Planning Commission Worksession   6/12/2025

I think that should be saved.

No, that's OK.

It was last week.

I said Keisha was on vacation all last week.

I don't know if it went to her line or not, but I didn't get any.

That's weird.

And I think it had to do with the work session topic.

That's okay.

All right, I'd like to call this work session this June work session to order for the Louisiana County Planning Commission.

We will begin with our old business, which is a discussion on shelters.

I'll defer to Mr. Goodwin if he prefers to do that.

I was just telling someone I have spent more time

on this issue than anything since I've been on the Planning Commission except the comprehensive plan.

Put a lot of thought into it.

I was hearing from a lot of quarters that where we started several months ago was a note.

And this thing has morphed and changed over time.

with I think the right people being involved.

I've met with some of the interested parties out in the citizenry.

And I'm not saying that it won't morph again before we bring it up for an actual public hearing.

And I think it is a very, very good draft to work with tonight.

I will draw everybody's attention.

We met this week, as a matter of fact, on Tuesday.

And you'll see a lot of line in and line out from that meeting where we further relaxed things that we didn't think were necessary or we didn't want to enforce.

I am very comfortable with us having discussion on this tonight.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and staff, for all of your work on this and for the people who have come forth and given us their input on it.

I think we have been in a compromising mood from the beginning, trying to check as many of everybody's box as we can without jeopardizing what we're trying to do, which is to find two types of shelters in the county, as staff requested.

Thank you.

And I would like to thank you as well, Commissioner Goodwin, for the

Just all the effort of research and time and work with county staff as well in producing the background for all of this so we can have something that addresses the needs of the county, I think, as well as the needs of those who would want to implement these shelters.

I will note, Mr. Kuhn, that since we need to resolve both

types of shelter.

I only see the definition for one shelter here tonight.

So I do have a draft definition.

So the

yourself and Mr. Goodwin have provided a definition.

I provide an alternative definition and the county attorney has been in review of that.

Let's start here then.

And we'll get to that one after we finish here.

The emergency shelter, the humanitarian show.

Okay.

Yes.

Yes, sir.

Yes, so as you all see, what was provided in your agenda packet was a draft of this, which included a draft definition, which was homeless shelter after review.

That has been updated to humanitarian shelter.

And then the other item is it does say a facility that provides temporary shelter and basic services to individuals or families.

And it was requested to strike out experiencing homelessness, and then just said, without requiring lease or occupancy agreements.

So that would be the draft definition, we would add a new definition of humanitarian shelter to the zoning code.

And

Is there any questions about that?

So yes, the next item, and just bear with us, this is a little conceptual.

What we tried to do here is create an ordinance or

Information that would be included in the zoning code that would require certain items so The intent is if an applicant is coming to get a conditional use permit for this type of use we wanted to be upfront with this is the things that you need to provide for an application for CUP that would be helpful and Then that's where these items would go so the first one would be that this would be an ancillary use requirement as you know we do have in the zoning code is by right and then

permitted secondary uses or CUP.

We probably add something on the back end of the appropriate zoning that we're going to require CUP for this to have a CUP ancillary secondary uses.

So we may do it that way instead of have it like this.

But the intent is that a shelter would be permitted as an ancillary accessory use.

The daycare child care center facility, we originally said that they should be separate.

But that was stricken.

For item three, continuous supervision.

The intent here was that if the applicant is going to file, they would show, number one, how they were going to be supervised.

So with the hours of operation, if the individuals are going to be trained, how they're going to be trained.

And then, like we said, it would be a requirement or expectation that these supervised individuals would be there during all hours of operation.

For item four, just like we were talking about the intake and screening requirements, what they intend to do, and what all that includes, the hours, the protocols, the verification or identification, the screening policies, assessing suitability, the written policy stating if they're going to do background checks or what they're going to do that may or may not disqualify someone entry.

So basically, it's just a whole narrative of what they plan on doing for their intake and screening requirements.

We contemplated having facility layout.

So on the exterior of the building, if there's going to be controlled access points in and out of the building, there's going to be exterior cameras or lit parking lots or something like that.

That was decided to be struck for now.

On site services and partnerships.

This is something just to show that they've reached out to the community and tried to identify other organizations or partnerships that could render some type of aid

Just dealing with vulnerable populations, making sure they have additional services they can provide.

