City Council - Regular Meeting

Call me to order. Pledge of allegiance. Council member Lawson. I pledge algiance 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. Roll call, please. Mayor Larkkey, here. Council member White, here. Council member Thompson, here. Council member Davidson, here. Council member Bryan, Council Member Lawson, here. Council member Richardson, here. Council member McCllum, present. Council member Johnson, here.

We have a quorum. No personal appearances, presentations. Number one, years of recognition. recognition.

Well, we were supposed to have two tonight, but uh one showed up. Um Charlie Hosman wasn't able to make tonight. He was uh he would have been presented with a 20-year certificate, but we do have with us tonight Brian Disney. Uh Brian Disney's been at this for a little while. I don't know, 21 22 years ago, I taught his uh firefighter one and two class. and in spite of that, he's still become a pretty good firefighter. Um, obviously we're celebrating 20 years for him. Um, he has done a great job for the city of Belton. Recently was able to uh permanently promote him to a battalion chief position. So, he's held the position of captain and now battalion chief and he's doing a great job at that. So, going to invite Brian on up here and congratulate him on his 20 years. Sorry.

Congratulations. Congrats, Brian. I thought you were going to say something. All right. Item F, unfinished business. One, motion approving resolution 2025-091. A resolution appointing and reappointing members of the tourism committee. Present. Second. We have a motion and a second. Do you want to speak any to this? Yes.

On November 25th, 2025, resolution 2025-091 was postponed till tonight, February 10. At that meeting, the city council expressed its preference that the Belton Main Street Coalition representative position and the vacant appointments be filled by community members who were not council members. Since that time, Mayor Larkkey has received applications from qualified community members and wishes to amend the council member leaison appointment accordingly. The applications for the new members are attached to the resolution. This resolution will require an amendment tonight prior to the approval and the amendment that I'm suggesting is written on page one of the resolution. All right.

Shall I read the motion? Go ahead. The motion amending resolution 2025-091 to appoint Janice Nastiff at as the Belton Main Street Coalition representative, Brianna Shout as the restaurant and retail business representative and Elizabeth Wilson as the citizen at large and council member Patty Johnson as the council member leazison. All right, we have a motion to amend and a second. Any more discussion hearing? None. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries.

And wanting to vote vote on the resolution, please. Yeah. Okay. I I also I want to have one quick question on the resolution itself, not on the amendment part of it. All right. If I'm looking at this correctly, we still have some open positions. Is that correct on this? No, should not. Now, originally there were two vacant positions of a restaurant retail and citizen at large, but those have now been filled by Brianna and Elizabeth. Uh, hence the amendment. Okay. Thank you. Mhm. All right. So, now we're back to the motion. Yes, please. All right. What did we just do? Approve the amendment. So, now we need to approve the resolution as amended.

All right. All right. Sorry. Motion to approve the resolution as amended. 2025-091. Present. Second. We just need a vote on it, please. Yeah, I thought Wait. Okay. All right. I I'm way off tonight. Sorry. All right. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. All right. Item two, motion approving resolution 2026-007. A resolution formally dedicating city of Belton property as parkland. Present. Second. We have a motion and a second. You're up.

Mr. Mayor and Council. Yes. Tonight's um resolution was postponed um was postponed and we essentially have added a list with uh parcel IDs to this so everybody can see that. So just ask that you give it consideration. Go ahead to stand for any questions. Any questions? Go ahead. Just to clarify, was the postponement to add the parcel IDs or Yeah, just to add a little clarification through the through the names and the making sure we had some way to identify what they were in a way that everybody could agree on. Okay.

Um we had a list of names that were from an old map that didn't quite match what the parks had in their system. And so rather than have you know us approve a list of names and parks be like well it's kind of this and that and we just thought we get it all lined out. Great. Thank you. Go ahead. And just for clarification this is just so we all know what we need to consult parks about if in the future we needed to sell a piece of property that had been designated as parkland. Yes. That's that's one the main you know useful um change that this is going to do. Yes. Anybody else? Hearing none. All in favor?

