Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

In June 2026, the Planning Commission meeting for Newburgh will be in order. I will make a roll call.

David Wills.

Tammy Timmel.

Rick Hornbeck. Jim Rennie. Bill Bell.

Stacey Krieger. And that's Chris.

Okay, we'll go to minutes.

Everybody had a chance to review the minutes that were sent out by Riley. Thanks for that, Riley. Any questions, comments, revisions? I will entertain a motion to accept as written if none.

So moved.

Second. All in favor? Aye.

Great.

All right, let's go to new business. Preliminary discussion for zoning code updates. House and Road Act number 1001. Somebody want to talk about that?

You want me to jump in on that? Go ahead. You take the lead. I don't know if you had, before we sent this to you, if you all had heard the words House Enrolled Act or House Bill 1001, but I'd been following it. We'd been following it for, you know, going back to the beginning of the legislative session. And it started out a lot more, I don't want to say worse, that's a bad word, but worse for us than it ended up. It was a bill... designed towards improving, encouraging housing. I think it was promoted by the home builders. And so for instance, and I haven't spent a ton of time digging into the original bill. It was just more of a behemoth. And for instance, it would have required, it would have limited the town's ability to regulate density in subdivisions. It would have required duplexes to be absolutely permitted if you in places where you also allow single family homes and other residential. So really, it really was going to turn upside down a lot of our zoning code and require That got watered down after it got out of the House and went to the Senate. It got watered down. Some of that may come back in the future. But we're left with a bill that's a lot less thorny but does have some requirements for the Planning Commission and for the town. And Riley and I have kind of gone through it. But I wanted to hit it high level today. And then we can kind of get more into the details just so you got to know. what's coming it leads in some of what we're going to have to do leads into what really we need to do anyway which is a review of our zoning code we did our comprehensive plan you remember going through that process in the last couple years hwc did that for us we have talked to them about doing the next step which is a review and overhaul of our zoning code because there's some things there that we need to when we wrestled with I'll say that to say that it's good timing that we can do that in connection with what we need to do under this bill. So just to hit the high level, I mean, I think we sent it to you, and Riley may have sent a summary to you, but it's 27 pages.

The whole bill.

It's 27 pages long. I think the original version was like 50 pages long. But so one thing it's going to do is I've got kind of more of a cheat sheet over here. the town's going to have to do some reporting on housing to the state. So by the end of the, there's a deadline of January 1st of 2027. And then annually after that, the town's going to have to report, and this is in section two of the bill, but town's going to have to report, um, information on, uh, housing units, what were proposed housing units, um, How many were approved? How many were denied? And these are new builds? These would be, I believe, new builds. So it may not be a lot for us, but we do have some permit. We do have some subdivisions where there are ongoing building.

Someone took a residence and wanted to turn it into a new place.

We don't. That's not right. We do not have to. We're not required to approve the code. We're not required to make any changes like that to the code at this point. We're required to do some reporting. There's some additional reporting about average, median home sale prices and similar data that we have to report as well. And so we're going to have to work on how we're going to gather that data and how we're going to submit that data at the end of the year. So that's something we're going to have to deal with.

I don't understand the very first sentence. The authority shall set aside 70% of the money in the fund for housing infrastructure. What fund?

So that... That is a state provision. So what you have to deal with, there are a lot of provisions here that deal with the local governments, and then there's provisions that deal with the state. So the authority refers to a state agency. So that's not us. The next section applies to any local unit exercising planning and zoning powers. And so that's the reporting requirements in section 2 and section 3 are also reporting requirements Section 4 Is That's more of state. So the state section four and five are state. These bills are so unwieldy, and they cross-reference to different statutes. So I'll just go through it in a more easily digestible form. So we've got to do the reporting. And then it's actually in section 25 is the other significant to-do item. The town is supposed to review its, they call it the unified development ordinance, which we don't really have a unified development ordinance, but that's your zoning ordinance and your subdivision ordinance combined. We do have those. So we're supposed to review that this year and hold a public hearing some point this calendar year to review the code and consider changes that could improve housing. And that's in Section 25. So that's why we have to hold a public hearing anyway. There's some more details about what that's supposed to be. But since we have to have a public hearing anyway, it would be a good time just to go ahead with the zoning code review that we need to do anyway after the comp plan with HWC. And then we can hold that public hearing after that review process. In that process, we'll have identified, we can incorporate these concepts So if you go to Section 25, which is 21, not later than January 1, the unit must conduct a public hearing to review the UDO, which is the development ordinance, and any zoning regulations and land development rules with the goals of increasing housing development. And it lists a bunch of factors, providing higher density development, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes in areas designated for single-family homes. The list continues, but I'll point out that it wants you to have a public hearing with the goal of increasing housing by using the following factors. There's no requirement that you adopt them, but you do have to make a report to the state. On page 22, note later in January in 2027, the unit shall submit a report to the Executive Director of Legislative Services Agency identifying if you invested in any housing studies in the past few years, had a housing study performed by a local economic development organization, and the minutes from your public hearing in any newly developed or amended UDO as a result of the review. We must provide a written description of the ways in which the UDO was changed to support increased housing development by using some or all the factors set forth in Section 3. It doesn't say that we had to have made those changes, but it's implied.