We discuss and parking circulation and access to the facilities just dealing with traffic and all that, but that was something that that didn't feel was necessary.

The next item was the community impact and service burden statement.

One of these items is trying to make sure that in the CUP if they're going to do this use that it's not going to overburden the county.

And you can see one update that we made on the second bullet it says they need to provide a narrative to show how the shelter will minimize or offset reliance on county or public services.

Of course, public services could be rendered by state agencies as well as the county.

Then we also have on here, the good neighbor policy, which is something that ultimately provides a point of contact, basically 24 seven, whenever the operations of the shelter going on, there's someone that you know, community members or surrounding members of the community could reach out to.

And then we had the review and enforcement as well as the regulatory compliance.

Those are two regulatory items that basically say in addition to all of these expectations for CEP application that depended on a case by case basis, of course, the board could put additional conditions on any application that came forward.

And then the regulatory compliance, we wanted to make sure that all the different standards were laid out that just making sure they are aware that all of these requirements and

Before we go to a particular item here to be discussed, I just wanted to ask, does anyone have any questions in general about the policy that's been produced or anything you'd like to discuss?

Certainly.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I guess the first thing stricken and added would be in the draft definition.

We did not want to restrict

Community Assistance to Just Homelessness.

We wanted to include hunger, adverse weather, power outages.

Anytime that there was something out there and they felt a need to provide assistance, they could do that.

Beyond just whether you're talking a soup kitchen or

A free meal for an overnight, a bed to stay out of the weather, and homeless was a little bit restrictive.

So that's the reason we changed throughout the document the reference to homeless.

On item two, it was too restrictive, be it said it shall not be located on a parcel that has

a daycare preschool or other that was stricken because different applicants will have different facilities and it's entirely possible that they can have a homeless facility excuse me a humanitarian I knew I would sleep tonight an humanitarian facility that is completely separate

from where they're having the schools and if they have got the proper procedures in place and it could be that the humanitarian shelter is not in use when the children are there, but if it is, they've got to be able to show us that there's a separation but it's not a requirement.

That's the reason that was stricken.

Any questions about that one?

Layout and security requirements, it was presumed throughout this that we were talking about an existing facility being used.

And if it was existing, the layout really didn't tell us anything since we don't have minimum requirements for a layout anyway, and neither does the state.

So if they want to use an existing facility, whether it's a home or a civic organization's meeting place or a church or what have you, the presumption is it's already in place.

If it's not in place, a new construction is going to go through the building process and the county will have the layout for it and we'll be able to ask the appropriate question.

So that was a burden that we wanted to separate.

All of these, I think, I'm going to go through and look at the last stricken section.

All of these is to make it less cumbersome and to get rid of information that

We really don't want to get into with anyone who's providing this assistance.

And it's the same with parking.

If it's an existing facility, you're already dealing with parking and circulation.

That sort of thing.

If they're going to come in to build a new facility, they're going to have to go through the building process.

And we have standards for parking and that sort of stuff.

If it's an existing facility, these people are making a decision that their parking will handle it.

We're okay with that.

Again, all of this that was stricken is to make this less cumbersome.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

I do appreciate that.

You're certainly welcome.

Are there any other questions in general?

Mr. Chairman, if I may, could I pose the question that and I agree with where this has moved to and I literally just refreshed myself last night on the old ones.

So it kind of it's challenging me to, to not look at these in my notes.

But this is great.

I really appreciate the effort.

I just a couple questions.

humanitarian shelter.

How would that be handled, just by the trained staff members?

I guess my question is, if we take away, which I agree with it being moved, it poses the question in my mind, facility layout and security requirements.

So should something come up where the, back to number three, a trained staff member under continuous supervision, I guess the policy would reflect that.

If medical aid or anything like that was needed rendering that, they would just call the 911.

And Mr.

Chair, the reason the word trained is highlighted is because we did not come to a consensus on that.

Well, I know I just would you refer to train people?

That's not no, no, that was one of the changes decided.

It was neither added nor deleted.

Well actually, Commissioner Goodwin answered most of my notes.

Even the ones on my old list, you kind of took care of all of them, so thank you.

So then, unless there are any other comments, that moves us back to item three, continuous supervision.

The phrasing that was originally

The question was raised during the meeting yesterday whether we wanted to require training or we wanted to leave that to the organization.

