Let's get going.

It's uh three o'clock.

Miss Foster, please do roll call.

Commissioner London.

Present.

Commissioner Sowell.

Sorry.

Commissioner Garza.

Here.

Commissioner Moore.

Commissioner Klein.

Could you say more?

Here.

So I've got Commissioner Moore as here.

Commissioner Klein.

Here.

Commissioner Martin.

Commissioner Gurke.

Here.

Okay, first thing approval of the agenda.

Do agendas in front of us.

Do I have a motion?

Motion.

Motion for approval by Commissioner London.

Second by Commissioner Moore.

Approval of minutes from February eleventh, two thousand twenty-six.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Moore.

All those in favor.

So uh this has been a little bit of a process incoming.

I know you've been waiting for it, and I'm hoping you had a chance to read my email and the attachments I sent uh a week or two ago with some sample ordinances and if you needed to to look at some other ordinances as well.

But um after some initial feedback and some review, I put together two kind of alternative proposals for you guys.

They're both contained in ordinance form and require the or and contain the necessary and required revisions to the code to accomplish what we're trying to do.

As you all know, there they're currently short-term rentals are approved through a conditional use application.

And so I'll start by talking about the permit option ordinance and how that works and how it differs from what we're currently doing.

So to begin, it would uh it would change the definition of short-term rentals.

We've adopted the state statute and both the ordinances read the same in a lot of ways that I'll explain in a second.

But uh one way is that they both adopt the state statute definition for short-term rental, and it's short, so I'll read it to you.

Uh it's the use of a residential dwelling unit or a portion thereof for lodging whenever such dwelling unit is rented for 29 calendar days or less.

So with the permit option, what we would do is we would start with the UDO, we'd start with the table of allowed uses.

We would replace uh under the short-term rental classification, we would replace conditional use with permitted, and then we would have a permit application.

Uh we would also require a business registration for anyone that wants to operate a short-term rental.

We're going to do a separate ordinance that I have a copy if you'd like to see that amends our lodgers tax code in chapter three.

It's not really within the P and Z's purview because it doesn't deal with the UDO, but uh regardless of which option you choose, we'll be amending the lodgers tax portion of our ordinance to include short-term rentals.

So it references that.

And you would essentially just pay an application for a permit fee.

I'm sorry, you would essentially just make an application for a permit.

There would be a permit uh fee associated with that.

Uh the permit itself would require certain information you can see on the ordinance, of course, name and address of the property owner, uh 24 hour contact for anyone in charge of the short-term rental, uh, a floor plan so we know how many bedrooms there are, and then of course the fee.

Uh the permit duration would be for one year.

Uh there was also language that I added that um the city can terminate the permit if there's a violation of city codes, ordinances, or other law, and if there is a termination that there can be appeal to the city commission for that.

The ordinance imposes uh a number of rules that I sort of gathered from the other examples I took and and narrowed them down to to tailor it to Clovis.

Uh but some of the basic ones that that are in all the different examples that are contained in your uh in both um ordinance options.

Uh the first one would be an occupancy rule, and so the occupancy li occupancy limit would be two times uh basically two people for every number of bedrooms that are, excluding children 15 years of age or under.

Uh there would be a provision in there regarding loud noises and uh uh essentially a quiet hour between 10 p.m.

and 9 a.m.

There's a provision in there that requires short-term rentals to be cleaned and disinfected.

Uh there's a provision in there that you cannot park an RV or trailer uh on the property of a short-term rental while you're renting it.

There's provisions that require fire extinguishers, uh smoker smoke alarms, and then I I believe a scaled floor plan or a floor plan.

And so what someone would do is they would just get at the application, they would fill out their permit, uh, someone from the city or city fire department or or building safety would go inspect the premises, then we would grant the permit uh if they met all the conditions and paid the fee, and they would begin to use it as a as a short-term rental.

The other option would be to keep it as a conditional use, but a little bit different than what we've been doing.

Um the main difference is actually at the end on uh last page of the conditional use example, paragraph two.

And what it says is uh whenever a short-term rental application is received, and this would be an application for a conditional use, um, the notice of the application should be mailed out to all owners of property within 200 feet of the subject property.

If the city receives a written objection to the application within 15 days of the date the notice was mailed, then it would have come before you just like they do now.

And so they would be the same criteria, um, same procedure, and then they would go ultimately to the city commission.

