Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

17th plan commission meeting. Call to order. First order of business is roll call. Basil here. Washurn here. Batia here. Rler here. Peterson here. Mayor here. Okay. Old business is going to be consideration of the November 19th, 2025 meeting minutes. Do I have a motion? I move to accept the minutes. It's fine, Robin. We talked about it. What's it? We have a motion. Oh, yes. I I move to uh accept the minutes of the November 19th. It's 19th.

Thank you. Yeah, that's okay. Yes. the uh the header on the agenda says the 11th, but the uh actual exhibit which is on the face of the agenda says 19th, which is correct. I'll second that. Make a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. Okay. Move on. Second order of business is the recommendation of ordinance 17-2025 amending code and ordinance village of Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin 90-420.10 10 and 90-420.70. Sam, I think we have an old presentation.

Perfect.

So, um, at the November 19th meeting, the commission directed the staff to draft updates to the sidewalk ordinances after kind of discussing them preliminarily. Additionally, the public works committee discussed the need for similar potential updates at November 13th meeting. The primary issue discussed by both committees was the vill's requirement for sidewalks on new development when those sidewalks are not adjacent to existing sidewalks. These ordinance created situations where the village required sidewalks and circumstances where developers installed these sidewalks, but abrupt ends created secondary safety and travel concerns. Previous conversations had at both the plan commission village board when adopting the current ordinances center around the need to start somewhere and that if the village did not require sidewalks for most larger new developments moving forward, then it would likely never build out a sidewalk system. The village is largely dealing with this conversation now due to its relatively recent incorporation compared to comparable older cities and villages throughout southeastern Wisconsin. Urban planning practice has recommended separating pedestrian travel from vehicular travel in suburban contexts since post-war suburbanization accelerated in the 1950s. To moderate the concerns of the committees, the village staff included the following changes to the draft ordinance. Number one, the ordinance clarifies that the regulations of division 90-420 parking and access apply to all new developments, redevelopments, and when changes to structures or uses meet the conditions of 90-430.20 applicability. This cross reference to the landscaping and screening section of the code consolidates when the zoning ordinance requires changes to parking areas and screening areas, which are often interlin. instead of just writing another applicability standard like we like the one in the landscaping and screening which is largely related to parking lots anyways of when we're requiring screening. So we thought those because we're enforcing it at the same time I'm just referring to the same qualifying standards would help us on

the administration side and is a lot more clear for people as well. The second is expanding the existing inlu fee program to apply to urban street crosssections before they only apply to rural crosssections. And after our conversation last month, we want to expand when people could pay uh the inlue fee instead of needing to install a sidewalk. The third is expanding the existing inlaw of fee ordinance to apply to properties further than 1,200 feet away from a connecting sidewalk or multi-use pathway, which is the maximum block length identified within the land division code. So essentially, if you're on an urban street and you're more than a block length away from an existing sidewalk, you may qualify to pay into the inla fee program. And those all together I think will um very much help those land division circumstances where we had a single you know one lot into two lots kind of thing an old farm lot into two or three lots. We see a fair number of those throughout the years. Those people would no longer be required to install sidewalks if they're further than a block length away from an existing sidewalk which has been more or less when the commission has kind of um exempted them or when people have applied for variances uh in those contexts. Anyways, when people are closer, it's a lot more rare that we get people to uh um be mad about the sidewalks because they can see one within a pretty near distance.

Sam, yes. Just real quick, um so in that circumstance of a say a two or three lot subdivision, CSM type subdivision where it's in between lots that there is no sidewalk connectivity and so they would be waved from that requirement. Do they have to still pay the fee?

Yes. Um, so they're separate triggering. The plan commission would still need to wave the requirement as part of the land division um consideration. So as a part of the CSM or the plat um in that circumstance, we'll get into that in a sec. Mostly for CSMS. Um and then separately when they come to pull their building permits, they could qualify for the inla fee. So the village is really two triggers for a sidewalk. It's when you divide land or when you build like or change a use on a property. The inlu fee deals with the the zoning which is building or redeveloping a lot. The commission has had the um ability to wave on the land division side beforehand. So now it'll kind of be similar two-step process just in um they'll qualify for that in le of fee program in those circumstances. Does that answer your question?

Yes. Sam, Mr. Chairman, I I still have some comments on that. Number one, you know, to follow up on Trusty Nancy, if they still have to pay the fee, the whole correct me if I'm wrong, but the intent is that if there's a couple of houses or whatever houses and there's a new subdivision of both side, correct? Um, no. This is just the like smaller lots. There were no sidewalks on either side. Okay. Correct. There there is no

Are you saying that it's a new construction but on the other side there's no sidewalks on both side. So you're talking about these. So then if they have to pay the fee, the whole intent would be then the sidewalk should continue. But if they have the fee that beats the purpose because you still have then sidewalk sidewalk no the other way around. I I think we're talking about different circumstances. Rahm let's why don't I finish my staff report and then we can cover all the circumstances. The reason I'm asking my thought is that the intent is to have the sidewalk continuity but to have a fee in le of that that be a purpose

but we won't allow the fee if there is a connectivity. Yes. Yep. Exactly. Um still need to understand. So then for I'll explain it to you later. Number four is uh reducing the existing inlu of fee ordinance to disqualify any sidewalks or multi-use pathways identified within the comprehensive plan, bicycle and pedestrian plan, a tax incremental district project plan or other applicable plan officially adopted by the village board. So someone can't pay the inla fee if you all have specifically adopted a plan that says sidewalk should be here.