And I think I raised a question initially.

The reason I raised it was partly because I'm not aware of everything that goes on in the world, so I apologize for that.

But I was unable to

come up with where would you go to get trained, what would a training program look like, what would be your qualification under that training program, just to understand before we create a requirement, is there a requirement that could be met?

So, of course, when we say training, it's a wide range of examples.

This, of course, would be up to the organizations applying for the CUP, they could provide these are the trainings that we're interested in, and given our staff, just some of the ones right off the top, of course, it's the American Red Cross, CPR first aid training.

But getting into more specifics about the shelter fundamentals, Virginia Department of Health actually has a shelter fundamental training.

It's basic shelter operations in the Commonwealth, which includes roles, coordination, as well as some infection prevention.

They've also got the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services.

They've got a couple trainings that deal with

Some types of vulnerable populations who have or could have some behavioral health.

complications.

Virginia Department of Health has there's environmental shelter shelter training as well, which just covers sanitation, hygiene, food safety and other shelter like environmental standards that are you know, kind of the requirements if you're going to do this in the state of Virginia.

They also have sorry, some of my notes are splitting pages.

There's some shelter, like

They have shelter like tabletop simulations with Virginia Department of Health, which is kind of simulation based like role playing, getting people at speed with different types of scenarios that they could see.

And then, of course, there's some national ones as well, National Association of County and City Health Officials that provide training for it's like a public health readiness, which help education and just prevent some of the items that may come up.

But there's a laundry list of different items that would qualify in some type of shelter organization or dealing with vulnerable populations.

Those are just a couple ones I found right off the

I'll start the discussion off.

I was against the word trained.

I wanted to eliminate it and just say a staff member would be present.

And I had rationale for that.

Number one, it's cumbersome to go through training.

We've already been through that with fire departments and rescue squads, and we've lost people because of minimum training requirements.

Number two, it starts us down a rabbit hole.

We're also going to require background checks and all that other stuff that comes up when you start checking on individuals who are providing assistance.

And the last reason, there's two more, one kind of pings off the other one.

The Good Samaritan Law is already covered in the statute of Virginia.

So if you are earnestly providing assistance to another individual, you are covered under the state's Good Samaritan law unless you are grossly negligent in what you are trying to do.

And because of that, that state coverage, I think

Training requirements is best left to the entity and their insurance company and not the county.

We just say it as a staff member.

That staff member is covered by the state under Good Samaritan.

If your insurance company requires some minimum training or whatever, then, and certainly if you want to get training in addition to what Mr. Coons

mentioned, I'm sure local fire and rescue would come by and have a session with you to talk about training and usually fire will give you a courtesy inspection of your facility and point out things.

So I think, I don't think we need the word in there.

I personally don't want the word in there for the reasons I just stated.

Anyway, I'll start the conversation off there.

And it was a good discussion on Tuesday.

There were a couple of face-to-faces and maybe a couple of white knuckles, but it was healthy.

It was healthy conversation.

Put it on the table and let's beat on this thing for a while.

I'm going to throw it open to others from what they've heard.

Otherwise, I'll step in with my opinion as well.

I guess it goes with the question.

Again, I like the way it's been changed.

I like this new draft more than no one for sure.

But it's going to make me use the word homeless shelter.

And I guess that my question would be maybe posed more to staff.

I mean, trying to separate from where this originally

It was emergency shelter.

And then we'll get to the emergency shelter updating that definition.

So then we just knew we had to separate emergency shelter to this with Virginia code is not the right terminology to use.

So we wanted to update it.

And then just like Commissioner Goodwin had mentioned, the reason why homeless has been removed for humanitarian is that if someone got a CUP, an entity, organization, whatever received a CUP for this, they would be able to provide the

temporary sheltering and basic services really to anybody that needed those services so that's why we removed the homeless piece of it is because it actually is more inclusive so if people needed help or their power went out and you know something happened that they needed to use one of these facilities it would actually open it to a little bit broader than just

those experiencing homelessness.

Yes, sir.

I understand that.

Thank you for your response.

There are certainly individuals who probably

The best way to phrase it I think is there are individuals that are homeless in Louisa County and the scale at which assistance needs to be provided is I guess what's in flux right now.

Some individuals want us to go at it 100 miles an hour.

