Mat-Su Borough: Assembly Special Meeting - October 20, 2026

I'm going to go ahead and call the meeting to order.

I'm going to call this meeting to order at 4:01 PM. This is a special meeting for Tuesday, October 20th, 2026, to have a discussion on water body setback. Madam Clerk, Assemblymember Bowles, are you on the phone? Yes, I'm here. Stephanie Nowers is running a couple minutes late.

Dee McKee will not be present. Maxwell Sumner? Present. Bill Gamble? Here.

Dmitri Fonov? Here. Ron Bernier, are you on the phone?

I am expecting him to call in, Madam Mayor, but you do have a quorum. Okay, thank you. Are there any changes to the agenda?

Okay, hearing none, then the agenda is approved. Oops, I'm sorry. Oh, and let the record show that Assemblyperson Nowers has joined us at 4:02.

Member Assemblyperson Nowers, do you have any changes to the—. You do not. Okay, good. Okay, so hearing no changes, then the agenda is approved as presented. If you all stand with me, and Assemblyperson Nowers, would you lead us in the pledge?

Short timer here. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

It's Lonnie gonna go see if we have a sign-up sheet. Is that okay? Great, thank you. So the next item on our agenda is audience participation. We're checking now to see if there's anybody that did sign up, but even if you didn't sign up Uh, we will give you opportunity to present any information, and you can present information to the assembly on any subject whether it's on the agenda or not.

Thank you, lady.

So, Rod?

Good afternoon. Rod Hanson with the North Lakes Community Council. The last time you guys met on this subject was actually in September of 2025. So my testimony today broadly mirrors kind of what I was talking about and suggested last year. During the process, we tried hard as a community council to provide helpful input to the Waterbody Setback Advisory Board.

As they worked on their recommendations. We attended several meetings, provided written comment, and it was apparent to us that there was really no way they were gonna reach agreement from the current assembly, and we recommended discussions with the assembly in an attempt to get some clear and aligned guidance during that process, and it didn't happen. You all were not inclined to move forward with their recommendations. We do agree with the recommendations that were put forth by the Planning Commission in their resolution in August of '25, Resolution 2515. The comments and recommendations in that resolution closely aligned with the feedback that we had provided during the process, and their recommendations included the need for some serious work to close gaps and and also to remove some what was seen as potentially overburdensome requirements or recommendations that were coming out of the advisory board.

We believe a new 6-month duration task force would be the best path forward to a pragmatic solution that addresses both the environmental protection issues and individual property owner rights. We strongly suggest the task force be asked to outline their findings and recommendations only in a resolution to the assembly. They should not be asked to get into the details of Robert's Rules and process of writing code, but simply think through the issues and bring forward their recommendations to you. The original advisory board was seriously weighed down with that kind of detailed code writing process, and I think it detracted from the mission. At the end of the 6-month period, the assembly should pass then an ordinance outlining code change objectives that you have based on the report from a task force, and then any amendments that you might choose to make as an assembly.

And I think only then should the Borough Planning Department work to make the actual code language changes to address those objectives that you set. The task force should remain in effect as long as necessary to serve as consultants for that process. And I just want to point out, you know, you all know that Mat-Su Borough is— includes a significant number of important lakes, rivers, and streams. This is who kind of defines who we are. And as the borough continues to see growth and development, we do need rules in place that protect that environment and still provide individual freedoms.

Thank you.

Good. That's the last person, last person that signed up, but now it's open to anybody that would like to address the assembly on any subject.

Yeah, yeah, give them to Lonnie, please.

Okay, you can see you all again. Uh-huh. I'm Andrea Larson, and I am here again about the Talkeetna Headworks project. So I'm submitting a letter here of requests about the Talkeetna Bear Trail Woods site selection for the borough's Talkeetna Headworks project, the upgrade project. The request is for the residents, business owners, and neighboring properties to have formal input and participation, participation in this decision.

This project has moved forward without public notice or input, and there has been opposition to the site selection since January of 2026. This is a considerable impact on the community, and public opinion should not be ignored by the borough, which I— in your defense, you haven't seen a whole lot of this yet. So, um, this has mostly been submitted to DNR before prior to the conveyance of this DNR property to the borough. So a lot of these letters have come in more recently to the borough in assembly meetings. The letters of concern and opposition have been submitted to the borough by the, by the community council, the Talkeetna Sewer and Water Board, neighboring properties, Talkeetna Historical Society, and numerous business owners, but they have not had a formal opportunity to present their to present their input.

