Planning commissioning will now come to order.

Um, we're gonna pull um the public hearing and pull that up to the front.

Um, so we'll take the agenda out of order today unless there's any objections to that.

All right.

Um, seeing no objections, we're gonna skip ahead to number three under comprehensive neighborhood planning committee, the public hearing on the congregate living zoning study.

Um before the hearing starts, I'm going to read uh this following list of rules and procedures.

Uh so today the City of St.

Paul Planning Commission is holding a public hearing on the proposed congregate living zoning text.

Notice of the public hearing was published in the St.

Paul Pioneer Press on Tuesday, October 7th, 2025.

And sent to the early notification system list of recipients and other interested parties.

The following rules of procedure will be used in conducting the hearing.

One speaker should state their name and address for the record before beginning their testimony.

Two speakers are requested to limit their remarks to three minutes.

Three, please relate your comments to the congregate living zone text.

Four, each speaker may speak only once.

Five speakers are requested to address all questions to the chair.

Planning commission members may address questions to the speakers and the staff.

Six, when the planning commission closes the public hearing, the staff will hold the record open for additional written testimony that they received by 4 30 p.m.

on Monday, October 20th, 2025.

At the conclusion of the public hearing, I will ask three times if there are any persons present who wish to be heard.

There being no further testimony, there will be a motion that the hearing be closed and taken under advisement by the planning commission.

All right, with that, I have read the rules and procedure.

Excuse me.

Uh, and we will open the public hearing.

Um, if you would like to testify on the congregate living zoning tax, uh, you can head up.

There's a sign-in sheet on that little table, and then you'll speak from that microphone.

Go right up to the mic.

Is it not?

Yes.

So my name is Mark Schwartz, and I'm with Alvin Recovery.

And we've been running sober homes in uh the Twin Cities for nine years now.

And previous to that, I was a suffering addict for about 15 years and grew up in St.

Paul, born and raised.

And by the grace of God and with the help of sober homes and drug court and rehabilitative programs, I've been sober for 10 years.

Um extremely passionate about the work we do for obvious reasons.

It's personal.

Um, in the last eight months, it's been a whirlwind.

Um as an operator, some of the things we have gone through are pretty pretty tough to deal with.

But it pairs pales in comparison to some of the part of our clients are going through as a result of these overnight changes that are displaced in so many people.

Um and some of these operators have been in this for a long time, doing this for the right reasons, and their whole careers have been you know turned upside down overnight, which is has affected the cluster people they served and their families, which is just isn't fair.

Um, you know, us as operators and as servants.

Um we didn't play a role in the fraud.

Um we don't think we should be subjected to a collective punishment.

Um the city of St.

Paul has been a phenomenal ally and partner over the last 10 years.

And you know, I'm sure they feel blindsided about the decisions DHS made and the ramifications it's had.

Um I'm here advocating for for the people we serve first and foremost.

Um it's really important work.

And I can tell you in the last eight months, we've seen a lot of calamity, um, a lot of return to use, um, some suicide even.

Um it's hard for me to go to bed at night with some of this stuff going on and not coming up here and speaking and advocating for these people.

That was one of them.

I identify and relate with these individuals.

And these are our kids, these are our brothers, our sisters, our aunts or uncles.

I mean, this is our community.

We owe it to these people.

So what I'm advocating for simply is uh 330 foot separation distance.

Um that's what it was for sober homes before rules changed overnight due to no fault of our home.

Um anything outside of that shuts down the large number of homes and limits access to people that need these vital services.

Um we have a property at um West Southern Daily that was licensed for 33 beds.

We're currently tapped at six.

Um the weather's changing, it's getting cold outside.

When I was walking into this courtroom, I seen I seen somebody picking out the trash can.

Homeless eating out of a trash can.

And we can help.

We want to help.

Um we we just need we just need a favorable helping here to help these people.

It's not about me, it's not about our company.

Thank you for your comments.

You're you're at three minutes.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Thanks for time.

Really appreciate it.

Are there any questions?

Thank you.

My name is Doug Elsa.

I live at 768 Lincoln Avenue.

Um next door to me is a sober home at 764 Lincoln.

And um it's being converted, my understanding is to an Earth's facility.