Right. Um, additionally, the village staff recommended the following changes to administrative practices not contained within the code of ordinances. So, this isn't in the draft ordinance you have, but this is something that the staff will kind of move forward with. That's one permitting via development agreement, which is required by the land division ordinance for subdividers to delay the installation of public sidewalks, multi-use pathways, and street trees until the time at which they pull a building permit for the adjacent lot. with the stipulation that they install all required improvements within five years of recording of the final plat or when more than twothirds or 66% of the lots within the land division have pulled a building permit whichever is sooner. If the subdivider does not install the sidewalks, multi-use pathways, and street trees within that time frame, they shall wave the right to contest the village installing those improvements and specially assessing the cost of those improvements on the adjacent property owner. that agreement shall run with the land. So essentially, we're saying, you know, we're going to give you some flexibility. Um, so we're not going to require a sidewalk on the front end. However, there are some subdivisions where someone might buy a lot and sit on it for five or 10 years, whether they want to speculate it or whether their plans fall through or whatever the circumstances may be. We have had some circumstances where then you have just kind of a missing tooth in otherwise a sidewalk network and the neighbors start to complain about that. So, this kind of sets a logical end date that we're going to do it. And if they don't, the village is going to force their hand and charge it back to them. And they'll know that when they purchase the lot. So, it's not going to be a surprise if they read all their documents. It'll be part of the agreement when they purchase the the property. Um, you know, so I think that should cover those circumstances where we have those like small missing gaps uh within subdivisions. I'm just curious as to why you're not

putting that in the code itself because you're leaving that administrative. I looked at it and none of the other general terms of the development agreement in terms of timing for like building permits or other things are really in the ordinance um in the land division ordinance and I thought the village board which has to approve the development agreements may want to amend those time frames on a case-by case basis based on the particular land vision. So if it's like a much larger subdivision that's in phases,

perhaps you want to give them a specific aotment per phase or something like that. Um where if it's a much smaller land division, say it's only five or 10 lots where it requires a plat but it is still on the smaller side, maybe the village board at that time wants to say you have a year to get it in or a shorter time frame. So I think this is kind of setting a standard that we're all nodding our heads and agreeing to. But the individual development agreements will have the final kind of requirement for that timing. Um, but it kind of sets up that process in our boilerplate at least where you can expect it, you'll see it, and if there's modifications, we'll call it out at that time.

All right. Thank you. Um, finally, uh, number two, if a sidewalk stops midblock, the staff shall investigate and recommend a solution to safely end the sidewalk within their staff report to the public works committee, plan commission, or village board as applicable. Potential solutions could include public warning signage, midblock crossings for blocks exceeding the maximum block length, installation at the village's expense using various funding mechanisms, or installation at the request and expense of adjacent property owners. So, after talking it through with staff, you know, we've talked about how do we solve some of these existing ends, and while it seems like kind of a bad answer, we don't have like a one-sizefits-all uh situation here. I think that's really um and you know, Frank can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's really the purview of the public works committee to evaluate each individual right-of-way circumstance as they happen and decide what to do in those specific cases. oftentimes it involves some specific engineering requirements or other curb cut at that time. Kind of similar to how they deal with stop signs or um you know other kind of similar minor improvements to the public right ofway. I don't think there's a onesizefits-all here. Um, and we have plenty of sidewalks that look like they might go into environmental corridors or around wetlands or other things where there might be kind of extra permitting requirements on top of what the village might require. So, we did want to set the standard that when we're reviewing these, we will review those circumstances. say for the next phase of settlement at Hoods Creek, you know, if they're interconnecting areas with sidewalk and without sidewalk, we will address that in our staff report and say, "Here's how we should end these sidewalks, whether it's putting it out in the street, taking it to the block end, and here's how we're going to pay for it," or other

scenarios. So, we're just going to try to address it as each individual circumstance happens. um and hopefully, you know, over time come up with good solutions. [laughter]

Yeah. I mean, as we dove into it, the village is so big, it it's hard to take into account. We have a lot of those deadends. So, we didn't want to say we're always going to like midblock crossing into a street, which might be appropriate on a local street, but if that's on Emerson or Newman or Taylor, which is a county road or something like that, that might not be appropriate to direct people into the public right of way when it's a busier road. So, we're just trying to balance all those circumstances, which ends up with here's how we're going to administratively go through the process and then the public works committee can decide from an engineering perspective what's best in each individual circumstance.

Well, wearing both hats, that seems reasonable. Cool. [laughter]

Um, comprehensive plan. Uh, we are updating our part uh bicycle and pedestrian plan with sewer pack 2026. um we expect that uh to kind of go through the final public um feedback process and formal adoption process. So you'll see that draft as it goes through kind of the comprehensive plan adoption process in 2026. Um that'll identify areas of particular concern where pedestrian improvements are required. There's a lot of accidents at this intersection or you know putting it in here would connect these two points, that kind of thing. So, we're working on that. Should have something to you next year. Um, and all of this addresses the things in land division, zoning, and the strategic plan as we've already discussed. Finally, we don't all of these are designed to not change the overall cost of development. It's just how it's getting paid for. So, again, the ENLA fee program is not supposed to save you money on a sidewalk. It's just supposed to take what you would put into a sidewalk and pay into a fund that puts those improvements where necessary. So people don't get out of it, per se.

Yeah, that's my only sad face is I was hoping that this requirement in a legitimate subdivision that didn't need sidewalks would be excused from that without having to leave the money behind because that still incurs expense that the developer will never use. So I'm I'm you know I I know that's probably a very hard argument for the village per se. I'm I'm probably not speaking as a trustee, but as a person uh that is con connected to the development community, but I was hoping there would be a way to to save that. And

well, I just want to make a comment to that because but you're talking about in the ordinance if you're developing a new subdivision, it is required for sidewalks. You don't there's no in lie of if you're building a new development on a plat. Correct. Yes. only like the minor land divisions would get out of it in this case. So if you're at a subdivision plat, you're you're definitely putting it in unless they go through a much more extensive instead of instead of 120 lot plat, we could do 10 CSM. [laughter] It would take you 50 years to do. But uh um I I do want to

understand my point though. I I was hoping that there would be some relief for those where it's, you know, where I I understand the under the code it's required, but where it's not really reasonable, then I was hoping there would be some Well, I think a lot of this has to do with more like infill projects where you've got, you know, you've got subdivision or on my road, I've got a couple of people who own double lots. Well, they they can sell those lots. Well, it's going to be kind of hard to have them put a sidewalk when we got a ditch. Mhm. It doesn't make sense. Well, you can't. Right. Right. Exactly. Right. You have no room for it.

Yeah. And I totally respect the cost to developers. Um this is a cost they currently have. So it's not like we're if we removed it, we' be relieving them of that cost here. We're just kind of giving them more flexibility. I think the other thing that we want to consider regarding sidewalks is as we build out more of a network across the village, we as that network in the long-term planning starts to interconnect, it becomes truly a transportation network. You could walk from A to B without needing to take a car or things like that. Um or for longer periods of exercise. It interconnects between streets and the trail system. So, while I do respect the argument that a sidewalk might not be necessary in every subdivision, um those monies would go towards building out a wider network of interconnected pedestrian facilities that um in the long run would create that kind of environment. So, it's uh it's kind of like the transportation impact fee that we levy against new development but um dedicated towards pedestrian infrastructure.