I. Any opposed? Motion carries. G. New business. Motion approving first reading of bill 2026-02. An ordinance approving the Belton, Missouri Police Department Municipal Jail 2026 housing contract for inmates of the Greenwood, Missouri Police Department. Present. Second. We have a motion and a second. You're up, sir.

Um, we're u proposing bringing on the uh Greenwood Police Department and do uh hous inmate housing for them. This is one of the agencies we did prior to the pandemic and then during the pandemic we only did it for Belton and Raymore because we have the same prosecutor and the same judge. And so we've been slowly bringing on other agencies after we renovated the jail and we've increased the price which is competitive. And so with uh with what we're doing at $63.93 and then this is a two-year contract, I believe, and uh we'll continue to research that price and as these contracts come up, we'll renegotiate them. But uh Greenwood Police Department has met with us. We've gone through what our procedures are, what type of things that we want to see and uh we feel like they would be a good partner in this.

Any questions? Hearing none. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item two, motion approving resolution 2026-012. A resolution approving the trade-in of 171 1999 golf course Toro irrigation satellites and the purchase of 18 2026 Toro links smart irrigation satellites with control computer from professional turf products LP in the amount of $22,365.80 80 cents present. Second. We have a motion and a second. You're up.

Well, good evening. Uh, back in August, uh, I did a nice slideshow presentation showing you the age of our, uh, system and the DOSs that it's currently working off of. So, this is just the replacement for that system. We were able to uh, work through a cooperative governmental agreement. Uh and uh this will take care of not only our control system, allow us more flexibility and creating uh programs to irrigate the golf course and water management of the of the golf course as a whole. But it also upgrades our satellite system so they'll all be digital. They'll they'll have cellular capabilities and basically uh they'll they'll work through a cloud. So that's that's the right now we have a central computer. So, if that was to go down, we would have to manually go out to each of the 17 units that that are out on the golf course. The 18th unit is a sparer backup. Obviously, we have a big piece of property. There's always something that could happen like a lightning strike could could hit the ground. Although they are shielded and grounded, uh there still is that potential. Uh so, we just have a spare for backup. So, that is the presentation for tonight.

Anybody else? Go ahead. So, I know we've talked about this many times, or at least a couple times anyways. Um, but can you remind me what are they actually giving us on that tradein value? They're giving us some value for our old ones. They are. Yeah. So, okay. Are they going into a museum or something? Is that what it is? Well, you know, funny enough, there are people like us that still utilize that equipment. And so by happen stance, they might have a motherboard or something that they can utilize and sell to another, you know, municipality or another company uh that that can't do this upgrade yet. Okay, makes sense. Thank you. Mhm. Anybody else? Hearing none. All in favor?

I I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item H, consent agenda. One motion on the bill to approve the recommendation noted. Any member of the council may ask for an item to be taken from from the consent agenda for discussion and separate action. Present. Second. A motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. Reports and information boards committee. communication from city council.

Just wanted to thank everybody who came to the town hall last Thursday night uh to talk about what's happening on Main Street and what they'd like to see. I want to thank staff for all the hard work that they put into that um and in the recognition of the cooperation between the city and the coalition and we very much appreciated that. And then congratulations to Mr. Disney on his 20 years uh with the fire department. Um, I had the honor of attending the police awards banquet. It was uh very nice to hear some of the heroic stories from our team. Um, I thought it was really cool to learn that not only the civilian of the year, but the office of the year and the supervisor of the year uh were all Belton residents. I think that's commendable. I think that's worth noting. And uh I I just uh thought that was a very neat um happen stance. Um, the other thing that stuck out to me is that uh Mr. Officer Meyers uh who

somebody didn't show up either.

Yeah, Mr. Officer Myers, who was not present during the banquet for some reason, uh, but is is the, uh, is the gentleman that's normally standing in the back of this room during our council meetings, I feel like he was mentioned on just about every single award that was presented. Um, so I wanted to give him a shout out and uh, just say thank you to the police department overall. It was a very nice event. Um, from a parks perspective, I've mentioned I feel like a lot of their upcoming events, so I'm going to um not go heavy into those uh at this time. There are uh spring sports signups are still underway. So, as a reminder, soccer, volleyball, softball, baseball, flag football, um are all available to sign up for on the website. And that's everything I have. I want to thank the Belton Fire Department for coming and saving me Thursday morning about 2:30 in the morning. Um, I fell on some ice Tuesday morning going out to work. Um, something happened Wednesday night and I had to call the my wife had to call the ambulance. They had to give me enough medicine just to get me out of bed. So, I appreciate that cuz I didn't know what I'd do. So, thank you.

