Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We're at 9.07. And unfortunately, I did not add to the agenda approval of minutes from the last meeting, so I'll have to add that for both meetings at the next meeting. So the second item is discuss results of the subcommittee meeting held on 4-28-26, April 28-26. I don't necessarily have results for you. What I can tell you is that we met. You were able to, and you can chime in whenever, to indicate the issues that you had with the study and maybe some of the data that they had collected. What he indicated was that that was the data that they had received when it was requested. Some of the data I think that you found was maybe on a website, could have been outdated. Could have been updated, and what he received was old data also. So he was going to go back and take a look at those. I sent him a couple of cities that had responded to an additional request from me for their data so that he could put that together. I think one of the things that, and we might have to schedule another subcommittee to discuss this, is one of the things that he wasn't particularly clear on is what am I supposed to model? So what are the priorities? Is it separation between rank? And we talked about some of that, but he wasn't clear on what do I model so that he can provide an outcome, whether it's one option, two options, three options, whatever that is based on the priorities for you all. I think that's going to be important for us as well, budget in particular, so that when we start talking about what's available, we know what that expense looks like for those priorities. So that might be easier to do within another subcommittee so that he has clear direction. I don't know if there's anything that you want to add.

I think our position is kind of consistent. You know, we've got our pay scale system set up in a way that we prefer, and I think everybody tends to prefer that it's certification-based, which makes things a little bit different than everybody except College Station in the benchmarks. And so I think our position is kind of still the... bottom and the top of each rank, get to 100% of the benchmarks, and then smooth out in between. I think at this point, really, the first thing that we need to do is agree on which benchmark cities we're going to compare ourselves to. I know City Council had said not to compare us to DFW Metroplex and We do lose people to the DFW Metroplex, but I also understand their point of view, and there's agencies in there that... Like for instance, Tom Green County Sheriff's Office. We have officers that do what their sergeants do. We have sergeants that do what their lieutenants do. We have lieutenants that do what their captains do. Their patrol division has 16 deputies and we have 16 per shift and we have four shifts. So that would be like us comparing ourselves to Brownwood. They also do a lot of different things. They're not civil service. their call volume is much lower. Likewise, DPS, completely different organization, completely different setup. And ASU, which I don't think ASU's had any results in there, but ASU PD's kind of the same way. So our stance is kind of pick the benchmarks, figure out how we get to 100%, of average and then go from there.

Okay. Will you please send me a list of, because I don't know if you included it in your initial presentation, a list of the cities that you all think you need to be compared to. And please know that when I go to council with the results of the study, I'm presenting the cities that he utilized, that that company utilized. I can also present something different if the cities that we're comparing to differ based on y'all's request. But I do also have to present what they submitted.

I don't mind being there to help you field questions on the ones that we would request or not request to be compared to and why. Okay.

Okay. Do you think we need an additional subcommittee to discuss this, or if I tell the consultant we want to make sure that the top and bottom are at 100% and that we utilize these cities whenever he's providing us an additional result, or would you prefer that we do that as subcommittee and you communicate that?

I think we can just handle that electronically. I don't think we necessarily need to mean.

Okay. Okay. Anything else on that? I think you're good.

I don't think we have anything else on that.

Okay. Under item three, discussion and possible action to items to be considered for the 2027 meet and confer agreement, I would like to ask Jonathan to provide us an update if there is one on the budget. I know obviously one of the requests has to do with funding. So if you could give us that, that'd be great.

Yeah, so right now we just closed our expenditure portion of the budget, so we should have a good idea over the next couple weeks of kind of what we have left available. After we factor in some of our revenue increases, we're also doing some strategies that kind of we presented to council in the budget planning workshops to hopefully increase some money over on the maintenance and operations side of the tax rate. So we don't have any solid numbers right now, but we should in the next couple weeks as far as what we'll have available for a pay plan. And then, of course, once we settle on some of those numbers as well as settle on some of the numbers that you all had requested initially, we could probably try to build those into the budget at that point.

So looking at the calendar, you said next couple of weeks. Yes. Can we maybe tie a date to that? Middle of June-ish? What are we, end of May? And then how does that tie into the... budget calendar for council, I guess.

Yeah, so we'll have at least a good idea of all of the requests that are being made, including the ones made here in the next couple weeks. So at least by the 15th, we'll be able to crunch numbers that week. So it'll probably be the end of June when I have... Now, the biggest caveat to that all is that we really don't have certified value, so we won't have solid, solid numbers until July, but we should have something to work with at least that last week in June.