Part of the argument is safety, isn't it? I mean, it it's a big part of it. In fact, one of the comments that I would like to make is in regards to new subdivisions when we had 100 foot lots, which were kind of standard around the village 30, 40 years ago, now we've gone down to 45 and 55 foot lots and people don't have places and our setbacks are lessened. So there's no place for people to park their cars. So now they're parking on the streets and now you've got now you've got pedestrians who are have to go out in between park cars on both sides and it's going on like I said out my son lives out in Union Grove and they have a mess out there because of that with 10 inches of snow

with 10 inches of snow besides yeah it it's absolutely horrible to walk. So that's why as we move to smaller and smaller lots in in our village which we're doing because of cost considerations mostly people can't afford the 100 foot lots anymore. It's just to develop them and we need a place to have people and their kids off of the streets. Yeah. Very.

So this this package I think goes a long ways to solving a lot of these problems. It may not solve every individual problem, but at least we'll we've set up a a a process to evaluate those on a more individual basis and made a commitment as staff to bring forward those circumstances. Yeah, I think that's terrific. I [clears throat] think we that's a big I think that's a big step now. Implementation, Sam. As I always say, implementation.

And um I saw Trusty Batia had his hand up. Before that, I just wanted to also let you all know that while you are making a recommendation to the village board, we will also be taking this separately to the public works committee for their feedback in January. Um so that we have buyin from both committee and the plan commission before going to um final ordinance adoption. So, if there's anything we missed or anything that public works wants to add, we would likely bring it back to you um and kind of just work through both committees before it makes it to prime time and village board adoption. So, um what do you want from us today? I think a recommendation to the village board for the ordinance is appropriate at this time. Mr. Chair, anybody else? Any more comments? Yes.

Okay,

Sam. Uh I have two comments. Number one actually three comment. Number one I agree with everything you say about the new construction about the somebody buys a lot and doesn't build it for whatever number of years that makes sense. My what I want to understand is I want to make sure I understand my concern is not for the new development or the you know uh my concern is still if you have a existing homeowners and then you have a new development and you you are abing that are you going to with the new changes are we going to force the people to extract the sidewalk to the next.

No, but we will in when we're evaluating those developments, we will look at all of the options. So that's why we didn't have a good okay like answer

is not about those you know like we talked the last time that whether you grind them or leave them or whatever. You know my concern is the existing homeowner in some cases not in our subdivision but there are some other subdivision that I know where people have been living for 20 30 40 50 years or would they be forced to either put this sidewalk extend that to the next public street or would they be required to pay in le of that my concern is about those existing homeowners who have been living there for many years. This policy doesn't set any specific recommendations to what we would do in every circumstance. It would just be a case-by case scenario. So, and we would prepare a report that the village board and plan commission would get to act on and public works committee uh would get to act on in each individual circumstance. So if it's a hightraic area um where we have data to show those streets are particularly dangerous to pedestrians or that there are you know nearby commercial activities that people could walk to. In those circumstances, I think it is more likely that the staff would recommend you should connect through that sidewalk even if those individual homeowners aren't interested in it. And we would just prepare a report of here's how we could pay for it. You know, depending on the budget at the time, how much in lie of fees we have at the time kind of in the bank. Um if there's potential grant opportunities like safe routes to school grants or other things that go towards those um we would just identify the funding in those reports. there might be circumstances where there's a more remote or um kind of quote unquote rural uh subdivisions where it might make less sense to force their hand at this point in time and simple safety signage or other things might be appropriate more appropriate in those circumstances. So I think

we're just going to do a case by case basis. It'll ultimately be up to the public works. Um, and if we are looking at specially assessing or paying for anything, I think the board will just have to act on what they want to do at that time.

Okay. And I agree with that and I'm glad to hear that. My second question is [clears throat] in your paragraph uh one if the community development director or public works director goes on uh agree that property meet the following condition the village may accept a payment in lie of sidewalk and the village shall set the payment aside. So again I go back to if the intent is to have the sidewalk then how does it fulfill that intent or purpose if you just say okay we are not going to build it but give us your money we would it gets set aside in a specific fund

I'm putting in a very crude way that you know the purpose is to build the sidewalk but if it doesn't then we'll take your funds and put them in I to me the purpose is not that and so what am I missing?

I think it's just similar to many of the impact fees that we have where if you pay a park impact fee when you build your house, those are on our books. You might not get a park next to your house, but that money will go towards a park improvement. We try to spend those funds close to where the developments are happening if at all possible, but they definitely have to be spent within the village within a specific amount of time. So, we view the inlu fee as a similar thing where yes, you're way out on Kraut Road, it may not make sense for you to have a sidewalk here when you're building your new house. But if you're going to Kohl's and walking somewhere, you know, else from Kohl's to a friend's house or something like that, maybe that money went to improve a pedestrian crossing in that neighborhood. So, if there's kind of a priorities list of how we like to spend those funds and it's is it nearby who paid the fund and if not is it by another area that we've identified in an adopted plan like our bicycle and pedestrian plan where those improvements would benefit the village as a whole and um people would theoretically, you know, be less mad about paying an impact fee because they could use that pedestrian improvement. maybe not next to their house but in a different part of the village that they or their children or someone else might visit

when they pay that money and let's say down the road 101 15 years down the road we decide that oh we want to run a sidewalk now down that person's street is that is that part of a deed that they would be because they've paid their they've paid for their sidewalk at that point in time they should not be reassessed for a sidewalk

that's a great point um and I think we can include that language in there that paying it in lie of fee would by village ordinance exempt them from a future special assessment because we should not be double dipping. I I agree. There might be opportunities in the long run where a sidewalk may be rebuilt and in those circumstances the property owner could be reassessed for the the rebuilt sidewalk 50 years. You know, sidewalks last a long time, 50, 100 years from now. But that is different. They shouldn't be charged, I think, to your point, to the primary installation because they paid that in a fee. So, we can include that amendment in the final ordinance. I would recommend that. Yeah.

Yeah, that's a good idea. Definitely.

So, to the chair, uh, to Sam again. So, your example of Kraut Road brings to mind the whole conversation over sidewalks in front of homes that are on our roadways that have open ditch and no curb and gutter. Why would we even want to charge for that in lie of fee? Because there's no way to put sidewalks in front of those houses. I mean, that to me should be an exemption. They shouldn't have to be charged the fee either because there's there is an open ditch cross-section. So, they couldn't have a sidewalk in the public right away to begin with.

