2025 greater Indianapolis 9ount single family building permits report which I always find an interesting measure. Um this shows across the doughnut counties uh in Indian and Marian County um new single family development and um Hancock County has been uh grow I mean I think we all know it's growing but it is interesting to see just the number of uh new single family homes that are permitted in um unincorporated Hancock County as well as the communities within Fortville uh sorry within Hancock County um including Fortville. Um, so, uh, just something for you guys to take a look at. Uh, Dawn reports our numbers every month. Um, and, uh, it is interesting to see where we are in comparison to the other counties. Um, the other documents are just really showing kind of our endofear planning financials. Um, feel free to take a look and let me know if you have any questions or anything like that. We can talk about that later. Can

we have an opportunity to review the permit fees in the January session? Usually, I think that comes up as an agenda item. Mike Mr. President, we don't do it every year. We did it recently. Uh it's probably good practice to look at it every year because I think we are kind of low, aren't we? Compar comparably comparably.

Some of the fees are and we definitely have seen um our our financials have definitely improved since we last upped them. Um so it's a fine balance of really knowing where we're spending a lot of staff time and where we need to raise them to cover our administrative costs. Um and where we um where we probably have it about right. So anyway, um yeah, we can definitely take a look at that. Uh we will put the uh existing um fees um on our January agenda so we can discuss those.

Most interesting in that would be the ability to take a look at technologies that would allow us to scale with the growth of applications. I know there's been a couple of thoughts on the tech that we're using for permitting, but we just haven't had the fees to cover that. So maybe something to look at in relation to the fees.

Yeah. And actually I can give you a small update on our online permitting platform. um touched base with John Milbour, our GIS um over GIS supervisor um last uh last week actually and we're still waiting on uh rest endp point to be in place so that we actually have new parcels to attach permits to and that is the hangup at this point. But thank you. You really do have legal legal fees left over, don't you? You weren't just making that up. So far so good.

Way to go. [laughter] Congratulations on that. So far so good. But that will all go back to the general fund if we don't need it or more or less uh get a a contract signed to use it somehow some other way. Okay. Um before I think December 8th. So, currently going through and seeing, okay, did we have anything AC throughout the year we didn't quite have enough for or we we need to budget for, get a contract signed for right now before these u encumber those funds before they go back to the general fund. Okay. All right. Is that it? That's it.

Questions? Well, we have time left over. We usually like to stay here till 10:30. So, have some people in the audience. Does anybody have any general comments that they'd like to make this evening? Questions? Come on up. We'll go and swear you in. We can give everybody What do you think, guys? Three minutes of talk time. Come on up to the microphone. Yep. Just this one right here. Yep. Where Kayla was. And right hand, we'll go ahead and get you in for the for the Affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes. Please state your name and spell your last name for the record.

Christopher Bagot. B A G G O TT I just wanted to say as you're doing your um investigation into this power plant business there's a lot of sentiment coming down from the state that we need to lower utility bills and we need more capacity. reality is capacity is only about 25% of our bill and you will not find a single case ever where at least what I found so I'm not perjuring myself the um that utility bills go down because most of our utility bills 75% has to do with the grid and we've got a very bad old grid. Um, so adding more capacity will perhaps lower the overall like regionwide wholesale price of electricity, but normally our individual bills will go up because again it's all about grid costs. Um, so I don't know why the state doesn't know that, but like you can Google this. Do adding capacity lower my bills and you will find out that 75% of our bill is in grid and other costs associated with the grid, not in actual the cost of the energy. So as we're thinking about whether we should do this or not, I feel like we're going to get a lot of pressure from the state to say, oh, we have to add capacity, but that's not the answer. So thank you.

That's interesting to me. So grid and capacity are two different things. So when you say 75% of what the end user is paying for, is that for the maintenance of the grid?

It's for the maintenance. It's for building wires and towers. And you know, we have a very old grid in Indiana. Um this mso um you know, Indiana's grid was built basically to mine coal in Kentucky and southern Indiana, burn it on the Ohio River to make electricity and ship it up to Gary. It's like this old one-way highway. um it it is not built for society the way it is today. Um and and that's kind of the problem. So again, but the basic argument that I have is adding capacity is not going to lower utility bills for consumers and the government's going to come to us and say we need this capacity and they're going to try and bully the county into doing something they don't want to do because you think it's for the greater good. But it's not, you know, and again these are all Google. I'll put together a memo with a bunch of links that I can send to you all.

That'd be neat. Yeah. But, uh, it's, you know, this this will not lower bills. So, is there data that says like how much how much the grid in Hancock County can handle as far as capacity? So, it's interesting because even though they're sort of private, public, like their capacity numbers are not public. Okay. So, we we we should be able to know, but we cannot know, you know, at least from what I've been able to find. Um, okay. what the capacity actually is. So it's interesting.

Yeah, it's it's a it's a broken system. And you know, I think the future of engine energy is going to be decentralization, right? And I think these monopolies, like all monopolies are going to cling to, you know, their antiquated system because they can't pivot. and you know underneath like we talked about small nuclear reactors and

you know I mean containerized nuclear reactors and things like that but there's going to be a day very quickly 10 years that that we will be generating power in our county for our county and we won't be using that grid anymore. Um, obviously that seems to be very threatening to them. But anyway, just so there's a lot of talk about we need this capacity because we need to lower bills. Adding capacity does not lower bills. Yeah, that's what we kind of found when we were deep into the solar discussion was that the the mega farms could generate all this capacity, but it wouldn't benefit right the user right here.

Exactly. No, that's exactly right. And um you know again we don't have the grid for it. I may have a follow-up question. What are the implications for placement of these micro or uh container like any any opinions on what we should be looking at in in terms of our comprehensive and our planning?

I think we're a year or so away from that. Um you know the federal government has drawn a line in the sand to say we're going to power they have this project ple. I don't know if you've heard of this ple. Basically, they have 18 army bases identified. By 2028, they're going to start introducing bas essentially the size of two containers. You can bring them in on trucks and they're going to be powering the army bases with these two container nuclear reactors.

They're buying them commercially. They have two companies identified that are building them. I mean, 2028 is three years from now. Um, so it's going to happen very quickly, but they're not it's not proprietary technology. like if if if the army can buy it, we can buy it. So, you know, I believe that energy is going to go decentralized. And the idea of building these big plants with these massive wires, you know, serving massive regions is is obsolete. And that's the other thing I worry about a plant like this is, you know, by the time it gets built, we don't need it. And then we're stuck with, you know, I think about the Eleno building, you know, right? We got this white elephant out there that we've got to find a use for. And I think, you know, I don't think we're going to be burning gas with 200 foot smoke stacks 10 years from now. So anyway, like I said, I think there's going to be a lot of state pressure. Um, but the facts are that adding capacity does not lower bills.

All right. Yeah. Thank you very much for sharing. Appreciate it. You're welcome. Anything we can do to help? Yeah. And I'll I'll put all this in a memo and send it to you all as well. Okay. Appreciate that. Thank you. Anybody else have anything they'd like to talk about? No. All right. All right, guys. Make sure you're uh if you're up for a reappoint, make sure you contact the person or bodies that do that. Think about serving as an officer next year potentially. Think about all those things in your long holiday break. How about a motion? How about Mike? I've got nothing else. Motion to adjurnn. Second.

Moved and seconded to adjurnn. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Oppos. Same sign. Motion carries. Thank you guys. Have a great holiday. Happy New Year. Thanks.