Okay. So we're looking at maybe June 29th. Where's June? June 29th is Monday of that last week of June. Mm-hmm. Okay. And then when does the first budget? Let's just go to council.

The first budget workshop is scheduled for the first Tuesday in August, which is the 4th.

Okay. And that's a non-election schedule, assuming we don't go to an election?

Well, that's both.

Either way, that's 1-0. Okay. Mm-hmm.

August what, I'm sorry?

Fourth. Fourth, okay.

I think that'll be important as we're talking about what this looks like in the next month or two so we have something ready for council.

Let me double check the calendar real quick. Yes, it'll be the 4th.

And that date is largely because we don't get certified values until July 25th. That's usually the earliest that we would receive them from the appraisal district. And so that's when we have a better grasp of what we'll have available after we have property tax added in.

Okay. So that first August meeting, would potentially be when I would need somebody available if we're presenting. Do we still, is that the general fund in August? Yeah.

Yeah, that August 4th is kind of, if we, that's the earliest case scenario. If we decide to take a tax rate election to the voters, we'll have to discuss the general fund at that meeting. If we don't, it'll actually be the second meeting in August, which will be the 18th. But trying to prepare for the worst case at this point.

So, Lieutenant, if you don't mind making note of those dates for availability, that'd be great.

What was the second one?

18th of August. Okay, any questions on budget update? Okay. Do you all have any items?

I have one item, but do you all have anything that you want to discuss in terms of... We don't have anything additional except for since this was kind of non-action item meeting or one that we didn't... There was not really a bargaining session, and I know in our... ground rules we had said we couldn't bring anything up after the third meeting. I would propose that we make that the fourth meeting.

Okay. Based on the ground rules, is that allowed? Because I did read in this morning thinking the same thing.

I mean, I think we can modify the ground rules to allow that, yeah. Okay. Now, I guess we don't have an action item necessarily for that, but, well, we do say possible action item. I think we could take action on it. We do say possible action on items to be considered. Okay. So.

So I make a motion to.

Trying to find where it is.

It's towards the beginning section. Sorry, I think I closed it out. It is section... I'm sorry, I'm looking for it too.

Yeah, I'm looking for it too.

I just read it. Section four, schedule of presentations and requests.

Okay, yeah. I just want to make a motion to modify that section four.

So I make a motion to modify section four to read, no new issues shall be brought to the table after the fourth meeting.

I'll second that. Oh. But why are we limiting ourselves to just being able to discuss? I mean, if we're having negotiations back and forth to get an agreement from both sides, somebody might have to come up with something at the last minute to make an agreement happen. So why would we limit ourselves?

I think at some point you do have to stop the process so that we can allow for budgeting of things. I do think that we started this process very early, earlier than other years.

Which was intentional. I mean, I think we all asked to do that.

But that does leave more time for both parties to say, well, what about this? And it might be past that third or fourth meeting. I was reading an agreement that we had, the ground rules for an agreement we had in 2023, I think. And let me look up that. That wording gives us a little bit more flexibility, but...

I know we have a motion and a second, technically, so if you need to act on that. But I would suggest that instead of setting a meeting limit, that we just set a date, that no new items can be added after a certain date. That way we can meet to our heart's content between now and then. I mean, I'd be in favor.

Ultimately, as long as everyone agrees, we can keep changing everything.

I think that's how it was worded, and what Veronica read this morning was something similar to that effect, unless agreed upon by both parties.

So, yeah, let me see. It talked about mutual consent. Okay. Second meeting and the meeting follows. As shall be. The second meeting, and it doesn't have to say the second meeting, or the meeting following the city's presentation of issues, whichever is last, shall be the last meeting at which additional issues may be presented unless mutually agreed by the parties. So it gives you an opportunity to bring something forward in additional meetings. But you're right. I have a motion and a second on the floor.

So you could withdraw your motion if you want. Otherwise, yeah, we ought to vote on that.

I'll withdraw my motion. And I'll... make a new motion. Okay. Do we want to have discussion first, though? What do we think about a date versus language that allows the parties to mutually agree?

Yeah, I like the date and the mutual agreement language, so.

So what date, Jonathan, would make sense for the budget process?

We really need to have a solid proposal done and wrapped up before the August 4th workshop meeting.