I disagree because I think we are in that circumstance. you're viewing a sidewalk as only valuable if it is in front of your house, but people visit other areas of the village where that money might go towards other improvements where it is valuable. So there are circumstances where again shopping centers, schools, other things where I think that money would provide value to those residents. Um and it like an impact fee, you might not live next to a park, but that money goes towards parks in the village. So, I think it's just kind of just because you're out in the country doesn't might mean you might never use a sidewalk. I don't think you we should double dip to Joe's point and double charge them. But,

well, this is actually the this is one of the the reasons why I said what I did is because Kraut Road may someday get curb and gutter. I was just going to talk about that because if it does, it's going to have a whole slew of special assessments against, right? But that lot but that lot owner then they'll have room for the sidewalk and and there will be you know lot owner the lot owner will not be assessed for his portion of the sidewalk their their portion of the sidewalk because it's going to be deeded into into the ordinance. We'll have it built in there so that if they do they're going to pay for the curb and gutter in many cases storm sewer

and the storm sewer and then they won't have to pay for the sidewalk because they've already paid that those who built new homes. Okay,

I just my last comment would be I know that I brought that to your attention and to public works committee because of you know I heard from the resident but it raises so now we are looking at so many questions and concern are making these ordinances changes in hindsight the ordinance that we passed few years ago that all the new development would have would have a sidewalk and we ended Why don't we just leave it as it is? Life was good. So why why are we creating all these open-ended question? It could be for the new development, could be for this. I mean to me I wish I wish we hadn't started the conversation because when we pass that all new development have the sidewalk. It it's working.

It it is more black and white. However, I should point out that this committee does not see the variances that go to the board of appeals and we've had multiple variances for people that the board of appeals has approved where they are not requiring sidewalk and frankly from my perspective the board of appeals shouldn't have approved of those variances. It was purely a cost consideration which is not something that they should normally consider. But the board of appeals is very nice to property owners sometimes and so they exempt them from sidewalks. So this is trying to capture a really good example is Rybar out near the interstate did an improvement five years ago when they expanded some truck parking. Our ordinance required sidewalks and they got a variance for it from those sidewalks which was probably a thousand linear feet of sidewalk across. It was a corner property so it was a fair amount. The DOT would have let them put in sidewalks in that case. The DOT doesn't really care if they're sidewalks as long as they're engineered correctly. Um, Rybar just didn't want to pay for them because they're on a rural cross-section. They didn't think they were needed. So, the board of appeals exempted them from needing to put it in. Not to pick on Rybar, but they could have afforded it um and to put in those sidewalks. So by paying an inlu of fee at least the village would have captured that money that and put that towards pedestrian improvements elsewhere which I think you know instead of just oneoff picking and choosing which developers don't need it at least this sets up a more intentional um fair process to all property owners of when like sidewalks and pedestrian improvements are required. You're either going to get one in front of your house or you're going to pay for it and it's going to go to a place that the village board has said pedestrian improvements are important elsewhere.

I like it because it takes away that preferential treatment potential as in right and you all don't see those variances uh because the board of appeals is a citizen body that can't have any trustees sit on it. So it is pretty exempt from your whole process. Mr. chairman every time I say it's my last comment but that's your response [laughter] it's a excellent discussion so now what I'm hearing is because of the variances is coming back and like you said it was good so we are opening a can of worms so why don't we we fix that you should not go to the board of appeal for the variances and just leave it as it is so so yeah but they have the right to

fix that problem we are creating more concerns here

I think that the issue with that problem is we can't prohibit every type of variance. We can limit them in some very specific ways. Um for instance, we limit use variances or other types of things, but we can't ban every type of variance. State statute requires it. So if we keep the ordinances as is, they could just apply for variances. We'll take their 500 bucks, but they might be out like in the Rybar example, thousand feet of linear sidewalk. So I think this process while it is slightly more confusing has actually worked pretty well. The inlue of fee we've just had a few circumstances come up recently where the inl fee might have been more valuable than the actual sidewalk and the commission pointed that out. So I think these changes fix that.

Mr. chairman. I I think that um I don't think on I just want to add Sam's comparison to impact fees is really a good one because the thing about having everybody be charged. So it's not arbitrary. So if everybody has to deal with this in one way or another, you're not putting preference for one property versus another. Like we're basically saying that everybody has the same responsibility but that for this one are different. So it's not like they get a discount or we're subsidizing it. But how it

Frank you have something? No, I was just Oh, you were point Okay. Yeah. Nancy, you want more one more comment?

Yeah. I I think this has been a very interesting discussion and I think though that where we've brought the code change to is exactly what we wanted to do and that is to have the discussion but also to be able to create a vehicle so that in those areas where a new subdivision or land division sidewalks did not make sense, we had a way in the code to treat it and to handle it and to charge fees or make a determination. So, having said that, I'm going to make a motion to recommend ordinance 17-2025 amending the code of ordinance for the village of Wisconsin or Mount Pleasant um ordinance 90-420.10 and 90-420.70 to the board of trustees.

Second. Okay, we got a motion and a second. Any other comments? If not, I'll call the roll call I mean vote, please. All in favor? I I opposed passes unanimous. Good discussion. Very good.

All right. Next on the agenda, recommendation of ordinance 19-2025 amending code of ordinances village of Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin 90-110.70 and 90-560.30 30 and creating 90-110.75 lot and building regulations for twin house and townhouse buildings. Robin. [cough and clears throat] Okay. Okay. Yeah, this is on. All right. Hello uh everyone. Welcome and especially welcome to our our new board chair member. Sorry. plan commission member. That would be the thing. We had a new chair recently, but that we've already done. So, uh, just to recap, um, in 2020, June 2025, village board updated the residential lot and building regulations. Um, since adoption, we've monitored pre-development meetings and, um, to identify any unintended effects. So, two, um, warranted discussion. One was the lat widths for twin and town home units. Um the 2020 code had specialized um lot and width requirements for the types of different housing, but that made it a little bit more confusing as it segmented the code. Instead of having one table, you had four. Um and so when merging them together, uh we we got to a place we wanted. It's much more simplified table, but we overlooked that those dimensions needed to be accommodated for. So last month we asked you guys what your opinion was on it um and and sourced that feedback. The second issue was that there was some overlap between dimensional standards and density requirements. Meaning that we had a density minimum set up, but