But basically, we have to report what we did or we didn't do.

So we have a task ahead of us, which is to review the UDO and have this public hearing and report to the state that hearing and what studies we've done and whether we make any changes. So I think that's another reason I think what we may come back to you and Chris and Riley and I may come back to you next meeting. He's going to meet with HWC with a potentially a contract or proposal from them to do that review of our code combining what we would have done anyway Along with what we have to do under this house bill.

Do we have that in the budget?

Yes, it is budgeted for this year based on a, I met with them. Last year before the budget time discussions to kind of get a ballpark of what this was cost. And the reason that we kind of decided to talk to them was because of our past familiarity, but there was 1 thing that they did that the other vendors could not. know i was trying to look up my email i believe they could turn it around in like 75 days once they get going yes so they could they could do it a lot quicker as far as a timeline turn around to get it back to us with a recommendation and some recommendations you might have to you might talk to them about Yeah, I don't know if that was before this.

So we've got a list here of things that we might need to do. Like when we did the comp plan, we had some sessions where we talked about these issues and things. But this is also going to be a technical review going through the code itself. I mean, it's a little bit complicated. for me to say, hey, by the end of this year, you need to do this very significant thing, which I think is pretty detailed.

What's happened in the past session, that's why I'm going to meet with them in the next week or so. We were bouncing dates and times back today, or I would give you the date and time, but... I don't know how much that's changed some of that stuff. And I'm sure that we're not the only ones reaching out to them now. We were being proactive during budget time last year.

I'm sure they looked at it and have an idea. We may need to have a process by which we go through these. And we need somebody to guide us through that because I think that's something hard for us to do on our own.

But I would imagine by the next meeting, we would definitely, if we meet next month, we would have some recommendations for them to look at. And because I don't feel with the dollar amount, this isn't something we have to. I think it fits.

So yeah, and it was because we knew we needed to do that after the comprehensive plan. That was the next step. It's in the budget for this year to do that at least.

Is lot sizes in here anywhere? Or is that just something we need to do?

No, I mean, in this it is under higher density development. I mean, that... They're definitely pushing higher density development. Some of this is good stuff, and that's all in some way good stuff. It's just a question of where, you know, we've identified some of these things in our comp plan, I think, and need to do different types of things.

I don't know if this is an appropriate time to do this. You know, the things about reporting and county, yeah. Right. That doesn't help build a house anywhere. No. Would it be appropriate if we got a sense of the commission? Let me just propose that the topic to say any place there is a single family home, you can put a duplex. The motion is on the table. what is the sense of the commission as we stand right now, not having done our due diligence and the studying and everything, how do people feel about changing our code to say any place there's a single family home, you can have a duplex?

I'm yay or nay because where I live, we've got a lot of duplexes. and they are nowhere near what I consider duplexes or condos in Driftwood. I would hate to put those in a single family home in the middle of Driftwood.

Or take Jefferson Park or any number of neighborhoods and all of a sudden we're going to, you know. I think what you're saying is good. I think the discussion, that's something, that type of discussion is probably what we would get out of our process, right? With our consultants raising these questions for you guys.

If everybody's sitting here saying... Gosh, I'm not I don't want it. I don't want to duplex anywhere. I don't want any apartments in our town I went home one acre single-family homes and that's how our town was Designed and I'm sticking with it. I'm gonna fight tooth and nail to keep what we have and not change a darn thing If that's hard, that's our I wouldn't go that far for me.