Well, and within enough time of that for you to prepare everything as well, right?

Right.

So for the August 4th meeting, everything that would be presented would be due...

But can I ask if this is going to be a multi-year?

Well, I think that's on the table.

Because if that's the case, then he may have a more, like, generic, because next year it might not be the August 4th meeting. You know what I mean? So it might be, like, mid-July or I don't know.

Well, so we're modifying the ground rules, so we'll do that every year. Every year, so that date can change, I guess, regardless of the actual agreement itself, because that's not in the agreement itself.

And really, mid-July really is kind of when I would prefer us to have something, a solid proposal. That would give us a week to start crunching numbers. So if we made it the 15th of July...

Well, and remember, this is just new things that would come up, which, you know, salaries and stuff have already come up, so this would be kind of... I know last time we had some, or last year we had some, okay, well, we'll get this, and then we'll get the... We came up with some stuff... During the negotiation of other things, yeah. During the negotiations that aren't necessarily even monetary. I mean, the discipline stuff... We came back and forth on and had that later on in the process, but it didn't affect the budget kind of situation. And so I think, not saying there's not going to be or there couldn't be, but I think we've kind of laid out all the monetary things.

Mm-hmm.

Well, I think in the case that there are, though, because some of those additional benefits are... So should we just add that language? I do like the July 15th date.

Financial impact or something.

New items with financial impact?

Something like that. Cannot be brought past July 15th.

I mean, just having July 15th, once we agree to pass that, it's fine to me. If we come up on that. crunch time and we're like, ah, we need more time, I think everybody's going to be.

Is July 15th too early, though, because we don't have the certified values until July 25th?

Yeah, the July 15th, if we have, yeah, because we won't know until the 25th, but to meet any time after that really pushes us up against the real time crunch as far as getting it into the budget in preparation for the August 4th meeting.

Yeah, and part of that is because this is part of the expenditure side of the equation, and once we get values on the 25th, the budget division has a lot of work put into that certified valuation. They really need every bit of time between that and the general fund workshop to do the revenue side of it.

I think if we have some sort of idea prior to that, like you mentioned, will allow us to at least make some sort of determination knowing that we might have to pivot

And this really, like you said, this really is for new items. Yeah, right. I would assume even in between then we'd be able to work out details and stuff like that. But new items, giving us a week to crunch through new items is really what we need for the revenue. Okay. Projection set.

So then I make a motion to amend Section 4 of the ground rules to read, the parties shall mutually agree to the order of discussion of the issues. No new... issues having a financial impact shall be brought to the table later than July 15th, 2026. I'm thinking of something else, yes. Plus mutually agreed by the parties?

Unless mutually agreed by the parties?

Well, I don't... I think if they're financially impacted, it's... Then we just want to... Yeah. Okay. But I do... I mean, if it's not financially impacted and we agree, mutually agree, I think that's okay. Mm-hmm. So maybe another sentence? New issues... having no financial impact may be brought forward if mutually agreed by both parties? Does that sound okay? I think so, yeah. Does that sound okay?

Yeah, sounds fine.

So... I made the motion. Do I have a second?

I'll second it.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes. So we'll get that signed also at the next meeting.

Okay.

So the item that we want to talk about is fitness. We are about to start sort of constructing that, but we wanted to get some feedback. And I don't know if you'll be prepared to do that today, but we want to hear from you all in terms of what expectation you have, whether it's for the department just as a whole or, you know, what officers are thinking, I guess, so that we can take all of those things into account whenever we're constructing this.

As it would turn out, I have a... established wellness language that I've used in Abilene a few years ago that is what I submitted to the association now, but I feel like that would be a good... I mean, I hate to say starting point because I think that's really what it needs to be, but it worked well in Abilene. It has worked well. It was received well by city administration and the officers, but once... once the local signs off on it, that they're okay with that language, then obviously I can send it over to y'all as well.

Yeah, I had actually pulled the Abilene language, if I have the most current one. So, yeah, I think that you can.

This would be Article 11, wellness.

Yeah, mine, Article 11, physical fitness assessment.

You may have the old one then. Okay. The one from the most recently bargained when we changed them. Significant changes.

Yeah. Okay. Well, if you could send that over, that would be good.

So y'all are still going to have to review that, I'm guessing, before you send it over? Okay.

What's your idea?

I'm sorry?

What's y'all's idea?