And our neighbors were involved in and the operator that home has been for what's health has been significant on their plans, and we appreciate that.

We're supportive, I'm supportive anyway, of sober homes, but we don't understand the need for the change uh to allow essentially these supported facilities to cluster once again.

My understanding is that the reason for the existing limit is to prevent clustering and to encourage these homes to be part of the community.

And we have that as part of our community, but it seems to be a chain to 330 feet would be entirely contrary to the idea of dispersing these facilities in the community.

Instead, we'd be back to clustering.

So for example, on our block, my understanding is there could be three homes.

Our block is 660 feet approximately or so.

They could be conceivably one at each corner, one in the middle, in our neighborhood with uh large homes where facilities could locate.

Um, but we're I and our block is opposed to a change on this and sort of puzzle about why it would be a shift in the policy.

Uh my further understanding is that the city of Minneapolis has 1320 feet restrictions.

Um that seems a good policy.

And so our question to the commission is why we shift back to commit clustering and and contrast to trying to disperse uh these facilities throughout the community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions from that?

Oh, sir.

Sure.

It's actually one question for you.

Okay.

Thank you, madam chair.

Sir, what would you see as a reasonable distance?

What would you see as a reasonable distance if not 330?

Oh, well, I don't know the answer to that question.

My my question is why why we would solve my understanding is the problem in the sober community mental health treatment has arisen from a change in the funding structure.

I don't know the details of it.

My question is why we try to solve or solve it by getting back to clustering.

So I I would say speaking for myself, at a minimum, which I think they should be a couple blocks apart.

Like maybe the 1320 equates to that, but there are, as the commission may know, and uh Grand Avenue area, um Summit Hill area.

There are a fair number of these facilities already in existence and have been for the most part, if they're bigger, they've been restricted by the 1320.

So speaking for myself, if they stay uh you know dispersed by a couple blocks or so, I think that makes much more sense.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who'd like to be heard?

Hi, my name is Julie Helwick, and I live in Hemland Midway area.

And uh first I would like to mention that uh I would like to see the congregate living zoning study um name changed to reflect uh the zoning study on supportive housing facilities, which is what the city staff and city council requested that the study be called the zoning study on supportive housing facilities.

It's confusing when it's called the congregate living zoning study, as they're already is a congregate living study of 2016 and calling them the same thing.

Um is confusing, right?

Mr.

Schwartz, right?

Okay, also um this the city's resolution also called for an impact on supportive housing and a study on supportive housing.

The congregate living zoning study and the questions don't address that, and this is an important issue.

And to the to the point of the person who spoke, Mr.

Schwartz, supportive housing right now includes a subset called housing first.

Supportive housing.

And there's no definition in our legislative in the zoning code for housing first.

Housing first is a federally as a recognized model where it's legal to house persons using illegal drugs, as we know.

We'll just mention Kimble Court, that's the one people are probably most familiar with.

It's a harm reduction model, which means they want to reduce, we want to reduce the harm to the person using the drugs in supportive services are offered.

There's no requirement to be drug free or sobriety to live in the in these facilities, nor is there any requirement to accept services.

Housing first is basically a model to house homeless people who are the hardest to house, severe persistent mental illness, and drug alcohol use.

However, our does the 2016 zoning study, which made supportive housing its own zoning, or you know, you know what I mean?

Um the definition for people living in supportive housing is to be sober and substance free, and also if using supportive housing as a um to integrate into the community and not cluster and supportive housing as a treatment model.

This doesn't align with how housing first works.

It's not a treatment model.

Uh and a subset for housing first, mate until there is a study on the impact five years on.

We know the housing first model, and may my other townings are in um something that I've submitted, which will be on the on the site, I guess.

Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Jeff Young.

I live at 753 Lincoln Avenue, and for disclosure, I'm a neighborhood building on the same block as Doug.

Uh I agree with Doug with regard to the two-block separation.

I don't quite understand why, but change to 300.

If you had two block separation between any of these houses, is the zoning applying commission saying that there are not enough blocks in St.

Paul to complicate all these houses?

That's my first question.

It would seem like there's plenty of room in St.

Paul, depending on where you want to go or what you want to do.

And I'd also say I agree with the 13 or 20 feet that we currently have right now, that would actually have a big two blocks.