Um, I'll echo what Patty said about the reimagining Main Street meeting last Thursday. There was a really good turnout. Um residents who I'd never seen at city stuff before caught wind of it and showed up and thought this is neat. I want to chime in. I thought that was great. Um our friend uh Mr. Gamboa with KSHB documented that well. So um good turnout, good effort. And along those lines with Main Street, the Gallentine's Day event this last Saturday also had tons of people coming through Main Street spending money at businesses. So just excited to keep the momentum going there. Thanks, Um follow up on the Gallentine. Um they were able to give over um I think it was 115 bags of to people that showed up. If they made a purchase they received extra raffle tickets and in the raffle there was over 400 tickets in the little bag. So there was shopping and a good time. So

I too went to the police um event and I did question about why that particular officer wasn't there. So but I I just just was curious because his name was dropped a lot. Um I I also went to reimagine u Main Street. Lot of people there. Lot of really interesting questions about everything. I mean, from why we don't have dugouts and apartment complexes for uh hurricanes and tornadoes to, you know, when's the train going to run. I mean, it was a broad spectrum of people, people that I had never met before. So, it was very encouraging and I'm encouraged. I'm encouraged that I saw new people. I'm encouraged that those of us were there, spent some time talking to everybody. It was a very encouraging event for me. So, thank you. Um, I just want to remind people that we're going to have a Ward Forward meeting on uh Monday the 16th at 6:30 at the senior citizens center. So, it's a different spot

on Mini Avenue according to my counterpart here. So, uh, please all come and, uh, that's all I have. I don't have anything. Uh, go ahead. You don't have anything either. All right. Items for review and discussion. Number one, special use permit. GTtown Auto Body.

Yeah, we've received a request for a special use permit for Gtown Auto Body. Um, which is located at 1016 East North Avenue, Unit E. I did pass out a map at your seats. Um, if you're not familiar with Gtown, they are a landlocked lot that's located behind Lily's Rescue Rehab there on North Scott, just south of Paradise Bar and Grill. Um currently they have been operating an auto repair shop there for about four or five years and they are requesting to expand the use to allow um some limited auto um sales and rentals of vehicles there. Um so the planning commission will hear that um next week at a public hearing on Tuesday, February 17th and the request is anticipated to come before council in March. Any questions? Go ahead.

Is there a definition on what limited means? So, they have provided a a map of kind of what they're proposing in terms of the site layout. So, majority of it will still be of their parking spaces will be for auto repair. Um, but they envision being able to accommodate three or four rental vehicles and three or four sales vehicles. Uh the reason for that request is they do purchase vehicles that they then fix up and then they sell. So it's not necessarily that a typical sales lot where you're going to have a lot of vehicles out there for sale. It's just as they fix up a car, they'll probably sell it online. Somebody comes and picks it up and purchases purchases it there.

Not to get ahead of it, but I guess that's the point of this, right? To have that open discussion. um if they decide but what if they you know I don't know two years from now they decide that business is doing way better and that's they decide to make that their primary business is that something they would then again need a permit from us for or can they would they already be able to just sell turn into a car lot

um with the special use permit it would it would allow if they decided that they aren't going to utilize the auto body as much uh which I think that they still would because that's what the building is built for. I think if they became more successful with the vehicle sales, they would probably have to look elsewhere. U but ultimately they're limited to the parking that they have there. So if they start u having parking issues or access issues because of that, then that would be something that we would pursue through just not meeting certain conditions of the special use and the site standards.

Okay. And I've been there before. Um, I recall there right next to, it's hard to see on the map, but right next to Lily, there is a driveway to get there. Is there also a Can you also access it from this other this side road here? Not legally. Um, so their only legal access is through Lily's uh rescue rehab. Um, and the adjacent property owner is actually going to install a fence. Um, so there is not access through Vivian. Gotcha. So their only point of access is through Lily and there is a shared access easement there that is platted.