If no objection is received by any property owners, then they would proceed uh essentially like a permit, but it would be a conditional use, but they would proceed with just the city approval and no intervention from planning and zoning or the city commission.

And so those are the sort of overview differences, and and if you look, if you can tell both ordinance examples essentially contain the same rules and restrictions.

I just moved them and had to change the subsections of the various places in the code where they are.

And so these are, you know, I'm I'm not suggesting these.

These aren't, you know, my policy recommendations.

These are just terms and conditions that I found common in other examples I used and food for thought for you guys.

You're free to remove them or add to them.

Uh Commissioner Sowell, who couldn't be here today, sent me uh an email and asked me to bring up a couple of comments that he had.

I think he had mentioned that he would like to see parking restrictions included in both of these ordinances, whichever ordinance example gets approved.

And he would prefer the conditional use example where there's opportunity for an objection from neighbors and then it goes to the planning and zoning commission.

Again, under the permit application process, there would be there would never be a hearing or anything before the planning and zoning commission or the city commission.

So uh there are some examples that I found where parking restrictions exist.

Most of them I think were in areas and for cities where parking is more of a problem and their short-term rentals don't have driveways and off-street parking.

Uh but certainly if we thought that could be an issue, we could add, you know, any kind of parking restriction that you came up with, uh number of vehicles, et cetera.

The RV just comes to mind to bring this up.

The R V restriction is really kind of a belt-in-suspenders uh addition.

We we already have a prohibition in our code for parking RVs and driveways, et cetera, and on the side of the road in certain situations.

So that would still apply.

We may not need the extra provision about parking RVs in there, but I added that anyway.

Um in terms of legal requirements, they're treated differently than like a commercial hotel.

So you don't need an evacuation plan that you would typically see in a hotel.

You don't necessarily have to have fire extinguishers at the points of egress and ingress, like I put in there.

But it was something that a lot of cities added anyway, so I had I'd put that in there.

And with respect to the you know, sort of the quiet hours of the noise provision from 10 p.m.

to 9 uh, we we still have a noise ordinance in effect and that's that applies to all hours of the day, so that would all obviously be in effect whether you adopt this extra rule or not.

Um I thought a great great component of a lot of the examples I looked at is requiring them to have a 24-hour either owner or agent that can always be there to respond to problems.

That way, if there is issues with parking or noise or you know, you know, there could be a party or damage to property or something.

Uh there'll always be someone that's supposed to by by the ordinance answer and address those issues.

Um I would be happy to answer any questions about the two drafts or about the samples that I sent you or or any other questions that you had.

And then I know you have had time to look at them, so I won't go and go much further, but uh that's what I have so far.

Thank you.

Yeah, thanks.

I thought both those were um written pretty good.

Took things from all the examples you gave us.

Um we have any questions?

Comments?

Comments.

The uh I don't think the parking is a bad idea, my personal opinion.

Um I see where it's uh Talus had one one bedroom, one parking space, two bedroom, two parking spaces, et cetera.

Correct.

Uh I don't know if I saw it in all of them.

Maybe I missed it.

Um what's everybody's thoughts on perhaps one vehicle for every bedroom up to a maximum of three or something like that?

That seems like it could be reasonable.

We could definitely put something like that in there.

Well, Mr.

Chairman.

I mean, I'm just throwing that out there.

Yeah.

Um short-term rentals, sometimes it's multiple families that are coming in.

And so if you've got three bedrooms and four bedrooms, you might have four families.

Um I'm not sure.

I'm trying to think from the standpoint of the renter, what would be convenient for them.

And sometimes, you know, it could be two cars per bedroom.

I I don't know if that's how we take that into account.

It can be however you want.

I know that other ordinances take into account available parking on the property.

So if you have three driveway spots, it makes a difference than if you have one.

You know, so you could take that into account as well and limit the number of vehicles that are allowed to park on street rather than just on the property.

Um may even have a garage they allow uh renters to use, I'm not sure.

But it could be how whatever you guys uh want to put in there.

I don't uh I don't object to the parking, but I just want to make sure it is reasonable for the renter.

Um I don't know how we how we address that.

I would lean towards not having a parking limit just because of, like you said, multiple families come in there.

That's what a lot of times people do with these type of short-term rentals is to get a group of family coming in for something.