Some individuals want to take the approach that we've got now.

So I guess I was asking for comments on, but I appreciate the comment though Mr. Painting was asking for comments on trained, whether anyone had a strong opinion one way or the other.

Not a strong opinion, but thank you.

Trained is kind of wide, isn't it?

Because I can train you and I can brief you or train you.

Brief is a word that we recognize.

You can be briefed in a minute.

So, I mean, is it germane to a specific training?

and otherwise, is there something that, I know that you say, well okay, well you could, they could allow them to be trained, but to what degree?

Okay.

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dickerson.

I guess at the moment I could go with Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Goodwin and remove the word trained.

because in the past month I've been dealing with insurance companies and their regulations and they're much more stringent than what I've seen counties do on some other issues.

Well, thank you.

Thank you.

And following on Mr. Quarles, I originally asked the question in the meeting we had on Tuesday about the word train because as I said earlier, I was it was unclear to me if there was any training class anything that could be used any formal method or what were we actually requiring at the time?

I'm

I'm not as strong on removing that as I was, but I'm acceptable to remove it.

If we leave it in, it does appear to be a requirement.

at that point.

And it's not left up to the to the shelter operator, the way I read the language, whether they would not have to train a staff member, they would have to train them somehow some training would have to be provided, but it's unclear what the training is.

And it could be something they train them on their own procedures is all it would have to be.

So Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kuhn.

So I just want to make sure this says a trained staff member or authorized representative.

So if it's an authorized representative, let's say if it was an organization that wanted to provide a representative that spoke for them, they could still be on site.

And it doesn't require any training.

This would be if it was a staff member that they had.

That's why it was one or the other.

Okay, so it's

I appreciate that.

I'm sure we may have to do some legal changes if we keep it in there.

So I would think an authorized representative of the organization and staff member of the organization may well be the same kind of thing anyway.

And so I I don't know.

I'm

I'm not strongly either way right now.

But if you say it's a trained staff member, then the staff member is going to have to be trained by someone, by some method, to some requirement.

And I guess it would be left up to

the organization.

But I don't know.

And all that training may be is, I guess, here's the keys.

Here's the phone book with the numbers we call.

If

I mean, that's at times I've been in those at work too.

And that's more of a I had it, you got it.

And you're on your way on the shift.

So I don't know.

I mean, not to make light of it.

I just I don't.

A staff member or authorized representative.

Yeah.

Is it necessary to have both, staff member and authorized representative?

Could we not just go with authorized representative?

Because the staff member is going to be authorized representative, I would assume.

So why have both?

I'm okay with that as well.

Either one of them is fine.

I just had an idea, which is sometimes scary, but instead of having trained a staff member or authorized representative, how about identified authorized representative?

Because sometimes you go into a room, everybody's dressed the same, you don't know who's in charge.

Other than having a point of contact with Mr.

Chair, other than having a point of contact which is identified in the other paragraph.

That person may not be on site where the authorized representative is on site.

Whoever arises.

Because a good neighbor policy does identify primary contact for community inquiries or complaints.

It just gets confusing in organizations.

I'm all right with an identified

An identified authorized representative.

Are there any other comments on the humanitarian shelter as presented?

and modified.

All right.

As long as the conversation's done, I just want to make sure Patricia and I have

looked at this and there's a couple items like I mentioned before that how we indicated it what's before you today there may be other locations in the zoning code that may be more adequate to place it so for example item one may be placed in a different section so I just want to make sure you guys are aware

The format that you're looking at today, it may be different.

The intent will be the same.

It's just where it goes in the ordinance.

It'll still be on one page, but the locations may be a little bit different than what's presented today.

And some of the language, we've had some conversations about things that need to be tightened up a little bit in verifying.

They're providing this information to us.

It's not necessarily a requirement.

It's

Mr.

Not every box.

I felt like we got chewed on enough last night.

We don't want him here.

Something to remember for our public here.

Never seen anything like it.

boxes it, it would be is transferring most of the same thing that's already existing for emergency shelter.

So we discussed the A2 in and out of a growth area would require CUP and then

In the A1, A1 in a growth area, R1, R2, in or out of a growth area, it would be a prohibited use, so they'd have to try and get a special exception from the Board of Supervisors for that.