And I can't imagine there's been issues, but have there been issues with the access? Um, there have been some concerns from the neighboring property owner um of utilizing their access um through their site uh which they're not part of any kind of an access easement and there's no shared maintenance there. So that that is a concern of theirs which is why they are going to install a fence. Gotcha. Okay. So do they already have a dealer's license? Are they applying for one or uh they would need to apply for one? Um they've they don't have one now? No, they have inquired um for one through licensing. However, we cannot approve that until a special use permit is approved.

Anybody else? Thanks. Item two, permits and registration timelines and penalty fees.

Uh, yes. So, these would be a couple of UDC text amendments that would come before council in the future. Um, the first one is related to the rental registration program which we adopted back in 2024 and um we're now over a year into it being in in effect. Um, with that uh there's no penalty fees that that have been built into the code. uh business licensing built-in penalty fees with their code updates last year. So, we're proposing to do something similar uh for those uh rental registrations that are um not properly being proactive with getting those uh renewed or even still those that we find that are outstanding that have not um complied. Um, so with that, we are proposing that there's a 30-day grace period um from the expiration date, and then if they don't uh renew within 30 days of their expiration date, it's an additional $5 fee per unit uh every month past due up to um after four months, it would be essentially a double registration fee for that. Um so that's what we're proposing on the rental registration fees. Um, we'd also be clarifying the reinspection fee. That's not really noted in the code, but it's reference. There's just not a dollar amount. So, that would be $20 per reinspection fee after two failed inspections for the rental program.

Thank you. That doesn't seem like very sharp teeth. And we're how how many are we do we feel that are still unregistered at this point? We know that we have all of the the large complexes done and we have pretty we've pretty much if there's any still out there, which I'm sure there still are. They're single family residences um that maybe just a landlord has one or two in the city. So, we're not finding any big complexes. Those have all been addressed. Don't you find that most of the problems we're having are from the single owner?

Those are typically the ones that that fly under the radar. Those are the those are the biggest ones for us uh that we do need to to catch. So is that is that and I'm really just asking this is is that a big enough uh fee to encourage them to register because it doesn't sound it to me. We can always look at in increasing the fee. Um at the same time that potentially does penalize some of the larger complexes um which had as

if we're not having trouble with the larger complex and we're having with the one or two owners then is it it would it be penalizing the larger complexes if we're not having trouble with them? Not necessarily. Although I know with some of the larger complexes they have to go through they have corporate offices that they have to go through to process a check. So I know sometimes those can get delayed by several weeks just going through that process. But if you have a 30-day grace period, right?

Correct. So I mean with business licensing, it's it's automatically a double fee after 30 days or 60 days. They have a 30-day grace period after their license expires for business licensing, not for rental. Uh 30-day grace period afterward with no penalty. And then on day 31, the penalty is enacted.

But prior to that, they've also had 45 days to renew. So there's a total of 75 days without penalty for business licensing. I I just don't think that this is I don't think this is enough of a an encouragement for them to get it. I mean, I I can only speak to where I live and I'm not sure that this is enough of an encouragement for them to get registered. So, I I I that's just my opinion and where I live. So,

Oh, go ahead. Uh, I would just note that even penalty fees, like all of our fees, have to be based on actual costs that we are incurring. Obviously, they increase over the normal fee because penalty fees usually require Andrea and other members of city staff to send out letters, communicate, do all those sorts of additional tasks that a non- delinquent permit holder does not have to do. But so there is a cap on what we can charge as the penalty fee. I would note that if they are all if they are in violation of the code of ordinances, there is the potential for the municipal court system to step in and penalize them. But a penalty fee, regardless of the name, is an additional fee because of additional costs that the city is incurring and that is what we have to base that fee on. I I can appreciate that. But at the same time, if we know that we have bad actors that are continuing to not

and and that would be regulated through a different means other than the penalty fee. Okay? Because again, the penalty fee must be based an approximate additional costs incurred. So if we are going to increase it, we have to continue to track with what we are doing. If we want to penalize bad actors, we have other mechanisms outside of the penalty fee that we could utilize. Okay. And another question, Matt, do we do we have a good database of what we think is not registered or is that still something that we're working on? That is still something that we're working on. Okay.