So I'm requesting the formal public meetings be held prior to November 17th, um, the November 17th Public Works Assembly informational meeting, which the Public Works Department is going to be presenting to you on November 17th.

And I can't ask you if you have any questions. All right, well, thank you for listening, and, um, I will be back again. We'll see you at the next meeting. Thanks. Okay, thank you.

Anyone else that would like to address the assembly?

Uh-huh. Uh, thank you, Madam Mayor, Madam Mayor, and the assembly people. Uh, my name is Alan Larson. I'm related to her, and I, I just want to speak a little bit more about what she was saying. I think that the borough is doing a really good job of trying to provide a good public water system in Talkeetna.

But I think in this particular case, and partially because of some community members' involvement, we went to the wrong people with the public comments about the use of a specific site. At this point, the site's been identified by the borough that we're going to go ahead— that they're going to go ahead and pursue that site. And I think that's what we need to do as people, is to go through the public opinion process like we would do for if it was a public utility in accordance to the Maristou Borough. You know, there's been problems up there before, and where the Matanuska Telephone Utility put in a tower without public notice. And I understand that some of you, the rules have been changed now.

So that public utilities can't go use neighborhood sites until we've gone through a process of having the people that are affected by that be able to understand what the plan is and to see if they— if there's opposition to it. Unfortunately, like Andrea said, we presented that to DNR and DNR said, "We don't care. We're giving it to the borough. It's the borough's responsibility to make sure they're doing the best for the community." So I don't know, uh, officially. I think Mr. Bernier has to be able to present a resolution, but we're just trying to catch up a little bit.

I, again, I don't think the borough is doing anything wrong. I just think that they haven't heard what the, the people that are affected by the site is. And that's the map that she showed there shows that the, the railroad has a substantial part of Talkeetna, and that's all the wooded area, partly which is what the tourists come for. And since there's a 3% sales tax in Talkeetna, the tourism industry and the people that actually go through the sites and these woods are the ones that are paying a big portion of our public utility up there for water and sewer. So it's a valuable asset.

There's both sides to the story, and I just think that'd be good for you guys to hear the whole story before we make a selection and start going forward. Thank you for your time, folks. Anyone else?

Wait, we do. Okay, go ahead, whoever is online, please.

Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Go ahead, please. Yeah, my name is Patty Fisher. I'm a resident of Meadow Lakes and a resident on one of the many lakes here in, in Meadow Lakes.

Um, I was attended the many of the meetings of the Waterbody Stepback Task Force and was pleased when they kept the 75-foot setback. I thought that was very important for the protection of our lakes. However, the results of the study by the setback board were very complex, and I do agree with Mr. Hanson that the Planning Commission should make changes to the code. It need— the changes that were put into that setback report are very complex. And the main— the big thing that needs to be done is a way for the people that are in violation to be able to correct that violation.

So, I strongly support whatever needs to be done to allow correction of the violation.

So, whether or not it takes another task force, I'm not so sure. That was— I have been involved in two task forces, and they've basically gone nowhere. And I find it very frustrating that people spent so much time and effort on a task only to have the Assembly just basically put it aside for a year and ignore it. So anyway, thank you. That's all I have to say.

Okay, thank you. That's the only person we have online. Okay, one last chance. Anybody that's here that wants to address the Assembly on any issue?

Okay, nobody. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close audience participation. And, uh, the next item on our agenda is the water body setbacks discussion. And, um, Mr. Brown, do you want to say anything, or should I just open up to the assembly? Okay.

We have, we have a presentation to kind of help folks recollect where we last left off, or if the assembly has thoughts, they can dive right in. What's the assembly's wishes? You want to have staff bring you up to date then? Okay, all righty. Mhm.

Okay, family member Bernier, is that you? Yes, I just wanted to let you know I joined meeting at 4:04. Oh, thank you.

Yep. Okay, go ahead, sir. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, my name is Alex Strawn. I'm the planning director for the Mat-Su Borough.