So my question is regarding like, you know, what's the calculation for how many houses St.

Paul could support with two blocks separation?

All right.

Uh thank you for the question.

Um, we'll have a staff member either come talk to you now or if they're not available, we'll make sure that they contact you to talk about the specific question.

Are there other comments that you'd like to make?

Yeah, I just want to know like if that's if there is room.

All right uh thank you for the question um we'll have a staff member either come talk to you now or if they're not available we'll make sure that they contact you to talk about the the specific question are there other comments that you'd like to make yeah I just want to know like if that's if there is room then how does that affect the planning commission's decision making process okay just because the business wants to locate one spot does it really mean that that's the right answer you know they were already there oh sorry all right wonderful thank you like three minutes uh is there anyone else who would like just quickly good morning everybody my name is Lawrence Tana one of the uh so well operator as as well um one other thing I want to talk about I know the two gentlemen talk about the two two block radius but uh what do you want to play out uh for for consideration because some of the building is specific built for that before so it's like for example the the building that we own currently has like a 22 room single single room that uh that's in the building but that's not it's not not even the single family homes but we follow in the guidelines and that building is is unfortunately just very close distance another one I think it's about thousand something and just like or short and then we basically use that for that purpose and just want to go to waste so just something to think about so thank you i i i should say every single building should have I'll say this to have like a like a like a uh uh exception for that so um any questions for the okay uh is there anyone else who would like to be heard good morning my name is chum sturvey i'm the owner of stronger sober house i currently own uh four homes i want to uh reiterate what mark schwartz said first uh very articulately about the people that we serve um i'm not sure if you're aware we serve the majority of our uh clientele is uh minorities so we really really help a lot of people we do a lot of good um but a few points i wanted to make is one um i think there has to be some consideration um with existing homes if you want to do the 1320 separation for new homes great but there's homes that were existing i own two of them that would have been in existence 10 to 15 years when i purchased them and now all of a sudden with this new change i'm all of a sudden out so that's you have to factor in something that was already in existence and due to the technical change now we're being forced to all of a sudden number one um I think there's a lot of talk about this clustering um does the state does the city have a stats of overall sober housing and how much it's decreased if if you're concerned is clustering what are the numbers I believe the numbers uh for sober housing um have decreased significantly so now again you decreased all this um the need for some for housing for these homeless people and for people in need due to this role so that's the second thing and actually that's that's all I have but um thank you for very thank you very much any question thank you is there anyone else present who would like to be heard nope just one time is there anyone else who would like to speak heard is there anyone else that would like to be heard all right um so I don't think the chair of CMPC is not currently with us um and I don't think the vice chair of CMPC is with us so I'm wondering if there is anyone here um if you're thinking about making a motion uh the motion would be that the hearing be closed uh excuse me so we emotion that the meeting the the close the public hearing hold the record open for additional written testimony that staff would receive by 430 on Monday October 20th and then to take this item under advisement by the planning commission okay so there's a move by commissioner ortega um so to close the public hearing hold the record open for additional written testimony that staff would receive by 430 p.m on Monday October 20th 2025 and then for the planning commission to take this under item under advisement is there a second second seconded by commissioner so motion by ortega seconded by hacking uh is there any other discussion on this motion commission riley um i just want to say three things one thank you for all the people who came

So to close the public hearing, hold the record open for additional written testimony that staff would receive by 4.30 p.m.

on Monday, October 20th, 2025.

And then for the planning commission to take this under item under advisement.

Is there a second?

Second.

Seconded by Commissioner Hackney.

So motion by Ortega, seconded by Hackney.

Is there any other discussion on this motion?

Commissioner Riley.

One, thank you for all the people who came today.

It's a weird time to come and speak your piece, but I appreciate you all coming.

The second thing I want to say is that I really appreciate the commenter who mentioned the housing first policy, because that has been demonstrated to work around the country to help folks who are experiencing ugly get back on their feet or find safe places to live out the remainder of their days.

And I think that if you read the resolutions passed by the city council, um, they seem to be strongly in support of that concept.

And it is not something that this city has practiced in the same way others around the country have.

And it is impossible to be located in St.

Paul and not recognize that we have a significant problem with not enough places that are safe for people to live.