Go ahead. Do you look at uh the letters and emails that go out and stuff? Yes, Andrea and I and Matt work together to ensure that one we develop a form and then it's just inserting names but yes I do. So uh do you does your charge to the city get included in those? Uh essentially it well one I'm not hourly as I think everybody knows but one of the things that we have done is the city attorney's legal expenses are partially reimbured by various departments. So yes it's incorporated into that. I just have a hard time thinking $5 is going to help incorporate it then.

Now, honestly, it's because we developed the forms a significant significantly long time ago at this point and with all attorney services, it's always best to get us to do it one time and not have to continuously look at it. But I would note that if we do end up having to utilize other enforcement mechanisms under Missouri law for some of these sorts of abatements, we are authorized to charge my fees as part of any judgment. Um, so again, if we're looking to go after bad actors, the penalty fees are not necessarily the route. there are additional other fees that we can utilize that or fees additional avenues that we can utilize that are better for that.

Well, I'm not necessarily trying to get at them. I just think $5 doesn't seem to be covering the cost of what we have to spend. I I'm assuming that she's if we looked at like you, Bill, not you personally, of course, uh but if we build out every 15 minutes of work uh on doing these things, then I suspect that the cost by the time you start adding up those costs, that would be more than $5. It's every six minutes. Okay. All right. Six minutes then. Yeah. Um,

so I think it would be more than $5. If if we look really looking at the the the time that we our staff spend at these things, I think we should build them out as making as making at least breaking even for their time.

And city staff, again, fees once we implement them are not set in stone. We typically do bring a resolution to the city council every year that updates the fees. And again, when increasing fees, we do need to have some supporting study and especially if we're going to increase them significantly over what they have been. So, in the future, city staff could present to the city council a more thorough report of the time associated with these sorts of things so that the fee could be increased over a certain amount. But there is also a Goldilocks zone when it comes to penalty fees where if the penalty fee is so high that it could actually discourage somebody coming into compliance because they don't want to have to pay a $150 fee and instead it's all right. Well, yeah, I'm not in compliance. Take me to court.

I'm not necessarily saying six minutes. Go ahead. When when our officers are our community officers are out looking, I'm assuming they're now keeping their eyes on on places that are that are for the lack of a word obviously rental that they can get address and track those folks down. Correct. Yeah, we've added um one of our officers uh she's been going around and going block by block and figuring out which ones are rentals. And so just over the last three months, there's been 400 additional units, okay, that have been added to the registration.

And I know that we worked hard on that rental inspection thing. And it would be nice that we could comfort people that we have their eyes on and do want to pro protect rental folks. Anybody? Oh, go ahead. Can you um It was $5 a day, correct? Is that what you said? So it it's $5 a unit, which right now the fee is $20 a unit. So essentially it's 25% after 30 days and then it it goes up another 25%. Up to a double fee. So So $5, then $10, then $15, and then 20. So basically, you're doubling every a month.

Every month. So okay. So, in relation to these penalty fees, it sounds like we've already done the math and we're probably where we need to be based on costs, etc. Um, but it sounds like we might know of some problem spots we might want to take other action on. Just well, and there will be also built into it is if 60 days pass, then it's automatically goes to a code violation, and then if they don't comply within 10 days of that, then it's a citation. So that that's the the next process.

Mr. Mayor, if I may, we also I I would advise council that we need to be careful when it comes to trying to raise fees. We don't want to become, you know, anti- business. We don't want to become, you know, we don't want to create huge barriers for folks to to, you know, make a living or make extra money or whatnot. Like, we want to be open to business, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. And so, um, I' I'd rather us push stuff through code enforcement, even though that's a, um, frustr frustratingly long process sometimes. Um, I'd rather do that than than try to set up too high a barriers at the front end and end up dinging everybody who's a good actor at the same time. Um, just because we're trying to to, you know, get folks that are not top actors to come into compliance.