given the um given the overall maximum lot area, it was very very difficult for a development to hit that density like it would go way over that density minimum in order to get the number of units. for example, a 20 unit building and an RM2. Um, the max was 1 acre and so that would have left at a 20 units per acre density, but the RM2 density was much lower than that. It was nine. So, we kind of reconfigured it a little bit to accommodate those ideal densities. So, what did we actually do? Um, so the suggestion on in front of you wasn't exactly it was kind of a I'll go through the process just a little bit. We had a couple of ones where we're going to make the numbers bigger and smaller to accommodate it or to give the plan commission more latitude in approving exceptions. And no matter what iteration I did, there kept on coming up problems because um the lot sizes and dimensions for town homes are very small and we didn't want those to also apply to single family detached units. So it just became a hassle and I found a a solution I think that you guys would like. So first we added maximum density ranges to the the table. Um this basically sets an overall density cap on that particular um development and it also gives a threshold for you guys where there's exceptions to be asked an up and down value of is this within that threshold and we'll get to all of those in a little bit. I have um PowerPoint presentation that kind of shows what those densities are. Um the solution was

to basically consider the town homes or attached twin homes as one one building site and if that building site meets the dimensional standards that we have in those zones then it qualifies and then they can split lots based on on that. Um, for example, like a a six unit town home, so six in a row, six and attached. Um, that's allowed in the RN district. So, if you were to take that site that has all six, if you basically apply the building lot and width standards to that sixunit building and then that qualifies, then it moves on. This does two things. It doesn't mess up the table for when considering more common um buildings such as duplexes and single family homes. Um and it doesn't kind of allow for a 30- foot wide lot for a single family home in an established neighborhood. Um so the the next one um the third one was basically is to and as Sam mentioned earlier one of the things we can limit variances on is use variances. So we specifically limit the use of variances for density and de facto reszoning. um where it says that if you're asking for a variance that could be achieved via a reszoning that's allowed by the comp plan, you cannot have that variance because the proper way is to go through the plan commission through the village board to make a legislative decision. Um we don't want the board of appeals to be an endound village board approval. Um, and that that is a very specific setup where, you know, you could get to it this way, but we don't want, you

know, developers kind of picking and choosing which path they want to go on. Um, so that's why we put that there. Okay. So, this this table's in your packet, but um and it's it's a little bit small on these screens, but this is the new table as as um as amended. Um, and it has under the um I guess there's two twos now. That's not good. We'll have to amend that. But it says maximum lot width and feet um as well as minimum units per net acre and then maximum units per net acre. We set that at re as two because the minimum size of an RE lot is half an acre. um eight for RL, which is probably, you know, 40 foot lots with some duplexes. Um 16 for RN and then 30 for RM. So that would be a um maximum of 30 units breaker. So that would be a basically anywhere between a 20 to 30 unit building. That's kind of where we're at over here on Tibulli Green. And I'll show you where those targets are with some developments that are here already. Yes, Joe.

Quick question regards to re when minimum units per net acre you have 0.1. What is Yeah. So 0.1 is so the the re maximum lot size is 10 acres. I mean these are for big big parcels with big houses. Yeah. So if their maximum lot size can be 10 acres. So that's one house per 10 acres. So that's a 0.1. The density is 0.1 housing units per acre. Do you get it? Well, well, one one divided by 10. You have to have one housing. I don't understand that why you have to go to a 0.1. I don't understand that.

I mean, so we're if they have a lot that's 10 acres and and they apply like they we've done this before. There's a there's a parcel that's 10 acres. The RL specifies that you need to have one house per acre. And if they have a parcel that's 10, we we say you can't do that. You have to subdivide this. Um, and because we have called for a higher density here. And so they have to subdivide it into a a subdivision. This is very important when we have these big parcels that have major connection roads and points through it. So someone can't just plop one house where we have a road going through or subdivision. Um 0.1 just basically says that that can happen there. It could be one house every 10 acres.

Yeah. I mean you can't have 0.1 house but if you do have happen to have a 10 acre lot that that's that minimum does not forbid it. It's correct by the way is defined. You know it's kind of Yeah. What is it? But but like you said, it's a 10 acre, one over 10. But but I I see Joe's point when you look at it makes no sense.

Yeah, it it it's it's weird. All of those things do round up to the nearest whole whole number when it matters, but it's it wouldn't matter until a property was um over 10 acres, which that zoning classification doesn't allow. So, measurement consistent. Yeah, but it almost sounds like you could put 10 buildings on there. That's why I'm That's what I'm asking.

Oh, yeah. That's that's flip that's mixing up the numerator and denominator. Like, so this is housing units per acre and you're thinking about like number of houses on an acre. It's semantics, I suppose, but we understand it and that's how we convey it to people. And because this is actually our attorney has said that this is a particularly strong legislative position for being able to enforce these kinds of densities, that's why we're leaning into it. That was another thing that I was going to say. There's a bunch of housing bills being currently proposed and like very very likely to pass the leg legislature. They have bipartisan support yada yada yada. One of those is clarifying that comp plans set density standards. So like bands of density. So you guys know us, we're always ahead of the game. So we're already like setting forth something that meets those um before it even comes out. So I thought that was pretty good,

Robin. And again, I I agree. I don't have any problem. But would it make more sense instead of putting minimum unit per acre if it was minimum units per lot? Uh no because the the lots are it's corresponds lots can be any size that can be very variable and acre is always the same. So you want to tie it to something that's consistent. Yeah. An acre is typically how we calculate density. I'm okay with that, but I'm just

remember just it's it's a chain times a furlong. Real easy. 66 by 660 if you wanted to know. That's how it helps me. I'm a nerd. Okay, so that is a big old chart. And then here is the specifics on how the the sort of the building site rule works for town homes and twin homes. This is also important because we have a large subdivision that has a bunch of town homes that has submitted for next month's consideration. Um, that was perfectly legal before we changed the code. Um, so this is kind of a fix to to get back to where we were. So this is um the PowerPoint to give just basic housing density um like a barometer. Um so this is an RL subdivision on the larger end. Um some of you guys might be familiar with it. It got a little bit distorted, but this is uh Hoods Creek subdivision. Most of those lots are over a third of an acre, sometimes up to a half. So that those are the larger end of RL lots. They are approaching 120 ft a lot of the times. Um RL mid-range. So this is Mount Vernon neighborhood. I know somebody who lives there.

Uh I'm not calling you out by name.