I'm just going to give a quick overview of just how we got here and, uh, answer any questions you have and just let you guys do your thing. So there's two really important dates when it comes to water body setbacks. First was in 1973 when we adopted water body setbacks in the first place. That was in place until 1986 when the Assembly lowered it to 45 feet. And then 6 months later in 1987, the— by vote of the people, the water body setback, the 75-foot water body setback came back.

And so because of that, of how that worked out, we have, depending on how far from a water body you're built and when you were built, we have different levels of whether you're grandfathered, whether you're legal, or whether you're illegal. And we issue what's called preexisting legal nonconforming determinations for people who are built closer than 75 feet.

Um, we did a— when all of this was happening a few years ago, we did sort of a GIS analysis. We took building footprint data from our, our LiDAR And then we, we kind of culled out anything less than 480 square feet and, and then, and then identified any building footprint over 480 square feet that was within 75 feet of a water body. And then we took assessments data and got the year built. And if it was built after 1987, we considered it very highly likely to be not legal. So, So given that, we have a total of 763 structures that met that criteria of being likely illegal.

Now, a couple of caveats are LiDAR does not cover the entire borough, and this only included lakes. It did not include streams and rivers. So the, the actual reality of how many violations are out there is probably at least double this amount.

And then going back just over time, I want to point out a couple of other important dates. In 1989 is when the Assembly changed the definition of what a structure is in relation to water body setbacks and said that if it's— it only applies to habitable structures. And so non-habitable structures are not subject to the 75-foot water body setback.

And then in 2021 is when this whole thing started where Moki Tu wanted, uh, in his words, to be able to drop a lure outside of the bedroom window and just eliminate the water body setbacks altogether. And then, um, uh, Assemblymember Yount and Tu got together because that, that didn't go very far. Uh, that, that created a lot of uprise and, and it died before it even went to the Planning Commission. Um, but that did, uh, uh, Assemblymember Yount got together with Assemblymember Tu and came up with an ordinance that would essentially allow a path to compliance where if regardless of when you're built, you can go within 75 feet of water body, but no closer than 25 feet if you hire an engineer that essentially designs it in a way that there's, there's not runoff into the lake, or at least it's treated before it goes into the water body. And then in 20— let's see, 2025, or somewhere around that time is when the Waterbody Setback Advisory Board was formed.

And they, of course, made recommendations, which was sponsored by Assemblymember Hale, which was very all-inclusive, touched many sections of code, and was a result of a couple of years of work. That failed. And then in 2025, Assemblymember Sumner came forward with what would essentially be like a 48-hour repeal of the regulations and then bring it back, which would essentially grandfather everybody who's in existence currently.

So, the next 2 slides— so, so we— the next few slides are all about the Waterbody Setback Advisory Board and what the details of what they are recommending. And I'm not going to belabor what is in the next couple of slides. I will say that they had many meetings most of which were 2 or 3 hours long. They were educated on all the different sections of code that were pertinent. The attorneys came and spoke with them, our code compliance came and spoke with them.

We, we, we really educated them and spent a lot of time sort of deliberating what the recommendations would be. And the next couple of slides sort of outline what their recommendations were, and I'm not going to go into them unless you want to, but I'm happy to answer any questions you have about what they're recommending. And what the rationale was behind those recommendations. So that's all I have.

Madam Clerk, we do not have any motions pending or anything, right? No, Madam Mayor, this is just a discussion. Okay, great. Thank you. All right, thanks.

So assembly discussion, opposed to Representative Gamble, go ahead. I'll start. Um, well, we've been— or the borough's been dealing with this issue for over 50 years now, and it keeps getting kicked down the road, and we can't do it anymore. It's time for us to do something. And after our last meeting, we did not accept the task force's resolution and recommendations.

They just seem to be too onerous and too costly for people to comply with. So I put a call out to my constituents, my community, and ask for some suggestions on how we can go forward to deal with the waterfront setback issue without it being too difficult for people to comply with, to get people that don't have a lot of money to be able to, you know, get in compliance so that they can eventually if they want to sell their property or just make sure that they're being legal with the borough. So I had some folks in mind that just happen to be friends. One I believe is online right now, Al Balia, and then Jim and Lori Bolts are here in the audience. They got together and they came up with this sheet that's in front of you.