All right

On the surface, I think that sounds like a very good idea. But there's one downside that comes to mind, and that's two residences, if you will, on a small lot and probably an average of two vehicles per residence. Where do all these vehicles go? They'd have to be parking on the street, which is...

So we had this issue.

We have driftwood.

No. When the... Jake, this is... there were a couple of requests for duplexes and they were getting rezoned and we went there was when we were doing teams or zoom meetings do you remember yeah and we had this discussion about where people going to park and all this other stuff and it kind of worked itself through but I think the challenge is going to be is just where, you know, to your point, I don't think there's an across the board rule. It's going to be more nuanced than that. And the frustration is if you're just going to, if the states would come down and say, you have to allow them everywhere. I'm just talking about us.

Are we, are we receptive to, to change and they recognize this. One of the issues that they say you need to discuss is off street parking. Okay, suppose we said for a duplex building, you need two parking spots, one for each.

Or two for each?

No, one.

One for each? Yeah. So then the husband or the wife parks on the street?

We only have one car.

Well, I don't know about that.

Or in the garage. So I think that's the challenge of...

So what do we require? Nothing seems to... indicate a neighborhood in decline more than cars everywhere, like three in the drive and two in the street. And you're starting to see that more and more.

That's what I've got on my street.

I mean, I think a reasonable rule would be that if you're going to allow a duplex, you've got to have the right parking. I mean, that would be a reasonable rule. I think that's the way, you know, I mean, you're going to have to provide for it. And what would you consider reasonable? I don't know. At some point, you've got to have a neighbor buy in. I mean, that's a good part of it. And so these are tough questions. And in a way, I'm glad they didn't just dictate them to us. They put them in a format where you can see the things that were in the original code where they were, you know. Floor area. Waving or eliminating regulations as requirements for garage size and placement. Roof pitch. I mean, these are things that building. And I think it's probably not one size fits all, but. If you could find a way to encourage infill. And more dense housing in certain areas of the town, you know, I mean, I think that's reasonable. And I think, you know, there are maybe other areas where you wouldn't. Those are the conversations you're going to have to have this year and at least report that we did it.

I think at Jim's point, we need to be willing to have the conversation. Absolutely. You come here, no. The answer is no.

I think this exercise, this is my gut feeling on it. is that if communities have the conversations and find ways to address these housing concerns on their own, the state may feel less compelled to come in later and say, I mean, we're just going to gut your zoning code and require you to do all these things.

Yeah. And with all the gobbledygook in there, the 25, you got to give them credit for saying, Hey, we want you guys to talk about this.

That's where they ended up. This wasn't in the first bill, but it was in the later one.

And I could see nothing about the particular individuals on this board, but I can see boards saying, we ain't changing nothing.

Right. Oh, I can see that.

Digging their heels in the sand or dirt and saying no.

but and i think if you go back to your i think that's your plan and the discussion you had so and remember we we don't have our own housing study i don't think but warwick county did do one that we were included in in the last few years they did a housing study and we talked about it as part of our cop plan because there was a definite recognition of need for certain types of housing that we may or may not have here.

The survey that they had about what do you need in your affordable housing? That's it.

And so I think there is a place for wrestling with these. It depends on where you are. It's wrestling. I'm just going to go on Tom's side. I've got to think about it. It's wrestling. It's wrestling. You've got these issues that I think are ones we're just going to have to deal with them. And so that is probably the largest to do that you have. I mean, the reporting is reporting, right? It's data. We just got to gather and we got to report it. But these are the real issues that you're going to have to deal with and report how the discussion went, so on and so forth.

As a planning commission, I would say that we should go back and get that data of the survey of people in New Bern that said, what do you want in town? Right. And say, okay, we are responding to the community by saying, you want affordable housing. That's number one on our request list.

So what we think is we get HWC engaged to do phase two after the comp plan. We're armed with our comp plan that they helped us do. We're armed with that work county study that they did. Any other data that we can come up with and go to work on a process to try to get our code redone and at the same time in that process consider these items.

I don't recall if there's a lot about lot coverage as a requirement for development.

In our code?

Yeah.

I don't think – I think that that is – it's more in terms of setbacks, but there's not a – this came up with the –

house down the water street that's pretty sizable i was asked to look you know is there a coverage and there's not really where it says you can like i think in vanderbilt county there's a percentage of the lot that can you can't cover more than most most cities towns have that yeah that might be something to look at to uh help relieve some of the parking issue like they could have more coverage, including paid parking off an alley or something. That's the only downside I see to what you're suggesting, Jim. I think it's a good idea to get affordable housing. It's just where you put all the cars.