I don't particularly see that parking is a huge problem in Clovis.

Downtown Abbuquerque, yeah.

It it is a problem.

But that's why I didn't include it initially, also because we don't impose parking restrictions at all in terms of property owners or or you know, at residential areas.

So in looking over these, I noticed you you and you mentioned earlier one is a conditional use and the other is permit.

Correct.

From the city standpoint, which preferred, or is there something that we have can have guidance there?

The other is uh I kind of got out of kick out of 29 days.

Twenty-nine days you are done.

So 29 days is the State statute definition that ties us to lodgers tax, which is why I think we have to keep the same definition of the case.

Okay, is that per State statute how they define a short-term rental?

I mean 29 days per month, per year, perhaps.

29 consecutive days or less.

So if you're going to rent it for more for 30 consecutive days or longer, that's just a standard rental or lease agreement that you would have for a residential house that wouldn't be regulated by us in any way.

Okay.

Okay.

It wouldn't be subject to the lodge.

And it would not be subject to lodgers tax.

We can only subject those short-term rentals to lodgers tax that are 29 days or less.

So it makes sense to only regulate the ones that are 29 days or less.

But it's consecutive days.

Correct.

We have obviously we have no the city has no ordinances or restrictions or anything on just normal residential rentals.

Okay.

And then um, so again, back to the city, permitting or conditional use, and and the reason I'm asking is I'm kind of drawing the analogy to the carport issue.

Is the carport and and is this somebody comes in and they have the they ask for a permit, is that for a year or how how does that work?

Sure.

So they mean again going back to the to the uh the carport thing.

I don't want to get every, you know.

I think it was wonderful that we made a blanket rule for the car ports.

So uh in terms of paperwork and processing and work for the city, I think they'll both be pretty close.

I think the permit process would be a little bit easier.

Uh but I think the big question for you guys is, and sort of at the foundation of the question is do you think it should be a fundamental right where someone should just be able to fill out a permit if they meet the conditions, they should be able to do it, or do you think the neighbors should have some input?

And that's really the difference between the two.

If you think the neighbors should have some input, then you would go with the conditional use draft.

If you think that some people have a fundamental right to do this along, assuming you meet all the conditions of the permit, uh then you would go with the permit portion.

That's kind of how I see it.

Okay.

Uh can I you bet comment further?

I kind of look at it as the unconditional right of the person to do with their property what they wish.

Okay.

Having said that, you know, you do have provisions in here for noise.

You do have permission uh some other things that keep them in bay.

Uh there's also that I'd like the con uh the the stipulation that somebody be available 24 hours that they can contact so that they can take you know if there is something wrong with going on there, parties, gunshots, whatever that that there is someone to contact.

Right.

So I I guess I'm leaning towards the ability of a person to do with their property what they wish.

And in if I may, just in my opinion, sure.

And in if I may, just in my opinion, you know, the rules and restrictions that we've put in the permit ordinance version, I think would provide some protection for property owners that may be opposed to it or maybe Leary.

Like, look, I understand you don't have a say in this, but we've required A, B, C, and D, and we have built into both versions a pretty, I would say friendly to the city termination procedure, where you can violate any one of these ordinances and we can terminate your permit or conditional use.

You know, you have an appeal, uh, some due process.

You can take it to the City Commission and say, I think I was wrongfully terminated.

I didn't, you know, whatever, plead your case.

But that's that's built in there as well.

So I mean, if there was something terrible that happened at one of these properties, I imagine we would terminate their permit or their conditional use.

Right.

Yeah, I would like to hear the others' thoughts.

But I it's not uncommon in what I found to have procedures.

Yeah, I wouldn't say it's it's not more common than not, but it there is definitely some examples where other cities have required neighbor notification and neighbor input.

That's not terribly unusual.

And I am not opposed to that.

I just think the neighbors should have a say if there is something egregiously wrong.

But again, I think the person's property is pretty much their property.

Covenants and HOS Mr.

That's yeah, Mr.

Howell brought up a good point.

You know, this there may be, I'm not aware of any right now, but there may be neighborhoods and subdivisions that have covenants and HOA rules also that would still be in effect regardless of what we adopt.

Correct.

Have any more discussion?

I would just add, Chairman, uh with the requirement for having someone available 24 hours having that information hosted somewhere where it is available.

What's the requirements for that?