In C1, C2, IND, and I1, it would require a conditional use permit, and then we also had included

that it would require CUP for those items in the growth area, which right now it's by right, but we proposed that it require a condition to use permit in those districts as well.

So essentially, it would be a required CUP in anything higher than a C1 and lower than I2 and it would not include an RD and then it would also be a CUP in the A2 and A2 growth area.

So it's pretty similar to what we've got now.

It's just there's three growth areas.

I see the phone.

Yes.

They are now.

Mr.

Chair, I don't know that I agree with that.

I can think of residential development

that during the CUP process I would be against.

But I could take the same zoning and look at it that is zoned residential and I would not be against.

And I think the CUP process, rather than prohibitive and making an exemption, would bring out

any concerns we have and I'll be straight up in a tight subdivision.

I'm not sure that I want that to go through a CUP so I can consider that because we've got R1 and R2 that are in subdivisions, not in subdivisions, large parcels.

and it'll all come out in the wash during the CUP process.

Well, okay, so to begin, just so I'm clarifying to me that

You got the picture.

Nowhere is it proposed to be by right.

Okay.

Okay.

Good.

There are several zonings in the matrix right now, where it is prohibited.

And you have to go through an exemption.

Right.

I'm saying I'm not sure we need to do that if they have to do a CUP.

It's like any other zone because we got some

We got some mixed uses in some of the same zonings in this county.

The CUP will draw that out.

I can think of some churches that I haven't checked the zoning, but I believe they're in residential zoning that may want to apply for a program like this.

And if they did, then I'm not saying that particular area or the particular church would be

The CUP process will bring it out rather than the message and the process of saying, no you can't, you've got to go in for an exemption.

Well, yeah, so if you use the current code, emergency shelter there is what we're talking about, right?

What we're talking about right now.

Right.

Yeah.

So the conversation just is, do we want to include it in other districts other than the ones we see here?

Go ahead.

I don't see the problem with

This is Commissioner Goodwin's idea of bringing it all through a C.U.P.

It's a step but when you have situations like you said in and out of these areas, I mean,

Does it create that much more work?

I don't think so.

And I guess that would be the biggest nuisance.

I guess you look at it as a broad brush, but you try not to

Upon reflection, I'm thinking back, as you said, there are several facilities

in some of those zone-in classes with Xs where a facility may work great.

And going hand in hand with all this being said, I mean, I can think of some churches that probably fall into some of that zoning.

Or any other organizations, absolutely.

So, Mr. Goodwin, did you have anything further?

Well, I was going to say,

What was I going to say?

I was agreeing with what Commissioner Quarles said.

The only person, the only entity that it affects is us.

Staff still has to work up all the paperwork for an exemption and the board still has to hear it and vote on it.

Mr. Painting, don't let me forget you because Mr. Brooks isn't here tonight.

Okay.

All right.

Well, I'm, I'm

Certainly an agreement with expanding it across the board CUPs and let everyone come forward if they wish to and we'll deal with it.

I think we're opening ourselves up to be in question.

I don't even know if it's zoned that way, but Shenandoah Crossing, if they wanted to help the people in the community, then why would you say, no, you can't do that?

Everybody else can, but Shenandoah Crossing can't.

Resort development's a little different with the master plan requirements and things like that.

It's much more processed.

It's going to be required anyway.

So that's just something we can include it, but they're still going to have to do a whole lot more legwork to try and get one of these uses approved just because of that master plan on the back end.

So Mr. Coon, that brings us now then, I think, to the question of the emergency shelter definition.

So we can go ahead and take that up.

And then I'd be interested in having a vote on moving this forward public hearing in July.

So what we had was a definition that was proposed.

John and George had worked on and there's a couple items that Patricia and I were reviewing and then one thing did come out that was important to just make a distinction is

So the emergency shelter is actually dealt with in a different section of state code.

It's basically based on operations and not necessarily the zoning code.

So it's not a requirement to be defined because it's something that has other rules and stipulations in the state code and other items that address it, address the regulations, address the

Operation, how it's approved, who it's submitted to, all that is already done and established elsewhere.

So it's not something that necessarily Louisa County needs to define in the land use and say who can and can't do it because it's already stipulated elsewhere.