And I guess what I wonder is, what is affordable? Who are we targeting to? Are we targeting to Section 8? Are we targeting to lower middle class? Are we targeting to middle class, upper middle class? Who is affordable or what is affordable?

Yeah, I mean, what is it?

At this point in our state, I could be wrong, but I think when they refer to affordable, it's more than Section 8. It's not just the bottom, it's actual... Not every house is a half a million dollars or 400,000. We have some.

Section 8 gets into a lot of the lot coverage and setbacks. I mean, they want a lot of green space, which would not help at all. I mean, in terms of getting affordable.

We wouldn't have room for that.

Right.

My summary that I had generated for me by a co-pilot is, refers to the state mandated zoning policy audit, which is fairly accurate. I mean, they're requiring us to go through our policies and see how they address these issues. And our code's probably not very good on those issues, but We can work on the new code. It's a good opportunity to work on this. It does help me quite a bit on some of this stuff. Here, summarize this for me. I mean, it's not without its faults.

Maybe I was asleep when you said this, but what sparked this?

It was introduced, I think, so I'll tell you this. I think it generated from home builders. I think... that the home builders were driving it quite hard, and I think it made it through the House, and then I think it got some headwinds in the Senate from communities, saying, well, wait a minute, you're basically gonna, I mean, you think about all the different, all the different towns and cities across Indiana counties that have all their different zoning codes, that have all their different provisions, and you're just gonna gut this stuff. So I think it got pretty dicey in the Senate, and it got rolled back.

i think it was driven by home builders and they they said in our town manager meetings around the state that there will be additional uh parts of this in this upcoming session like i guess nobody was really happy with what came out and it would be brought back up in this session but they don't know what that's going to look like yet

So another thing that's come up related that's kind of highlighted by what this part of the discussion is, we've heard rumors, I guess, or different things from different people over in the Driftwood area about... i don't know where it all comes from but the essentially was they had heard that john mattingly was going to move forward with his development of the back acreage because because something with the state was going to allow him to do what we wouldn't allow him to do i don't know whether john ever said that or where that came from we don't know right not talk to john but it occurs to me that that's probably related to this and it's probably because the original bill and the bill that made it out of the house would have you know i don't know that it would have gone that far but it was gonna you know not allow us to it was gonna put limitations on ability to regulate density and some other things and so it's possible that the home builders He might have been working on old information that had been promoted as, hey, this is what we're going to try to get, or this is what we're getting. And it's changed. There's nothing in this bill that would mandate approving that development. Everything still has to come through you, and our zoning code is still our zoning code. I mean, there are a few things. Another thing, it has some limitation on, or changes of definitions of accessory dwelling units. These would be like your mother-in-law houses. That there's no automatic right to build, but it does put some definitions in place that we might have to look at to see if we might need to incorporate into our code. Where were those? Section 13. Section 13. Section 10, page 10. I don't know that it necessarily requires you to approve them, but self-contained living unit internal to or on the same lot or parcel as the single family dwelling. If it doesn't exceed 75% of the interior habitable gross floor area of the dwelling or 1,000 square feet, so includes cooking, sleeping, sanitation, otherwise complies with all the codes. And so there may be, I think there's a signal there that we should allow. There's been a lot of debate. I know in Moore County they had a big debate about these kinds of, you know, building a separate unit. Now our code, we think, already allows those to some degree. It lists separated dwelling units as an accessory use. So that's another thing that was in there. Some pretty strict permit processing deadlines and penalties. They added a very specific requirement that if a permit meets your standards in your ordinance, you have to approve it. And then if you don't approve it within a certain time period, you have to refund the fees that you charged. It puts limits on On the amount of fees, your fees are limited to actual cost recovery, so you have to be able to show that the fees you charge for permits and other things are based on the administrative cost of doing those. That's a little bit of a challenge. It's really not a lot different than the way the law was anyway. We're only allowed to increase fees every five years, and that's limited by CPI, which puts a limitation on how much fees we can charge. There's some limitations on impact fees, impact zones. We don't really have impact fees and impact zones, but there's limitations on those. There are some structural stormwater limitations on compensatory storage, so we'll have to look at those if we ever have a larger development that requires stormwater detention and those kinds of things. We may have to look at those requirements. There's some very specific, I don't know, Riley, you may know this better than I do. We can't require, in class two, I think it's class two housing, we can't require arc fault circuit interrupters. David, do you know what that is?