So we've we have given that actually quite a bit of thought, and I'm not sure exactly.

At a minimum, we would have that list on hand with the city and with the police department and dispatch.

Um we don't know exactly if and how we would make that publicly available to neighbors, but um it's just something we haven't figured out exactly how to do yet.

But at a minimum, we would you could contact the city and say I've got the short-term rental next to me, and the city would be able to get that contact information.

So it may be legal and appropriate to somehow publish that to the public or to neighbors as well.

I just I'm I don't not sure about that yet.

So I would lean towards the making complaints directly to the city or the police department and having them have that information on file instead of it being put out.

Right.

Yeah.

I am sorry, Mr.

Chairman, if I could just offer one more thought, Cameron.

So all the conditional uses that we have previously approved, and including there is one on the agenda, I think, uh this afternoon.

You know, I I don't really like this word, but I can't think of a better word, but they would be grandfathered in, you know.

They uh until their conditional use expires, then they would have to come back and either if it's a permit, apply for a permit or conditional use, do a new application.

However, that said, uh once we adopt the lodgers tax amendment to our ordinance in Chapter 3 in the probably the next month or two months, that would go in effect immediately.

So it would require all the ones that you have previously approved to register for lodger's tax.

Personally, Commissioner Martin, I uh what you said kind of sticks with me.

It's it's your house, it's your property.

Uh you can do what you want.

I I think we have provisions in place if if we had unruly uh VRBORs or or other um it would be enforced.

And if I think it keeps happening, then it would be permit would be polled.

Uh that's my two thoughts.

I and again, back to that.

I I certainly don't want to disregard the rights of the neighbors.

But again, we have provisions to take care of that in the event that something does happen.

Yep.

That being said, I'll uh entertain a motion.

So this is an either-or or modified could be any of the above, yes, sir.

It could be to approve either one as written or to approve either one with whatever changes or uh modifications.

Yeah.

No, I am too.

I would make a motion to go to the permit option.

I second that.

A motion to go with the permit option by Commissioner London and a second by Commissioner Garza.

Ms.

Foster, can you do a roll call, please?

Commissioner London, yes.

Commissioner Garza.

Yes.

Commissioner Moore.

Yes.

Commissioner Klein.

Yes.

Commissioner Gherkey.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Thanks.

Commissioner Martin's absence at the beginning.

Does that exclude him from voting?

No, it does not.

We are used to it.

Yes.

Commissioner Martin.

Yes.

Thanks, Mr.

Morris, for drafting these out.

Along those same lines.

Mr.

Chairman, just for everybody's information.

So we'll take this to the next City Commission meeting.

And since it is a text amendment, it will have to be introduced by an ordinance.

And so we'll introduce the ordinance and then 30 days later is when it would come back to the City Commission for final adoption.

Yep.

Thank you.

Back to new business number one.

Request approval for conditional use as short-term rental of Highland Terrace.

Track 7, lot 4, 148 Park Drive, Clovis, New Mexico.

Mr.

Perkins.

Good morning.

Yes, with this one, uh Matthew Bard has requested that they he's allowed to use his residence 148 Park Drive as a uh short-term rental uh Airbnb.

Anybody have any discussions?

Anybody from the audience would like to speak to this?

Undertain a motion.

Move to approve.

Second.

Motion for approval by Commissioner Moore, second by Commissioner Gherkey.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion passes.

Next order is a request for approval for conditional use of 1001 Morris Street as a group child care home.

Ms.

Perkins.

Yes, sir.

The request for approval for conditional use of uh 1001 Moore Street as a group child care home, which is a uh daycare for seven to twelve children, meets the standard of chapter 17.65.

Um one zero and uh seventeen point thirty and seventeen point thirty point zero one zero table 101.

Uh residence is already approved permitted use as a child care home.

Uh that's child care for one to six children.

That there is no compelling evidence that there would be a threat to public health, safety, or warfare.

And I received no negative comments from the neighborhood.

Um like to speak on this.

Commissioners.

Mr.

Chairman, what is the definition of a child?

Is it under 18 or more?

We can define that in the UDL.

I'll have to look in the UDO, I'm sorry.

Okay.

I think that number is getting higher.

And what is the are there statutory or regulatory differences between one to six or seven to twelve, seven to whatever.

So the city of Clovis doesn't regulate that.