Um so there's a 100 foot lots exactly about a quarter acre. So this would all of these would have been in our old RL 100 or sorry R100 zoning classification. So this is the middle of the RL zoning range. Um this is sort of a street level view. Again this is kind of distorted but it shows you how that lays out. It's about four units an acre. So a half. So each each house being a quarter acre. So, here is where you like get to the RLRN, a denser range. Um, so these are 60 foot lots with some duplexes. Um, and this could be on the lower end of an RN designation or on the upper end of an RL designation depending on how many duplexes show up. So, this is the Warwick Way neighborhood. Um, it does have a lot of 60 foot lots and some duplexes, so it's a little bit north of, um, it's probably around six units an acre. Um, this is I want to give a shout out to the city of Al Albuquerquey's visualizing density guide. So, this is like pretty much one of the best examples I can give you. I can't create all of this by myself. So, it basically gives you a, you know, a schematic view, an overhead view, and a view from the neighborhood. It's fantastic. I highly recommend it. Um, these are examples of basically a single family housing. Um, densities, it's anywhere between four to six units, dwelling units an acre. So, then we go to our end zoning, which is 40 foot lots for single family. Um, an example would be the Lake Park neighborhood. Um, down there by the lake, all of those are exactly, well, I

mean, there's some oddities as far as where the lot lines get drawn, but they're supposed to be 40 ft wide lots. Um, those end up about a tenth of an acre. Um, this is examples of duplex zoning. So, duplex units, how they pop up. you don't necessarily get very often a um a development that is exclusively duplexes. Um and we made that possible in our zoning code so that you they could be sprinkled in um and that's how that works. So uh this is this is basically RN zoning for small lot single family and then one to six units. It gets between six to 16 units an acre. Um example of which is Pike River Crossing on the left. Um, and the housing that you see on the right as far as how many units are in each each building, um, those you still have basically owner occupied. Each one is on its own lot, but you're getting into like town homes and twin homes. Um, [snorts] and this has been where we created the RN zoning district for this particular thing that it limited. It does not allow the large buildings that are in with a 20 unit buildings and all that sort of stuff, but it does allow kind of a denser neighborhood. This has been doing great. Um, and I mean the the sticker price of one of the new twin home units of 325. I I can't I can't find something a new build at that. That's pretty much the best value that I've seen on the market. Um, and I'm astonished that they hit it. So that's that's why we did this is to be able to provide that like does it have all the bells and whistles? Probably not. But does everybody need all the bells and whistles? Also probably not. Um this is the sort of the Albuquerque example of the townhouse

zoning. So three or more dwelling units attached to each other and how they interact. One thing about the the Albuquerque overheads is you never have like that many trees in the way. So you can clearly see the layout of the subdivisions all the time. Um RM zoning um 20 to 26 unit buildings but a twotory limit. Um so this is about 14 units an acre and an example over here is Tivoli green. Um, so that is for these larger apartment buildings that don't go right now the limit is between two and three stories. Um, and then the maximum for that would be 30 units an acre. So that would only be hit on a three-story building, I think. So this is the um RM density zoning from the Albuquerque guide. you see their multif family depiction is really spot-on for how these buildings will typically look um and how they're laid out in a neighborhood. And they're at 15 and 18 dwelling units an acre. And I'm almost done. And so these are from the RM to RH zoning density. So you have 25 to 30 units an acre for those kinds of buildings. And then on the far right you have basically the equivalent of 110 dwelling units an acre. That would be square in the RH zoning which we haven't given out like that level of an R8 zoning yet and we don't really have many applications for it at all because we still have green field development. It's very expensive to go over a certain height. Um you know all the fire regulations kick in after three floors and then you have to build with steel after five or something like that. All right, that is that that is a big long

explanation. Um, but I heard from a lot of you guys that you wanted some some pictures and illustrations of the different bands of zoning that I was talking about. So, any questions? I don't really have any on this. Bet you go. Yeah, I I like the way this presents itself and I, as I said before, I think it's much easier to interpret. Yeah. I mean, less, you know, less uh ex, you know, less uh charts and so forth there. It's all in one.

Yeah. You can get a feel for how like the neighborhood is kind of supposed to to look and each each zone has a particular like style, you know, where to see and a feel for it so that when approving reszones or developments, you you know where it's supposed to be. It's like, okay, this is the min, this is the max, and it's supposed to kind of look generally like this. And um it's hard to nail that down. The old ways was to basically prescribe exactly what type of house was built. That the lot is exactly this big. The house looks exactly like this and has this many units. We're seeing a desire for more flexibility and we're providing that. So,

there we go. Any questions? Nobody. Okay, looks good. So, looking for a motion then. So, chairman, mayor, I will make a motion to recommend to the village board ordinance number 19-2025 amending the code of ordinances in the village of Mount Pleasant 90-110.70 and 90-560.30 30 and creating 90-110.75 lot and building regulations for twin homes and townhouse buildings. Second. We got a motion and a second. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries.

All right. Okay. So, I'm going to to remain up here and I'm sorry, but you're going to get some more tables. But I also got pictures that was uh something recently I put in. So first I'm going to go and then parks and wreck George is going to present to you about um parks and reccks wrap up. So first up, so this is the permit year-end report. This is the overall overall picture. Um you know the top permits by fees, commercial building permits of course.

I didn't see that. Okay. Um there's also a breakdown of the fees, the number of permits by township section, and I will get to that in a second, but essentially um every we have 30 like every section is is 36 blocks of of 640 by 640. And I'll show I'm just going to go to the map. Uh, Mount Pleasant's got divided up in a gr grid like that. Each of these grids is a section. Um, and we have two different townships. So 1 to 36 is a section and we have two different townships, 22 and 23. And so that's the numbers that correspond, but um I'll get back to that. So we have those to break down. Um top permit types by value. Um and then uh we have median days to issue is one. But I I'll I'll say that the median days to issue means that the 50th exactly in the middle one it takes one days. We have a lot of plumbing permits that go out in in one day. Um this is the one that has a little bit more information on on that. So the the top one of number of permits is plumbing permits and their median days to issue is one. So that they get through through them pretty quickly. Um and us down here sign permits median days to issue is 10. And that's usually because they're if if there's something we try to basically say we'll get to you in 7 to 10 business days which is square within this um and there's sometimes they have to submit additional things and that is taken into effect. So um there are some big numbers

on this chart but I bet you know why those exist. Um so certain things kind of blow it out of proportion. Um, and you know, breaking it down like this can give you a sense of scale.