And that is compounded by the fact that the drugs that people use, whether illegally or legally are impacted by really horrible drugs that those people do not intend to take.

Fentanyl is in every single thing that is available on the street, and there is now superfentanyl, which basically kills you.

So you could be using something perfectly legal, like a marijuana product or a cannabis product that you buy in a store and be fine.

But if you don't have access to it in a store like you don't have here today, or you can't go to another state because you can't bring it back because that's illegal, you end up getting stuff that would be perfectly legal, but will kill you.

And when we don't house people safely, we run the risk of creating a situation where more people will die on our streets.

So I want with that, my third thing is it would be great if when this comes back to us, we could have a map of what it looks like today of where all the supportive and other kinds of congregate living are that sort of fall under this category are today.

So we can have a true visual picture of this so-called clustering.

Um, and then it would also I think be helpful if it if folks would if the PV staff could sort of do an exercise to show us what it might look like for the 300-foot separation, maybe at 330.

Um, because that's kind of the 330 by 660 kind of picture, and then the 1320.

Um because I do think that in the past we have had an experience in the city of St.

Paul where there are clusters.

Those clusters often make sense because they are near places to work, they are near places of support, um, like for free food, etc.

Um, but I think it might be nice to be able to see that visually as part of study.

So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Riley.

Um, I do want to just for the folks that are here and other other people um we're taking these public comments.

This will all get referred back to the comprehensive neighborhood planning committee.

There will be discussion at comprehensive neighborhood planning committee, um, and then in a version of the product will sort of the um excuse me of the study will come back to us at zoning committee um after reviewing the public comments and those conversations at CMPC.

So this isn't the last time that this is going to be discussed, and it will be going through many different stops sort of on its way here.

Um, so this is the first discussion of many.

So do you want to keep that in mind as we're thinking about agenda and other items here today.

Um Commissioner Ortega and then Commissioner Starling.

Yeah, thank you.

Um just to add on Commissioner Barney's I when we had our last uh meeting, there was a lot of distinction between different types of congregate or sober houses.

I just I think it needs to be clearer because it wasn't denoted today by the speakers whether it's uh house with services or without services and part of that information that we need.

I just to make want to make sure that that's included in that picture.

Thanks, Commissioner Tegan, Commissioner Sant.

I just heard you chair articulate the path that this will go through.

Could you re-articulate that?

If I say it incorrectly, though, I do want the director to correct me.

Um, so we this the study has been released.

The the study was drafted.

Uh it was released for public hearing.

Uh the public provides comments through Monday at 4 30.

Then those comments are collated, brought together, um, and staff will bring them to the comprehensive neighborhood planning committee.

The comprehensive neighborhood committee neighborhood committee will review those public comments along with the draft document, and then make a recommendation for any changes or addits at comprehensive neighborhood planning committee, then they will vote, and that product will come back to us here at full planning commission.

We will vote on it, and then commissioner or excuse me, director.

Thanks, Chair.

Um, a few times we have brought um larger discussions to the planning commission, which I intend to do again for this.

So I think this definitely uh warrants a lot of discussion and understanding of the details.

So just want to assure you that that will be coming to you in the future.

Commissioner Risberg.

Um Chair, could you reiterate what date it may be coming back for comprehensive planning?

Has that been determined yet?

I don't believe there is a date yet.

Okay.

You know when the vote on advisor is um, sir, we can't take comments from the public while we're in the meeting.

But there might be a staff member or somebody who could provide feedback.

Um is there anyone else up here with questions or comments?

Um, sorry, Commissioner Hackney.

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to clarify is this process for determining how we'll be approving or not new facilities going forward, because it seems like a major concern here is whether it would shut down existing facilities.

I think if staff can take all that into consideration when they're providing feedback on what it's going through discussion, also if that's in the comments and other things that can be part of the reviewed.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, so we have a motion and a second.

We've had discussion on the item.

Is there any other feedback?

Okay, otherwise we'll move forward with the vote.

All right.

All those in favor?

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right, the item passes.

And that is the that is it for the congregate living zoning study.

All right, we took things out of order, um, had the public hearing first.

So we're going to go back to regular order on the agenda.

Um the first item on the agenda was approval of the minutes from September 19 to October 9th, 2025.