That's an electronic program that is a safety measure for people working on your electrical service. I can't imagine it.

Applying to single family residences, I think some places must have those required. Yeah, it's not must not be in the standard state building code, which we just adopted.

We don't really commercial. It's commercial industrial commercial. It's required in Kentucky.

I must be seeing places to have those. The other thing is an emergency responder communication system. We're not allowed to require those in single family homes.

That's like a sprinkler system that automatically contacts firefighters. Somewhere those must be required. Again, that is more a commercial industrial requirement than residential.

Like I said, somebody must have applied those to residential. That's one specific mandate. Any fee increases? cannot go into effect for 180 days after they're adopted. So you can only increase them every five years. There's limits on the fees. And you have to give six months of lead time before they go into effect. One change that we... at some point take advantage of is for tax increment funding, financing TIF fund, TIF areas, how they change the rules on housing TIFs to allow them to be up to 25 years instead of 20 years. We don't have any TIFs here, but that could be a useful tool if we... if we got any new developments down the road, if we did any annexation and had new developments. That's the key. Those are the key things in this bill. The main things that I think we wanted to focus on are we're going to have to get on top of the data gathering and reporting part. But the big thing for you all is that requirement to have a public hearing and delve into those housing related provisions and then report that and want to report that to the state.

So somewhat of an unwieldy presentation, but so we have to have that public hearing after you gather this data and we go through it.

I don't think I think the data is separate than the public hearing. Okay. Um, but, you know, we do have I do think we have to do some homework before we have a public hearing. I think it would be worth having. HWC, whoever we decide to hire to help us with our zoning code, go through a process with it and then hold a public hearing is where you invite the public to come in. I think you want to do some homework and not just have a public hearing cold.

Right.

And I think we can engage the HWC to help us walk, like they did with the comp plan, walk through that process. And then we'll hold a public hearing to review what we've done, what we've found, and discuss it. It's a little bit, I mean, how do you have a public hearing without kind of having done some homework first?

You'd have to, because obviously you're going to be asking the public what their opinion is and...

And we do have to, I mean, it's June. So if we got HW, if you talk to them and if they're willing, I mean, I wonder if they could come to the next meeting.

The rep lives in the area, so I mean, that's not a problem. I can set that expectation.

Come to the meeting. and talk about what that might look like. And maybe we could talk with them about it before then. Does that sound reasonable? I mean, I think, because we got to move, we got... Do you want to join me? We got seven months.

I can see if you two want to join me when I set it up. Yeah. That way we can cut out the extra meeting.

I would like to, yeah. That would be good. We just have seven months. It's good to know they said 70 days because... That was last year, though, before. Yeah, but I mean, even if we tack on some time...

Because one of my questions was like, I know that that was one of the things that made them stand out other than our previous relationship, but if everybody and their brother has to do this this year, does that affect that? Right.

And the other thing, 70 day, I mean a short time frame is good. I don't want I want to end up with a code that we can use and that works for us. And if that takes a little time, it takes a little time. I mean, the last 1, I don't know. It always talked to Tom about it. You'd always tell me it was like, 1997, I think, and they had a consultant and they came in and we've run into so many problems where it doesn't match what. We actually have in town, like the lot sizes don't match what's down here. I want to make sure we end up in the right place with it and don't just have some cookie cutter code that doesn't do us any good.

I don't think the speed shouldn't imply that they don't want that. I know. Yeah, I just want to clarify that they were just saying because this is their bread and butter, they can turn these things around a lot quicker than other groups.

I don't think a lot of them, so I don't think that's the case either. I just... I want to make sure we get something. Does anybody have any questions?

All right, I'll confess I tried to read this and didn't get very far. Are there areas that should be highlighted that we should take a good hard look at? In here?

I think the sections would be, the big sections for you guys would be two. numbers section 2 is on page 1 section 3 is on page 2 and then section 25 is on page 21 if I remember right 21

For me, the page 21 is the key.

That's the big one.

The other ones are just little reporting things. But section 123, you're talking about garage size and placements, minimum lots, setbacks, off-street parking.

so we need to make sure all of those things are in our process those are the things you need to talk about and that's where you're going to have the right the pushback for the staff and for our looking at our code some of these other provisions are going to be important we've got to be mindful of the fee restrictions and and all these other things but those are going to be more down in the weeds in the details of administrative stuff as opposed to more policy and land use philosophy.