We have 33 different types of permits. By the way,

some of these uh in the chart are actually old and need to be kind of retired, but because we are transition systems this year, like some things came in from open gov and were like old permits and then we started new with the BSNA system. Um this one is basically sorted by value, I believe. No, this is the township and section chart and then issued by month and final by month and application by month. So the highest number of applications was in the summer. So basically we had 200 applications or more from the period of May to October. So So here's the section map and then here's the picture I promised. Um, this is the permit volume by section. And, uh, if you can identify what's going on in those sections that are highlighted in red, congratulations. You've been paying attention at Plane Commission.

Um, but down there on 31 and Brown Road, the 267, that's Pike River Crossing. So, each one of those units gets permit, gets an HVAC permit, gets electrical permits, all that sort of stuff. Um, so that's why that's all there. And then up at the top with Spring and V, the 125, that's Continental and Fiduciary up up there. So, they're pulling permits. Housing permits are a lot more permits overall as a raw number as opposed to other types of buildings. This is um the value by added by by each of the by by the permit. So how much money had they been? So I think that's the value of recorded of the actual development. So 568 million that's basically the number they put on as the value of the new buildings that have been on there. So, okay, any questions on permits before I move on to planning zoning engineering processes? So, the way uh BSNA splits it is by permits which are more just kind of you apply this you get a permit. Processes are most of the things that either are outside that or or basically take it through plan commission or variances. So, um, zoning request letters is just that it's whenever they ask for zoning confirmation on our letterhead. Site plan reviews and zoning map amendments. Um, those mostly go before you guys, especially if they're commercial for site plan review. Um, that's a little bit offkilter there, but next is certified survey maps. We just had about five variances this year, two preliminary plat. And that's the monthly volume.

Nice line graph. Is that line graph on the bottom is is that uh running because that's not doesn't meet up with the permits and applied for and completed for like October 23. You got two permits applied for, but you had eight eight projects or nine projects completed. Yeah. So, it's a lag. It it's it's a delay because they apply for them the month prior. Got it. the plan commission reviews them and usually they're completed out the next month.

But certain things can be open for a very very long time when we need to do inspections on the back end. That's why even completed versus applied is worthy to kind of separate because when you apply for a burn building permit um it could be like a year before you get a certificate of occupancy. So we kind of have that to lay out. Okay. And that's it. Very good. Thank you. Okay. Two preliminary plat. George, are you ready? All right.

Needless to say, you've been busy this year.

Yes, very busy. Actually, I haven't seen you guys quite as much this year either. So hopefully you guys have this doesn't come to too much of a surprise when you see the stuff in the report. But uh just first want to give a big shout out to the people in that picture on the main slide. These are just a handful of our staff members that help with all of our recreation programs in there. Many have come through the program before and have been with us for several years starting as a you know regular uh uh instructor moving up to a program supervisor for playground. So um some of them also do some of our ball field maintenance and umpire and stuff. So want to make sure that they get a special shout out. So right off the bat uh we we had a very good year from a participation standpoint. Um, overall we saw increases in both playgrounds, um, softball and our, uh, T-ball programs. Um, I think some of that can be attributed to being able to play at Campus Park. Um, in our co-ed division, we actually had to use not only Campus Park, but also Steuart McBride because of the overflow of teams that we had. So, uh, which tied into the project of us redoing Steuart McBride, which you'll see a little photo last year. we were able to use that brand new renovated diamond out there, too. So, um once we hit that 12 to 14 range, um as you recall, that's a lot of times where the the participants move over either to baseball or fast pitch softball. So, we tend to see that decrease. Uh we actually saw it even more with the 15 to 18 year olds because we ended up having to refund some people because we didn't have enough to have uh even two teams. um there was just a drop off. Some of that is coach dependent. Uh they maintain they bring their 12 girls back every year. They've since graduated. So

when you're you're uh trying to keep everybody maintained, we this has been a little bit of a trend. So we'll continue to offer it each year, but even with us not having that, uh our overall numbers still were higher than the previous year. You can see we've got a pretty strong base of our younger programs to hope continue to build the program going forward with our T-ball and co-ed uh six to eight numbers. So kind of seeing it just from a a revenue standpoint. You can see u we had the overall increase for playgrounds and t-ball and again you see that dip in uh revenue. Part of that was we pushed really hard the uh our early bird uh discount of 10% because we it makes our lives so much easier to be able to get our teams formed, get our practices assigned, get the information out to the parents, schedules posted. So we saw a a larger increase of people registering and then you also didn't have that 15 to 18 year old league which was about 25 to 30 kids. So that's where you see the overall decrease for um uh total revenue. But you can see I I put the amount of what that difference was with having 15 to 18 in 2024. [snorts] This is just kind of some of the special events. Um you we ran two movies in the park. We had our first Arbor Day walk. Um it was blistering cold out there. We had uh for the Arbor Day walk, we had donated um uh seedlings from the DNR, which um Thompson and Associates who do our work out on the Pike River pathway. They were able to take all those excess seedlings that we had uh Burw White Oaks and plant them all along Pike River. Uh we had some pretty uh nice photos if you check our Facebook page from from the plantings that they did for us there. Um we did our cottontail trail. We helped

out the the PD again, provided support for National Night Out. Um, and then we had our trunk or treat event as well. Moving on to uh park permits. So, uh we I use the general term of picnic permits. That covers anything that anybody was issued for a permit. Uh the numbers I'm trying to figure out the best way to to do it so it's apples to apples each year. But as we've gotten through our new system, uh to give you an example, I issue one permit for four days at Smolinsky Park for our beer garden that's out there annually, whereas it may have been reported previously as four separate days that we had been out there. So, four separate uses. So, the the number of times that I'm trying to figure out a way each year. So if you see kind of a difference in numbers from from year to year, it's sometimes how we've done the permitting. Uh because it comes the way that things spit out. It's not the total amount of uses, it's the number of permits. So um in some cases, that's why you see a larger increase in the revenue um based on the total number of permits. As you can see, it was pretty strong. Uh we're continuing to see more increases at the community room uh over at uh on 7330 Old Spring. Uh we've got a couple more long-term uh renters now who are there on a monthly basis. Um still have a strong number of HOAs. Um and we still have returning people coming back for all of our pickle ball courts each year. And we've now been able to expand some of the reservations out on the softball diamonds at Campus Park. Um, our revenue numbers also include some of the additional permits that we may have issued, um, which could be just additional special events like runs at the Pike River Pathway, um, sand volleyball courts, uh, super McBride