Honestly, we haven't discussed much of it other than we do want to include something, but we haven't discussed at length anything.

Is this a citywide proposal or is this something for civil service or where is this coming from?

It would be something for the police department just in general. We haven't discussed if it's something that we would want to do citywide. Usually that does come up for us whenever we have these discussions. We have a Well, I would say it was more robust than it is now, wellness program. We haven't had the, I guess through our current agreement with the local hospital, the dedicated staff that they would provide in order to do that programming for us. But I do think the need is different than our general non-civil service population. So I can't necessarily say that that's something that we would

we would utilize if we utilize any of that it might be you know maybe some of the rewards that are provided through that but yeah yeah i mean definitely different job functions require different levels of physical fitness for sure i was just curious if this was this was coming from a city management perspective or if this was police administration that was requesting this be put in

I know there is a desire from police administration to do this, but it's something that we have discussed through several of the meet and confer negotiation processes. I don't think it's happened in maybe the last two, but previously it had been discussed, yeah.

Yeah, I think one of our earlier agreements from like 2014 to 17 had a physical fitness component in it. It did.

I believe that was about the time we had just started the rowing and that, because I think that was what officers were having to do was get on the rower and all that. It was a very basic start to a wellness program.

That sounds familiar to me.

Because it went away when, what was it, 2017, when that contract failed? Yeah, I think so. So...

Right.

So, Jeff, one of the things that I had seen, I think, in Abilene's and maybe in our old one, it wasn't done the same way as Abilene, but having kind of like a panel or a committee that helps administer the program and there's members from the association, there's members from police admin. I guess what's your experience, how that works? It seems like it would be a fair way to do it, but...

Yeah, definitely. I mean, I think so all the stakeholders have a seat at the table. You know, obviously the city, the association, and then police administration have a seat at the table to kind of establish what the program looks like. The stance of CLEAT, it would always be that there is no – it's not a punitive program, that we're not taking – punishment action on our officers, that it's a reward-based system, that you can get brownie points and that you're not getting slapped on the wrist. You know, it's that... Do we want negative reinforcement or positive reinforcement kind of thing? And additionally...

So you're saying, and I understand that, no discipline for failing the physical fitness, but if you fail to participate at all, would you see that? I mean, to me, if you have a policy in place where we put in and confer that mandatory participation, do you see an issue with that policy?

So that's part of what we removed from Abilene's, that it was mandatory and we shifted to a voluntary fitness program and that non-participation could not be used as discipline. Now, obviously, the chief can use anything he knows about the officer as a deciding factor on discipline. on things as assignments and things that are at his discretion and not covered by civil service. So obviously the officers know that that is on the table. Hey, if you don't participate, the chief can look at that and say, well, maybe you ought not to be assigned to SWAT if you're not going to participate in this program. Or hey, I know you want to be in special operations, but you're not really, you know what I mean? So there's still some room there that it's not disciplinary, but the chief can make discretionary decisions. But what I don't want is for our officers to say, no, I'm not going to participate in this, and then get sent to a fit-for-duty panel, and now the city is out money having to compile this panel and pay this officer overtime to show up for a panel when they're healthy and everything's fine because the chief or the administration or whatever wants to single an officer out for not participating. That's what we want to avoid is this punitive situation where it's another reason to discipline officers. You know... Physical fitness obviously is necessary for this job, but I also don't see there being a huge problem in San Angelo with physical fitness. Again, no problem having a program, but my recommendation to the association would be that we want it to be voluntary and that it's not a punitive-based system. And if it is required, that... that we would really need to figure out what exactly potential discipline would be for failing whatever standard is set. A big thing that we included in Abilene's was the city really stepping up and showing, hey, we're going to support physical fitness completely and not just, hey, we want you all to work out and be able to pass a test. So now the city of Abilene requires every officer to have a mental health. They go once a year to a licensed mental health provider for a checkup, make sure everything's good on the city's dollar. And they get their annual screening, full lipid panel. And once after a five-year period of employment, each officer gets a full cardiac workup because then that qualifies them for the heart attack or stroke presumption for line of duty injuries. And the city pays for that as well. So that was Abilene stepping up to the table and saying, hey, we're going to put our money where our mouth is. We want our officers to be healthy, but we're also going to support y'all in that and not just make a bunch of rules and say, hey, live up to the standard. We're actually going to show that we care about your well-being and and pay for these. And of course, I'm sure it's at the city clinic, but you know, still a lipid panel is a lipid panel. It don't matter who's drawing the blood, you know? So those were things that we had added and those were, you know, I haven't, obviously I haven't talked to the chief here, but This wellness program was submitted in Abilene as mutual interest between the association and the police administration. So Mr. Hanna at the time, he was like, well, yeah, if y'all are both going to say y'all want it, then let's figure it out. So again, once Blue and the rest of his board look it over and they're in agreement, I think this is what we would submit in response to y'all's idea, and then we can kind of handle it from there.