I believe it I'd come through the CYFD to regulate on what it is as far as the the what's necessitates and what they need there actually in the facility itself, we wouldn't issue that permit.

We just handle it from a zoning standpoint.

Okay.

And so we don't yeah.

That's not up to okay.

Correct.

Mr.

Chairman.

Uh Mr.

Sherman, I got a question for our attorney.

Um so if approved, this is going to be uh checked by the state, right?

They would have to have a state license.

I think CYFD or HSD, maybe their parent department is who would per who would issue the license.

And I we don't have it defined in the UDO, so I would imagine that we would just use the same definition as child for CYF that CYFD promulgates and whatever the state uses, so I'll try and look that up now.

Okay.

Thank you.

Is anybody here from the request?

Nobody?

Can you come to the podium, sir?

Come to the podium, please.

Okay.

I got a I have to swear you in real quick.

I didn't need can you raise your right hand?

Uh do you swear affirm that your testimony will be truthful?

In your name and address, sir.

Power 936 Moore Street.

Yeah, I did have the question of the definition of the group care home.

I didn't hear what was the definition of the definition.

Yeah.

So the uh a group child care home is six to twelve children, and a family child care home is one to six children.

And currently they have uh permitted use as a family child care home for up to six children.

Okay.

And they're they're requesting to expand that up to twelve.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

I'll accept a motion at this time.

If I may, I just on my limited research, I think they define child as just under 18 in both ways.

So that's what I found so far.

Okay.

I would move approval.

Got a uh motion for approval by Commissioner Martin.

Second.

The second by Commissioner Gherkey.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Lastly, a request for approval of replat of pheasant run subdivision unit two, blocks two and four.

Mr.

Perkins.

Yes.

Uh the owner requests via third party through Sean Knox.

Uh uh a replat of Pheasant Run subdivision unit to blocks two and four.

Uh this is an undeveloped subdivision.

Lots are all zoned to commercial general.

The owner wishes to vacate the road right away and combined all lots back into one lot.

Uh they are leaving provisions for the alley along the east line and dedicating space for emergency vehicle turnaround in the northeast corner of the lot uh in line with Broadway.

Uh this request meets the standards of chapter 16.65 and appendix A of the city's unified development ordinance and is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan.

All adjoining property owners within 100 feet of the effective area were notified with zero respondents in protest.

There is no compelling evidence that there would be a threat to public safety uh health or welfare, which is unique to the proposed request.

And to further add, uh they're looking to put a church on this lot uh once it's all combined.

Mr.

Johnson, would you like to speak on behalf of the owners?

Not unless you have a question.

I have a question for staff.

As was this already annexed as a city limits?

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I know this location well.

There was material hauled in there from the first golf course pond dig out and brought everything up.

Just not familiar with that address.

I'll take a motion.

I would motion approval.

Motion for approval by Commissioner Moore.

Second by Commissioner Garza.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion passes.

Next meeting will be 3 p.m.

Wednesday, April 8th.

It's 3.33 p.m.

Sir.

Can I ask a couple of questions, General?

Sure.

Absolutely.

Okay.

The webinar that we had not too long ago.

Week or two ago with was it for uh was it it was for planning and zoning particularly?

Okay.

So two things in there that struck me.

One was that it was suggested there that each of us on the Planning and Zoning Commission have a separate email address issued by the city.

Because if if there are any I guess um what are investigations into our email, currently I am getting it at my business email.

Okay.

And that means that my business email would be opened up to all scrutiny if they were looking for something that I did in relation to the city.

Does that make sense?

I think I understand your question.

Uh and I could answer.

I understand it mainly because I got an email from Vicky uh with the question before, so I had some time to think about it.

But uh so I would agree with that in part.

So I think what you are asking about is IPRA requests.

Yeah.

So an IPRA request can be made for a public document.

Any emails that any of you send about public business, about the business before the planning and zoning commission, those emails are public documents and subject to IPRA.

Okay.

So if we were to get a request now, I would simply ask you to search your personal email for any public records that were responsive to the request.

So maybe it's emails about 148 Park Drive or whatever.

Okay.

So that's that's what we do now.

There is no requirement that you have to have a city email address, but it certainly does make it easier because what I can do in the alternative and what I do for city commissioners that sometimes receive these requests is just have our IT department search the email for them.

And so I I don't even have to ask you.