However, for clarification, if you guys wanted to put it, we would suggest simplifying the definition that was proposed and referencing the state code section that authorizes

that use and the operations of it, and then allow by right use in any district just to this way, it doesn't hinder the county's response and emergency so that if something happens and operations need to

pivot or do something different just depending on what the scenario is that there's no hindrance in the zoning code that our code enforcement doesn't have the authority to enforce anyway.

But we still don't want to be in violation of the zoning code.

So it's just one of those we could repeal the emergency shelter definition is not going to be a land use item.

It's kind of an operation item or we could amend it and then just do a much simpler

about the emergency operation plan providing temporary shelter and then the emergency shelter must comply with the Virginia Emergency Services and Disaster Law which is the one Supervisor Goodwin, I'm sorry, Commissioner Goodwin has been discussing.

So it's just one of those.

Thank you, Mr. Kuhn, for that clarification as well.

I think potentially it'd be better to simply repeal emergency shelter.

Nobody is going to come in here and attempt to build one, I don't think.

Just from out of the blue, it's something that's handled differently.

I absolutely agree.

This one was really squeaky in the beginning clean.

It was spelled out in the code of Virginia.

This is what it is.

In certain situations, here's who calls it.

It's either a state of emergency or a local emergency.

That's it.

Governor calls one, local governor calls the other.

Nobody else, I don't care which zone it is, can

use an emergency shelter.

It's in the, not used, but established one.

So I don't see why we need it.

If we repeal the definition, we'd also remove it from the matrix just so that there's no questions about it.

Yes, sir.

Very good.

Very good.

So at this point,

The Chair would entertain a motion on this.

Chair, I move that we place these two items of discussion on the agenda for our July meeting for public hearing.

One being the establishment of the definition for humanitarian shelter along with any qualifying information that we have discussed and decided on tonight.

the other being to vacate the definition of emergency shelter and its inclusion in the zoning reference matrix.

All right we have a motion and a second that I won't repeat but essentially moves forward the definition of humanitarian shelter to public hearing in

July with the removal of emergency shelter definition and the attached matrix table entry.

Mr. Pinking?

Yes.

Mr. Disosway?

Yes.

Mr. Dickerson?

Mr. Goodwin?

Yes.

Yes.

Very good.

I want to thank everybody for their involvement and serious consideration of this.

Absolutely.

Yeah, and thank you for your leadership as well, Commissioner Goodwin.

Thank you, Mr. Coon, for the staff work on this.

Very much appreciated.

Yes, sir.

Then see, I don't believe we have any other new business set for one item.

And that has to do with comprehensive plan.

So the Comprehensive Plan update is coming upon us.

I will check.

My recollection was in January.

It was Commissioner Dickerson and Commissioner Goodwin.

I think we discussed it, but I'm not sure it showed up in the minutes.

If you're I wanted to clarify it because I want to make sure we we get that recorded.

Just to provide an update from staff, we've been working on different surveys to get out to members of the public on different facets of the comprehensive plan.

So it'd be one overarching survey should be relatively large, but we also want to make sure we

Chunk

by the end of

So, Mr.

Very well.

We, I'm gonna give you an hour tonight.

Anyhow, since we have just a couple of minutes, can you we made a recommendation and maybe this is better during the regular meeting, but I'll ask it now I can ask it again.

And we made a recommendation during the

regular meeting in May in order to commission a study of land and the board has looked at that.

As of right now it's an item for consideration.

What other localities have done around us

They call it build-out analysis, essentially, taking a look at the parcels, what we have left, what the requirements are, and what the build-out would be.

And the item is kind of up for discussion, is that other localities has taken upwards of two years to get a full build-out analysis done.

So in the sense of

If we were to move forward with one now in the process of doing a comp plan update, which normally there's some zoning code amendments that happen as well.

In conjunction with that, we may want to wait till those changes occur before we then look to obtain that build out just because it could drastically change the build out analysis if you know one or two changes happen.

Very good.

Thank you.

We have another item that is that is all business and we haven't been able to find a time to move forward on it very much.

We've talked about it several times but really haven't thrown a lot of stuff against the wall to see what would stick and that's gateways and I would recommend that you and the Commission

consider rolling that into the comp plan effort to see if we can get that moving forward as we work on the comp plan.

I agree wholeheartedly.

We'll have the linkage to the board since they're working on it.

Thank you.

And now, does anyone else have any other business for the work session?