One question for you. I haven't read it, but what do they do for participation from those that don't participate at all? Is there an incentive for that?

So, yeah, the incentives aren't listed. It just says that they will adopt a voluntary program with guidelines and rewards developed in a collaborative manner between the administration and the board. of the association, and that available incentive pay would be authorized pursuant to local government code. So there's some incentives, and it just says that it would be established in cooperation between the association and police administration, what incentives it would be, whether it's an extra day of pay or whatever the case may be that's within the chief's purview for his budget, or other incentives fitness award or commendation letter or whatever type of incentives the chief and the board of the association would want to come up with.

I don't know before we had a previously in meet and confer we had that clause and we had a section in there for the participation was mandatory but I mean you could show up and

As long as you showed up, that was participating.

And so that's kind of one of those things where we would prefer everybody to be involved, but at the same time we don't want to punish somebody who goes, man, I got told to show up here and I'm sick as a dog, or I got told to show up here and I really don't think whatever the... exercise or battery of exercises is, you know, uh, like I'm having shoulder surgery next month and I'm like, Doing a row test would not be a good idea for me right now.

Yeah, I think I saw some medical exception language that would cover that for sure.

Yeah, but once again, I would want to make sure that our officers are protected from being sent to a fit for duty. His example of needing shoulder surgery, well, I don't want the administration... to send him to a fit for duty because he missed his annual road test because he had a shoulder surgery. Well, that's not helpful to anybody. That's just one more reason to, yeah.

I think we're on the same page. I think we're on the same page as far as what everybody's okay with and what the concerns are and just navigating that.

Okay, yeah, so if you'll send that over, then we'll start constructing that. I guess once y'all review that, if there are, in addition to sending that over, if there are any recommendations for how you would amend that, if there are any, if you'll include that in the same communication.

I think the only thing that we would suggest is at some point putting whatever the... the standard or the tests or whatever into an appendix or something. Um, so that it's, it's at least known to everybody because, and I don't know, Abilene may have that in theirs and, uh, it was, it was worked out after the fact. Um, and it could be something worked out after the fact on ours, you know, and adopted later. But, um, In conversations, sometimes there are people that are highly motivated and want to do these programs, and they're a SWAT member, and so their expectation is everyone should be able to do it the same as I can, and everyone can't.

Yeah. So there's a lot of talk about, I think, the DPS model. Do you all have an opinion in terms of what standard...

I'd have to look at it closer as far as what their requirements are. I know that I actually prefer that because they have three different types of row tests. You can do two minutes as far as you can, you can do 500 meters as fast as you can, or you can do a 2,000 meter row. And they have different timing and standards for each of those, which is different than what we required before, which was just a straight 2000 meter row. And I think that's what the hiring standard is, but there's, you know, um, there's people that are much stronger, but their cardio is not great. There's people that are not real strong, but their cardio is great. Um, it doesn't mean they're any less or more fit necessarily, but, um, as far as what those percentages are, um, that would be something to look at. And I haven't, I don't know enough about where those are to be able to say, oh, yeah, we can just straight adopt that model.

Yeah, road tests are great, but when you have officers that are taller with longer arms like these two guys and then you put Kelsey on that same rower, She could be in much better physical shape than both of these guys, but because she's short with short arms, she's going to struggle on a rope machine. Whereas these guys could knock it out much easier just because they have longer legs and longer arms. So if row is the kind of the baseline, I would definitely suggest there being an alternative test for folks that are, you know, a little height challenge like myself because rows are hard.

Yeah, and I thought I saw somewhere where there was different standards based on gender or height and weight.

Yeah, so we use the ROTESH right now for recruiting and for the entrance exam, and it's at a certain percentage of the DPS standard. Okay. and they walk in, we ask them, obviously we can tell if they're male or female, then we ask them how old they are, and then we weigh them, and it goes based off of that. But Jeff is right, so your heavier people, their time is much lower, because in theory, you move more when you're rowing, right? So that's why somebody that's teeny tiny has a lot longer to go It's different. I mean, if you've never been on a rower, it's definitely different. But I think there's a way forward for sure. Okay.