I'll let you know that we're searching your email, but I'll ask IT, hey, run a search of all these individuals' email addresses.

Looking for emails related to blank.

If you don't have a city of Clovis address, I can't do that, so I just ask you to do that.

Uh same way same thing actually with text.

I I disagree with the Attorney General's opinion that texts are public records, but that's their opinion right now.

And so when we get an IPRA request, I honor that, and I would ask you or you, whoever was subject to the request for any texts that you had related to 148 Park, just for the example.

So I have never heard of or seen a situation where somebody said, Well, I don't I don't think that Commissioner uh Martin disclosed all of his emails.

So I want a a full forensic accounting done of his emails to make sure he did.

First of all, they'd have to file a lawsuit and get a court order to that effect.

And you know, I I would imagine we could handle it long before then.

So you know, uh we have had some some maybe threats to do that, but I have never seen that happen before.

I've never seen anyone even file a lawsuit asking for that to happen.

So it is it is possible that if we answered a NIPA request and somebody thought that someone was hiding something that eventually they could get lawful authority to search your private email addresses.

However, even if that happened, um whoever s did the search or who whatever happened, they would only be able to look for and access those public records and you know uh presumably wouldn't be able to do anything with your private emails or publish them or post them or or even mention them.

Um it does uh make it easier to answer public records requests, but I've never seen one come to the planning and zoning commission in the seven years I've been here.

So I guess my my question then is that a no, I'm not gonna get one, or a heck no, I'm not gonna get it.

It's uh it costs money, and that's his decision.

Each account costs money, and so uh if that's certainly there's no reason we couldn't do it other than money.

So, but that's your money.

It's not my do it's not my inconvenience.

So okay.

So in that case, since I think of that that was a heckno.

Um can I set up I was thinking of setting up a Gmail account on my own that would just strictly be for city correspondence.

I think that is a one way to do it too.

I should have mentioned that.

And then use that if you I don't know if you guys, you know, have business cards or listed on the city's website anywhere, but have that be your official email for correspondence to and from the city and we're not really officials, are we?

I mean is there somewhere on the city that the site that says No.

Yeah, it just labels you as planning and zoning commissioners.

But for purposes of the inspection of public records act, I you guys are public officials, even if you are volunteer non-city employees, but because you are serving on this board.

Okay.

So if I set up my own Gmail account, I can let you have it.

I think that would sufficiently protect you from what you were talking about.

Okay.

All right.

Uh the other question that that stuck out in there was I believe they said that they did not want, I don't know if they it was not permitted or not legal or but that we should not make site visits as a commissioner.

And the reason that they gave was it's not they said it's not up to us to do some investigation.

Okay?

And I have made site visits.

Okay.

And there were two things.

One they said it's not up to us, it's up to the person making whatever the request is, that they give us enough information that we don't need to go there.

The other being is if I go to a site and the others do not, then that gives me an unfair advantage uh over the others.

I don't know what the unfair advantage would be, you know, why they would term that, but it puts me in a more knowledgeable position.

So I think what they are talking about there is there's no technical violation for doing that.

There's no bright line rule that says he can't do that.

What they're saying is it violates the spirit of the open meetings act.

Okay.

In other words, the presumption is and the preference and policy of the State is all public business should be conducted when there is a quorum of commissioners at a public hearing for everyone to see.

And if you're doing your own side investigations, that diminishes that and takes away from that.

Does that make sense?

Okay.

So are you telling me no, or are you telling me heck no?

I'm telling you that uh the people that administered that training are probably a little bit more cautious than I am, but I don't I think it's a good idea.

I think you should follow that advice and just uh probably try and refrain from that, although I don't think there is any bright line rule that says you can't do that.

Okay.

Because I do remember going to one particular site, and it just totally opened my eyes.

And I think if even if I even if I had seen pictures, maybe even if I'd have seen a video, I would not have had the same reaction as going there myself.

Right.

So okay.

Then last comment is I see this laying here.

I don't know if anybody else has heard Randy Van Bleck, but he's worth going to see, even if he doesn't say anything to you.

He's just a fun guy and very knowledgeable and extremely, extremely knowledgeable.

I would second that.

I I bug him for information all the time.

So tremendous resource.

Anything else, Mr.

Commissioner Martin?

No, I think I've had my time.

Meetings adjourned 341.