field rentals. So, um, and then you can see we offered a new reservation option in uh, 2025. Um we allowed um three-hour reservations at the splash pad right when it opens and that and it seemed to work very well this year where they clear out and then it was uh available for the rest of the uh public after 1:00. So um we're we're very happy and pleased to see um so many people took advantage of that this past summer. [snorts] Just a few additional highlights. Uh in February I was able to accept our award for the campus park design at WPA. Um for 2026 I will be the chair for uh the professional development committee for Wisconsin Park and Rec Association uh which we oversee all of the submitts for conference. Um we oversee um the sections that submit um their sessions for review for fall conference um uh sustainability and a couple of other things. So uh it's been really great to meet some some new colleagues across the state and try to take some of the things I've learned from them and bring them here as well. Uh we offer some new contractual recreation classes at our building. Um we those are kind of hit or miss. We were able to run one of them. We offered six different ones. So, we're going to continue to try to offer things. We're not afraid to fail sometimes. So, you know, it's space that wasn't being utilized dur uh from time to time. So, we decided to try to program some classes and bring in some extra revenue. Um we added a lot more signage on the parks, but specifically want to highlight our pickle ball signage. Um this was to help with um how the rotation works out there when it's full. So, we had really simple, you know, large graphics of exactly how to utilize our racking system so that

people can rotate on and off the courts appropriately. Um, the village of Wind Point actually bought one of our extra racks from us, is going to use the same racks we do. I sent them all of our literature, so hopefully get a little bit of more consistency around the community. So, if you go play there or you play with us, everybody kind of knows which way to rotate in and off. Uh for those of you who may have played pickle ball, it can be uh quite the predicament um out there when you show up trying to get onto a court. Uh we completed the tree inventory uh and are just finalizing our management plan with Walk Tree Service. Uh if you go on the villages GIS, you can find it under the parks and recreation section. Um this is all of the trees that were inventoried uh through that. So we um it was nearly 6,200 trees that were inventoried. And so now we'll be working with the various departments, public works, um, planning, my department on how to take all this information that was in figure out how to apply all the recommendations that are within that plan, how to budget for it, what are the costs, how do we work with developers on what to do post the installation of all these trees that are getting put in, and just future maintenance, ordinances, that sort of thing. So, um, the the document itself is 70 pages, I think. So, we're just kind of working through it with public works. Um, I'm working with Lindsay just trying to finalize that. Um, they provided us additional costs of what it would do if we wanted to try to implement our own forestry versus contractually putting out all the work that would need to be done for this. Um, and you can actually go on to the DNR's website. They've uploaded our map up there with a full condition report. So you can go see the condition of all the trees, good, fair, poor. Um you can see where what we have ahead of us. So I encourage you guys to go there

and take a look at that. Uh the neighborhood park master plans. Uh we adopted three of those. So we're looking forward to working on dros here in 2026. And I mentioned the Steuart McBride ball field. Um this is just an example of the work that was done out there. Um, we added um a full truckload of infield mix. Um, you had been out there previously, you were starting to see concrete barriers popping out. Um, the the playability on it just wasn't where it needed to be. And and again, we ended up having to use it for our own league. So, it was a good year to get that done. Um, that's all that I have. Um, so if anybody has any questions, be happy to ask answer them.

I don't necessarily have any questions. Just a good job, George. Thank you so much for what you and Sam have done to uh create an outstanding parks and reccks department. And you know, whatever we can do to help you, let us know. But it sounds like you're growing and you're making good decisions as you grow and learn what works and doesn't work. Sure. you know that's as you say you sometimes learn by failing so never never should be afraid of that but thank you very much yeah no I appreciate it thank you very much

yeah and in lie of what I've reading lately and seeing on the news in regards to the cost of kids uh in sports and what's going on around the United States and one of the things that do they do talk about is that seeing recreation programs at the community levels increasing those types of opportunities to keep kids active because a lot of kids can't afford Ford to even go, you know, do some of these uh different sports now today. So, we appreciate that certainly, you know, as you look at other ways to expand.

Yeah. And for the for the new people on the commission who might not know, to to give you an idea, uh our softball and T-ball programs, um without including the 10% discount are between 60 and $75. So, you know, I I appreciate the villages help with, you know, in some way subsidizing some of that for us. You know, we do work hard to get sponsors to offset a lot of these costs for it. Um, our playgrounds program, you can send your kid four days a week for three hours for eight weeks over the summer for less than $125. So, you know, we we do work really hard on that. Um, you know, the safer scene does the same thing, but we also offer our drop in at Pzine Park still where it's free of charge. So, we still put staff members out there. We use a grant from um SCJ to help uh offset the staff cost for that as well. So, we are still working hard within the community as well. So, yeah, um I can speak very very well on the cost of youth sports having four involved in [laughter] um you don't want to know what I pay. I know. I've been reading the articles. It's amazing what people are paying. So, yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. I just want to add that I moved to the village of Mount Pleasant about four years ago. And this past summer, I went to the park just over here. I think it's nearby here that has the uh band shell

to the concerts. We Rotary I joined Rotary here. Uh and uh we we served beverages and I really enjoyed the concert. It was such a neat experience and I lived in Wakaaw County for 25 years. That's where I raised my children and the park system and the connectivity to the park system through the glacial drumland bike trail is beautiful and um kudos to your group for creating some of these things. This is still by and large a newly developed community in many areas. So having these things in place for future generations like when my children were growing up in Wakau County, we use those parks all the time and it's uh this is a great this is a great community and your development and growth. So congratulations on on what you've been doing.

Thank you. Yeah, credit credit to Matt for the concerts from tourism. Um you know we we just provide support for that. So, um, but yeah, um, I actually utilize Wauaaw, um, and city of Wauaawa specifically for a lot of information because they've been doing it so well. Uh, my postchair on the committee actually works for the city of Waua. So, we share a lot of information back and forth. And when you have a department size compared to theirs, it's yeah, you you go all hands on deck trying to find as any ways to make your department better. So, yeah. All right. Well, thank you. So, everybody have a safe and happy holiday. Thanks.

Before I ask for the last motion, first of all, I'd like to welcome Michelle to the committee and also wish everybody a merry Christmas and a happy new year. So, the same to you. Thank you all. Yours to 2026 and I need a motion. Michelle, should we make the motion? There you go. To adjourn. Oh, motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? We're done. Thank you.