And I think this is a great place for us to start the discussion. And so I'd like for everybody to, to read their bullet points and let me know what you think of their ideas and what you think is, is good and what you think we could maybe modify a little bit. But whatever we can do just to get the waterfront setback issue modified and approved and move on from here. Thank you. Okay, does everybody have the piece of paper?

Okay, great. Yeah, Assemblyperson Sumner, go ahead. Yeah, so the question I had, which is actually for the attorney, is, um, the, uh, all nonconforming existing structures within 75 feet of the water body shall be granted legal nonconforming status provided one owner applies for legal nonconforming status within one year of modification of Title 17.02. So, I know there's some discussion about allowing— I mean, can we do that? Can we allow existing structures to come into compliance over a period of 1 year by getting this as-built?

I just saw this printout early this afternoon, so I haven't fully digested it, but it's kind of related to maybe your proposal. Previously that basically eliminated water body setbacks for a period of time and then reinstituted them, because that would have the same effect of allowing people legal nonconforming status. So, you know, there may be ways to get there to do that. You know, one of the hallmarks, one of the issues that the Water Body Setback Committee was struggling with was this concept that you have to treat similarly situated people the same. And so this would certainly do that.

I can't say for sure right now, but it looks like it would be achievable. I guess my question is, is during this 1-year period, could someone go out and build a house closer and apply for the variance, or could we not allow that? No, that's, that's not the way I read this. The way I read this is, is that you would amend the water body setback, and then you would tell people you have 1 year to apply for legal nonconforming status. In other words, so in planning law, it is legal and often done around the country where you impose a new set of rules.

So then the people who exist, the buildings who exist, let's say, you know, let's say cell towers or medical waste incinerators the borough has or, you know, other structures, right? So you think of a structure that's out there and you say, okay, we're gonna regulate this. You know, later on we have data centers, right? So let's say we're going to regulate data centers with the CUP. You say anyone who's out there has 1 year to come register as a nonconforming use.

If you don't register within a nonconforming use, you're subject to the law as is, no matter when you built. So it's no longer a question of when you built and what the law was. It becomes a question of did you come register for your nonconforming use? So it's not the 1— you wouldn't have a 1-year period without a law in effect. What you would do is you would have a 1-year period that people get to register as a preexisting legal nonconformity.

That's the way I read that. I don't know if that's the way they intended it, but that's the way that my eyes see that.

Assemblyperson Nowers.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Assemblyman Gamble, for pulling this together and the folks who did. Appreciate that. And I know we have batted this around a lot, and, uh, you know, there's— there is a lot of history there. Um, this was voted in, and then the assembly decided to try to shrink the amount back to 45, and the voters by 2 to 1 said no, it should be 75 feet setback from the water.

Um, and then since then, since that vote in '87, we've had the majority of people who apparently have complied. So when I think about, uh, with a, you know, significant minority that has not, um, maybe intentionally, and sometimes because they bought and not known, and, um, and people have built for them out of compliance knowing it was wrong, you know. So I think about that whenever I kind of approach this. So I like a lot in here. I like, um, You know, there's some effort to make it easier for people to know that they might be violating the rules.

That's what I don't quite understand. I think it needs to be fleshed out in terms of how you do that. These are just general things I'm thinking about. You know, like the 3 things I think about is I don't want to spit in the eye of people who have legally complied out here and just say, eh, sorry, you know, thanks for Thanks for doing the right thing. We're just going to give everybody else an ollie ollie and come free.

And I know you feel the same. You didn't want to do that.

I want to make sure the rules are easy to follow and that we're doing something different because we have had all this noncompliance and we're still having it. It doesn't take long to look on the listings on the MLS to find a place that's out of compliance. So it's still happening. Like, how do we actually get people to comply. And hopefully you do it in an upfront way, but people are building these, they're buying them.

Um, what I don't see in here is a real robust way yet to take care of that, to make it easy for people know that they might be in out of compliance if they're within 75 feet before they buy the property, before they build it, before they put the foundation in. And then the one thing not in here at all that I think is maybe the most important thing is, if you're going to put a rule in place, you got to make sure it ties to the goal. The goal is to keep the water clean. So what we don't have is kind of a robust system in here for testing the water, because if the rules that we have now and the violations we have now aren't polluting the water, then maybe that's not a problem. Or if the water is more polluted than we think, then we need to tighten it up.