Um, do I have a motion on the minutes?

Um motion by Commissioner Say, I do have a second.

Second.

Seconded by Commissioner Riley.

Is there any discussion on the minutes?

All right.

Seeing none, uh, we'll move forward with the vote.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right, then the minutes pass.

Um next up is chair's announcements.

I don't have any this week.

Nice to see you all.

Planning director announcements.

No planning director announcements.

Um next item up was zoning committee.

Um, the zoning committee meeting next week will be canceled.

Uh, so that item is complete as well.

Uh, and then we're back to CNPC.

So the last two items for comprehensive neighborhood planning committee are the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area and then initiating a bird safe class study.

And Tony Johnson is here uh for both of those items.

Uh good morning, everyone.

Uh, I'm not going to give a presentation today since I gave a larger one.

Uh, we had a discussion of it.

Um, we brought this item back to committee after uh we had that discussion and the committee made no changes uh from uh the changes that were made after the public hearing.

So just the reminder, uh what those recommendations were for bird safe glass.

The committee is recommending um uh the adoption of the tax market amendments without birdsave glass provisions, but they're also recommending initiative separate study.

So that's the second item um after this one.

Uh in regards to additional findings for market conditional use permits and variances, the committee recommended uh not adding additional findings uh in regards to tiering.

Uh the committee recommended several changes to hearing so that uh deleted uh the tiering definition from 68.214, deleting the same plan review standards for tiering and 68.236, and then replacing the language for additional standards for conditional permits to exceed the merga height uh limits.

Uh and finally, uh the committee recommended um changes to the height limits um and replacing banked hearing standards in RTC UM and the UC districts.

So um with the new recommendation, the base heights in those districts would start at 35 feet from different features such as left lines, uh the shoreline order ordinary high water level or district boundaries, and then you could increase height as you step back from those uh features.

Uh so the uh recommendation coming out of committee is to approve the draft ordinance as proposed in the attached resolution and text amendments and then forward it to the city council of mayor for final adoption.

Then I'd be happy to take any questions if folks have.

Okay, thanks, Tony.

Um so because this is coming out of CNPC, we will need a motion and a second, um, and then any discussion unless there are questions for Tony before that.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Homas is recommending approval of the draft ordinance as proposed in the in the resolution and the zoning text amendments, and then forwarding it to the mayor and city council for final adoption.

Second, and then seconded by Commissioner Riley.

So we have a motion and a second.

Is there any discussion on the item?

Commissioner Tanger.

Discussion state on it.

So my one question at our meeting was that the recommendations supported much of what the public hearing had asked for.

So and so we had sort of right.

Yeah, I would say so.

I mean, we made changes in response to public testimony.

So the the big one was changing the height limits in those districts to reflect um testimony that was similar to what uh was submitted by my friends of the Mississippi um and Alan Torson.

So that was the big change that we came.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Hackney.

Uh Chair, thank you.

Uh just could you build upon that more some like the specifics of the changes?

Uh how and how they compare it for to how they are now.

Sure.

Um, I'll just talk through it.

So in the initial draft uh amendments, uh basically the way we we did the height limits is known as the maximum height.

Um tiering requirements would have required subjective tiering review.

So basically on any development, uh staff would have to evaluate subjectively whether or not this development is tiering.

Uh what the change does is it creates like a formulaic standard for tiering, so it sets that base height of 35 feet, and then it had a plane to go over it, and so as long as you're within that, you meet tiering.

We don't have to do subjective analysis anymore.

And then anything kind of outside of where the tiering would be could go to that maximum height.

And again, you don't have to do subjective analysis of tiering anymore.

This replaces that completely.

So when you say that there's a plane, so it's going by angle, so that or is it by natural features?

It so it depends, depends on the district.

So it's from either the shoreline, ordinary high watermark, the bluff lines, like the top of the bluff or district boundaries, but it depends on the district or what it is.

So I recall that there were some.

I recall there was a reason, there was a good reason why, or there was a credible reason why the bird safe class requirements couldn't be included before.

Could you please remind me what that was and also give a timeline on you know the agenda item about initiating the study?

Sure.

Uh so start with the first one.

So we're asking you guys to initiate the study right after this for birdsite glass.