So section 2, 3, and 25 are the highlights. Section 13 was it? 2, 3, 25, and that's on page 1, 2, and 21.

If you're interested in compensatory storage, that stuff's on page four. Compensatory storage, if you're interested in that, that's on page four. Do you find compensatory storage?

includes artificial storage used to balance the loss of natural flood storage. Got that?

Got it. So that's like retention basin, detention basin. Which has a significant impact on site.

Yep. And that builders don't like to put in I mean, they want more land for more buildings.

So we're going to switch the house loads.

We cannot require a ratio greater than three to one, three mitigated land to one filled land if we're doing fill. And I noted on when I got to the arc fault circuit interrupter to ask David. i googled it but then i was like well i'm surprised that's even considered in any of this it's just not very appropriate you know you have to think somewhere along the way some community mandated those and the builder said that's just ridiculous or that's too much and so that's where that it's that went doing the studies that are required very expensive very time consuming i mean it's

I mean, your standard breaker is $100,000 of fees. $75,000 of KVA or $100,000. Yeah.

So yeah. And so the problem with reading these bills as a standalone is that they're amending certain sections of the code and you don't, you only have the section that's amended, not the rest of the code. So where does it fit?

How does it fit? Can I ask a question, though? Like you said that it has to be in the legislative services by January 27th. Are they wanting to compile all that from all the municipal groups for that session? Because I can't imagine. I have no idea. Okay. I didn't know what the intent was. They're not going to be able to compile the number of municipalities if they all have to do that to get it to them by the end of the session.

I wouldn't think so. They do some pretty amazing things, but I don't know.

Maybe they'll use AI. Right.

Yeah, for sure. All right, if that's it, we'll move on to staff updates.

Okay, so... This will kind of make this brief. At the back of the packet, you have all the permits I issued in May, all of the code violations letters I've sent in May. Kind of have a lot going on. We're looking at ADA compliance in Copper's Edge. We're checking the sidewalks there because we're having issues. Some of those aren't meeting ADA compliance, so Jared and I have been out checking that. Connor's our intern. He's been doing a lot of work for us. He's been great helping us with the outfall mapping, which is all MS4 stuff. I just figured I would mention that. Yeah, do you guys have any questions for me? Anything you want me to talk about?

No, thanks for the report. Nice to have that. Anything else? Any old business? Miscellaneous business announcements. Next Planning Commission meeting is July 6. Wow. If not, I will...

I have an announcement.

What?

I have an announcement.

June 13th, Saturday night. Yes. Oh.

At the amphitheater. I'm playing on stage.

Are you opening for Bobby Clark?

No.

So if you're not doing anything that night, come on down. We'll be there.

So I can have a few people down there and some friendly faces to look at. Because I'm sure I'll be nervous, right?

No, you'll be nervous. You do a great job.

I'm not ever nervous anymore. Do you want me to help your promotion?

Last time I played, it ended up just me and you.

But I mean, last year. Oh, you were outside. Yeah, you were taking a picture. But I didn't touch the promotional side. Do you want me to work some magic?

We probably should work some promotion on it. I'll work on it, too. I just, I mean, it doesn't get promoted unless we do it. Can you send me some stock pictures? Yeah, I'll send you some. Thank you.

What time was it?

But the last time. 6.30. It was at the end of the summer.

6.30.

And it was two hours, and then the last half hour. After my family left, it was just me and Cook.

And me.

And you outside. And I looked up at Cook and I said, I could sing to you anytime, man. Let's go home. Do we need to keep doing this? I didn't realize that was your mom that left.

Oh, yeah. I thought it was a resident that was wanting to watch you. So I kind of was just standing there for emotional support.

Right. She needed to get back before the bridge closed.

She's heard me a few times.

So anyway, yeah, it's a shameless self-plug.

Nothing wrong with that.

Thank you.

It's on record. I went to a Wrights Castle football game in the Bowl several years ago, and there was a very elderly lady, Wrights fan, sitting behind us. And about the start of the third quarter, she goes, these guys suck. Got up and left. Your mom didn't say that on the way out there. Not me.

I don't think so. I don't think so.

All right, I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second? Second. All in favor?

Aye.

So moved.

Actually, my comment should probably be struck. Struck from the record? I can tell when my wife's heard enough.

What does she do?

She just...