And I guess you can look to the lower 48 and know as development increases, you're going to increase the amount of potential pollution going in. So it's better to be ahead of it because it's really hard to get those drops back out of the, the water. Um, and I think we're going to be growing with all the things that are happening, so trying to get ahead of that. So I think there's a good, you know, framework to start with. I'd like to see it beefed up in terms of, you know, are we actually going to be doing something different so we're not back here in 20 years with another 200 violations asking for an ole ole, I'm compree.

And something in here, I think the other piece that I would add to this is kind of a robust water quality testing for those places that we have the most development on or the most places out of violation, especially— I mean, Big Lake in particular, because if you talk to Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife, that's a really important salmon habitat place. You don't want to screw that up because that has— affects people who fish out in the valley downstream, including down at Fish Creek, which is a really popular place to go. So those are, those are a couple thoughts on this that I think we could potentially get to something with just a few fleshing it out and definitely adding that testing. Assemblyperson Sumner. Oh, I was just going to say that I kind of disagree that the only goal of the setback is, is, uh, environmental concerns.

I think that there's also viewshed and fairness. Like, I mean, I think there's a lot of— I built a house for some people that the neighbors threatened to sue because they didn't want the house any closer to the lake. Than their house was to the lake, you know. So there's— I don't think you can put everyone in the— everyone in the valley that wants the 75-foot buffer maintained, I don't think you can put them all in the bucket of saying that their primary concern is the environment.

Further discussion? Assemblyperson Mat-Su Valley. Go ahead, sir. Can I get staff— is that okay to follow some of the stuff? Is there any objection to calling staff up for questions?

No, go ahead. Thank you. As you had a chance to review this, if we're talking about the structure is one of the things on both sections, there's a, the pavement specifically 25 feet, the water for that is pavement or a driveway considered a structure in our code.

What happened? So, currently, you can pave your entire lakefront lot. There's nothing stopping you from doing that as far as borough regulations go. Is that— I don't know if that answers your question. So, so that is not structure.

It is not considered a structure under that section of code. Okay, so would we have to change a driveway to be considered a structure in order for This to make sense. Yeah, so driveway permits are really for within the right-of-way and accessing your property in the right-of-way. If you're going to have a driveway or road on private property, that's a separate matter under— that's not regulated by our driveway code. Well, the way this reads, no payment, all the closer than 25 feet of waterbed.

That sounds more not like a driveway, it's more of a probably the boat ramp is Is that my understanding? That's usually what we see is boat ramps, but it can be a lot of different things. It can be patios or whatever it may be that where you have paved surfaces or pavers or whatever it may be, impermeable surfaces. Does the driveway or the pavement, I guess, itself after it's installed and I guess the dried Um, what does that do that's, uh, causing the harm? I guess what's the rationale?

Yes, so I think the rationale for regulating pavement on the edge of the water body is you're not getting— so, uh, the vegetation along the edge of a water body serves several ecological purposes. Uh, one is like filtration. Uh, so the runoff that comes from the property where you have all your drips and things like that, your fertilizer, the vegetation along the edge of the property is what will sort of filter and clean that water before it goes in the water body. If you pave it, it just is direct into the lake. But this is, I think, would be equivalent of whether it's gravel boat ramp or asphalt boat ramp.

And I don't know if there's any information That's up for argument, which one creates more so-called dirty water going into the water, whether it's clean water running on the pavement or it's running on the, like, gravel. Because when it's raining, you could see that kind of washes up part of it. So I have a little bit of problem interpreting that because what would that mean in this way? A lot of nice boat ramps, we'll need the first 25 feet of pavement to be removed, and then all of a sudden that boat ramp becomes illegal. Is that my understanding of it or no?

So, I mean, I just received this today, so I haven't— I don't know all the details. I—. My recommendation would be that you allow some pavement on the edge of the water body to allow for boat ramps. There's things you can do. You can create like a little, a break with a grate over it so that the water that's running down the pavement will soak in, and then you just have a little strip towards the end.

But I think it's important to recognize that little boat ramps are important for people along lakes, and that, that you can, you can build in a way that you can have some, some pavement or some gravel there for a boat ramp. Okay, yeah, this one kind of doesn't specify. It just seems like any pavement, including the boat ramp, there, there is no exemption in place. So, um, that's one of the things I've had, um, concerning it. I think it also raises a question: now, are we going back to other things, including the, uh, the fuel tanks, um, driveways, boat ramps, and things like that, not just the structure itself?