Uh there's a lot of reasons why we pulled it.

So if you look at the initial memo and the initial study that had it included, uh, there was no analysis in that study at all about the impacts of bird save glass.

Um and so after that was released, there was questions from policymakers about what this was from St.

Paul.

Um, and some of their questions had to do with cost of bird safe glass, uh whether or not this geography makes sense.

So Merkga wasn't designed to accommodate bird state glass.

This is like an extra thing that we're gonna tack on.

And one of the big questions is whether or not the Merkle boundaries make sense for birds and glass.

So the bird flyway, for example, is the whole city of St.

Paul.

And so does it make sense to limit uh the geography to just the Merk of that areas.

So that was the big reason why we pulled it and recommended doing a secondary study.

Commissioner Hackney, I think Commissioner Riley had question or comment as well, or did I misread that?

I do, but I wanted to make sure he got his needs.

What would be the timeline for the implement?

Doing the study and then implementation.

That was the last part.

Sure.

I mean, so it's hard to say.

I mean, typically I would say maybe a year.

Uh, so we'll get started on it after you guys initiated.

Um, yeah, hopefully be back within sometime next year.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, yeah, I just I just wanted to say that I really um kind of want to buy the entire planning staff, uh $4.99 leverage of there twice because it's been a very long log to get to get here.

But I also just wanted to note that um pages two and three of the cover memo are super helpful to show kind of where we've been and what the conversations were about and how we landed.

Um, and I very much appreciate um numbers three and four, especially.

Um I think the last thing we want is to make it more difficult to build in St.

Paul than it is to build in our neighboring communities.

Um perhaps because we need more places for people to live, but also because we need more tax bait.

Um, and I think the the wisdom of staff on the bird safe class component, um, given that the entire city is in the flyway, is uh really thoughtful approach.

So I just wanted to offer my congratulations and thank them on getting this part.

Thanks, Mr.

Matt.

Uh any other discussion on the item.

All right, uh, so we have a motion and a second.

We had discussion on the item.

Uh, we'll move forward with a vote.

Um, all those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right, the item passes.

And then next up is Tony with Bird Safe Link.

Uh yeah, so I don't think much to say we kind of covered it.

Um, so the next motion would be to initiate a uh bird safe class study uh in St.

Paul.

Okay, second glass study.

Commissioner Riley moves the recommends initiating a zoning study zoning study to evaluate bird safe glass policy options in St.

Paul and seconded by Commissioner Ortega.

Is there any discussion on that item?

Commissioner Shark.

Okay, one substantive and one non-substantive item.

The substantive question is a simple request that just as the Mississippi River flyway doesn't recognize the Merca boundaries.

The Mississippi River Flyway also does not recognize city boundaries.

And so I would encourage the bird safe glass zoning study to have conversations with neighboring municipalities as well, both in terms of advancing the goals of the bird safety and what Commissioner Riley mentioned in terms of aligning some of the city's requirements with neighboring cities so as not to inadvertently discourage development in the city.

Here, here um a non-substantive thing is a request for a to make a friendly amendment to address some copy editing issues in the resolution.

And then you're sorry, and okay.

Promotion and secondary are they comfortable with that?

Do you want to say the on the fourth aware?

Whereas comma based on the previous positive public testimony related to bird safe glass and amendments, the St.

Paul Planning Commission, no comma recommends initiating independent zoning study.

And the second bullet should be how do, not how to.

No, it's from Commissioner Riley.

Commissioner Ortega.

Um, so we have the correction on the record, and we have uh still the motion and the second set with that correction.

Um any discussion on that.

Any no discussion on that?

Uh that's been amended.

And we're okay to move forward with the vote.

All right, all those in favor?

All those in favor?

All right.

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right.

The item passes with that little text cleanup.

Thank you, Commissioner Stirling.

And that concludes the business for CMPC.

Next up is Transportation Committee.

Chair.

We had two items on our agenda.

The first was the American for Disability Act.

And there was a presentation on the sidewalk and pedestrian ramp evaluation findings.

And the projects that are being recommended throughout the city funded by the common cent program.

So I would recommend that.

So our next meeting is October 27th.

Thank you.

I think that's right.

Commissioner Thomas.

New business.

We are