And are you all open to a committee?

Sure. Okay.

I don't know what that looks like yet, but I think that would be beneficial if we've got, like you said, stakeholders helping to move that forward. Okay.

that have started happening lately.

Something that may need to be considered on that, though, whether it be through the PD's budget or through the city's budget, but if there's going to be a requirement for everybody to be on the rower, our equipment's going to probably be needing replacement. Okay. And so I don't think they're crazy expensive, but that's just something that should be considered is, you know, wherever that's supposed to fall, because I don't believe that that's currently ever in the police department budget. What's that? the row or workout equipment that's always come from like back the badge funds and stuff like that I don't think there was ever money provided in the past to fill that gym up and so they've either found you know unused monies or you know like the the donated stuff but if that's going to be a standard required by the city that would need to be a consideration that maybe some of the equipment be replaced

So right now the rowers that I am assuming belong to PD that are used for recruitment, they're only brought out for, I guess, those... No, they are available in the gym currently.

But what I'm meaning is if we're now going to make, you know, hopefully 180 people, their utilization increasing, not just based off of the testing, but people going down there and practicing, is going to greatly increase because the Concept 2 rower is completely different. You don't normally see that in a gym. Most of the gyms have something different. And so it is a different machine. And so the equipment should just be considered. I don't think it's crazy expensive. Y'all have three rowers now? We currently have three, yes, ma'am.

Okay.

One of them is kind of on the fritz. Gotcha. Yeah.

Okay, well, I think that's all we have in terms of items that we wanted to present. Anything on your end? You're good.

I know you mentioned the... kind of the assessment, the comparative cities and the reports y'all got back, and that you kind of had a little bit of back and forth with them. Where do you stand on that? Have you received back anything from your additional requests?

No, I have received one spreadsheet back, but it includes the entire organization. So it hasn't modeled what I think maybe the request is. We talked about, like I said, some of the discrepancies that y'all had looked at. But, no, that's where he needs direction. What does he need to model? He can model anything, but we just need to know what those priorities are.

Okay. And Lieutenant Kennedy gave a list of what our suggestion was for comparative cities. Where do we stand on that?

Was that in the initial presentation? Yes, ma'am. So I'll send that over to him to make sure that that additional model that he creates with those priorities include those cities that were requested. Okay. Any other questions on that? Okay. So can we look at calendars then, I guess? It looks like we're meeting at the end of the month, monthly, and the fact that we amended the ground rules makes me feel a little bit better about scheduling a third meeting. I thought that third meeting was going to be it, but I think we can go ahead and put that on the calendar at least to make sure that We meet in June. I'm sure by the end of June we can have some additional conversation on at least the fitness piece. So I'm available June 29th and June 30th if we want to look at those dates.

Two questions. Do we have to have it in June proper, and are those the only dates you're available that week?

No. No to both questions. We don't have to have it in June proper, and I'm available the week before also. It seems like Mondays and Tuesdays are light for me, but I don't know what that looks like for anybody else.

I know personally there is a conference in San Antonio the week of the 29th that I'm supposed to be at. So if we can avoid those first two days of that week, that would make it easier for me just so I don't have to drive here from San Antonio and then go right back.

So 22nd, 23rd, or we can go into the first week of July.

Any of those are good for me.

What's y'all's preference? Any vacations going on?

I do know Blue specifically asked for no Mondays. He works Sunday night. Blue works Sunday night, so Monday mornings are tough for him.

The 6th and 7th I could not do. You can't do? The 7th is a council meeting also.

Some time also, the plan currently, sometime during the first week of July, the 6th through the 10th, we should be having oral boards for another round of potential cadets. So the problem is I don't know if that will be one day, two days. I don't have numbers yet.

Is it 23rd too soon, or would that work for financial side of things?

No, I think we could probably get something done by the 23rd. All right.

I hate to put you under a time crunch.

Yeah, I know.

Yeah, I probably like that better than July.

Okay, so let's plan on the 23rd. If you'll hold your calendars from 9 to noon again, that'd be great. The 23rd. 23rd of June. Okay. Thank you very much. With that, we will adjourn. I make a motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. We've adjourned at 9.54.