So I want to know which one are we trying to solve? We're trying to solve, uh, just a structure, or do we try to regulate everything else? And that's why, to me, it's a little bit not clear, I guess.

I'm sorry, Assemblyperson Gamble. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yeah, when I, um, read the 25-foot setback of pavement, I kind of envisioned that as asphalt, because asphalt is a hydrocarbon product. And so the runoff from asphalt puts toxins into the water. And so one of our goals here, at least I thought, was trying to protect our water bodies from, from being polluted.

So, I mean, just in my mind, you could have your asphalt 25 feet from the water line, and then you could have concrete or gravel, which is non-toxic, to have a barrier, that 25-foot barrier, to the to the waterfront there. And, you know, the 75-foot setback and the 45-foot setback, I don't know how many people I've talked to in the last couple of years that have said that they were in compliance when they built their house, but erosion has made them noncompliant. So coming up with 75 or 25 or 45 You know, if we don't do something to stop the erosion, then it may all be for naught. And as far as what you said, Stephanie, earlier about people that built within the 75 feet knowingly, I still agree going forward that should be the standard, but I'm willing to, um, to bend a little, I guess, to let the people that are within 75 feet that could meet some of our new regulations, if you will, I'm willing to bend to let that happen to get everybody into compliance. And then, like you said earlier, have a strict Planning Department, Code Compliance Department that keeps everybody compliant going forward.

Thank you.

Assemblyperson Sumner. I mean, the way you're saying the strict code compliance and, uh, land use— right now there is no land use permit to build on a lake, you know, just if you plan on building a structure within 75 feet of the lake. So unless— I think that I understand what you're saying. I think that unless you paired this with a, a revision to the mandatory land use permit to require a permit if you build adjacent to a lake that, you know, you're not going to ever have any teeth or ability to enforce if you don't know what's being built. Uh, not that I would support that or not, I'm just saying, you know, if that's what you're proposing, then I think you would need some, some actual enforcement.

And then, you know, the other thing about the 25-foot, uh, pavement is I've, I've witnessed and helped participate in installations of boat launches that were permitted by the Army Corps of Engineers and DNR and ADFG, and, you know, all dotted the T's, crossed the I's with pavement right down to the lake. So, you know, to then say that we're gonna, you know, this body has done more research than those bodies and knows better, I think that's a little bit of hubris, you know. I don't just be ripping out a bunch of people's pavement or tell them they're not in compliance when they went out and got all the appropriate permits to do so.

Um, I was just going to say, well, sir, we are on a sheet of paper like this. That's assembly person. It's behind your 4 PM agenda. It's just one single page. At the top it says water body recommendations for Bill Gamble.

Okay. Okay. There was a request from audience if there's a way to kind of put this on the screen. This potentially something that would document that we're discussing because I don't think it was given to audience so that we— because nobody read. Well, I don't know if it was attached in agenda or not.

Do you have a way? It was not attached to the agenda. I got it. I don't know. I think I was able to get it maybe about 3:30 today.

So I don't— I have it in my email. That's the only place I have it. Okay. So there's no way to— I guess if we have extra copy, if somebody wants to, maybe we could share it too. We only might need a couple of them made.

So we'll make some copies. Okay. Thank you. Stephanie Nowers.

So just on erosion, I grew up in suburb of Seattle called Bellevue and had Lake Washington, and it got real polluted. And, and then they had, you know, issues with erosion around it, and they kind of had to back their way to cleaning it up. Well, maybe all these septic systems aren't that great, and we'll put in septage. And you still can only eat, like, I don't know, there's signs down there, you can eat 2 of the 10 fish or something like that. But When you think about erosion too, you know, I mean, I think Assemblymember Sumner's right, like we shouldn't try to replace our expertise, but we all hear things and we kind of see things.

If you have boat wakes and you're hitting a shoreline that doesn't have any vegetation on it anchoring it, you end up with more erosion, or you try to armor it, you increase the impact around, so you erode around it. So just trying to avoid pitfalls that we get into as we try to accommodate what people desire and some of the other goals. And then just on compliance, just to.