Anybody else? Okay. And then the uh second piece is related to permitting. And this one's not about fees, but it's about timelines. Um so one of the issues that we have currently is that our permit application open window is 180 days. So if you submit an application, um you can essentially just sit on that for 180 days uh and not respond back and forth with staff on that. Um we are proposing to reduce that to 90 days. um that RA matches the city of Raymore. And the goal with that is to improve turnaround times um essentially if you're not um if you have no intent of actually doing the work um to try to get those through this process um and withdraw or avoid those as soon as we know that they're not moving forward. Um there would be exceptions built in for larger projects um in which the permitting process may take more time uh just through the revisions that are necessary for larger projects. Um the other challenge that we have have been facing is uh work being done without permits. Um so we were proposing that that automatically generates a code violation for work without a permit. Um giving 10 days to obtain a a work or a permit for that work. And then the unpermitted work um that requires additional time to review those plans would get extensions for that. Um any work that is obt or any work without a permit once they have the permit they have 60 days uh to make those improvements and get a passing um inspection um or else a citation may be issued for that. Um and then the second piece is we've also had um work done without a permit that's also um clearly in violation of the code. Um and so that same process would apply to that to ensure um that the code violations are corrected within that 60-day time frame. Um the reason for that is uh for

reducing these timelines on both the application and the uh timeline for inspections is that we have sometimes work that's done without a permit. They submit a permit application that kind of puts them in that limbo status for 180 days. Then when they finally get a permit, it buys them another 180 80 days. Um, so we potentially have work done without a permit that's in violation for up to a year. Um, that has something in the process that potentially protects them should they go to court if we issue a citation. Sometimes the court may look at that as they're they've done their due diligence at least to get their application in or their permit is still active. Um, and neighbors see that and see that as an opportunity to potentially do the same thing. So, it's just trying to clean that up to help improve code compliance throughout the city.

Go ahead. Uh, have we seen this what you just described? Has it occurred? Yes. Okay. Then, um, numerous uh, examples of it over the past year.

Okay. And I mean, are we talking about So, as we as the council all not too long ago had a discussion on water heaters in your personal home, uh, needing a permit to replace, correct? Correct. So, this would include that. The bigger challenges are what we see on the outside of of properties. Those are the most visible ones. Obviously, we hope that people are compliant with what they're doing inside. We don't always know that until we see work going on on the exterior or work vehicles on the exterior of the home um or somebody reports it to us. So, I guess my question though, where I'm going with that would be, if I understood you correctly, say somebody puts in a new water heater, which for the record, I have the same water heater as when I bought the house for the record, but uh someone puts in a new water heater and they're unaware of that permit requirement, they're going to automatically end up with a citation if it were to go past the what' you say 10 days or something of that nature.

Yeah. which a watery year permit is generally as long as a contractor's license, that's a 24-hour permit. I mean, we turn those around really quickly. So, that's a lot of these permits are for permits that are generally easy easy to obtain. So, it's the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, um driveway permits. Those are typically where we've seen the biggest issues with with not following this. And those are also the easiest to obtain because there's usually very little review or plans required for those.

Okay. I'm not opposed to the ideology here, especially the shortening of the timeline. That sounds ridiculous. Uh but I I'm a little hesitant on maybe some of the automatic citation piece, but you guys look at this every day. You have the data. So, I guess if we're, you know, six months down the road, a year down the road, we're not seeing that cause, you know, it's not bubbling up into problems, uh, especially for, you know, Joe resident, uh, then I guess I'm probably comfortable with it, but I am a little hesitant based on I mean, we could also build it in to where it's just we give you a a 10day notice to get a permit as long as you stop work, but we've also put stop work orders on people and they continue to do to do work and that's where we run into

are having problems. Yeah, I know you're in a tough spot. Trust me, I I'm not naive to that. I just Okay, so if you're having a furnace or hot water tank or furnace put in and you catch the furnace people or the air condition people putting it in, do you call the homeowner or do you call that company? Because most the companies get the get the permits, don't they? Yes. Not the homeowners. Typically the or the building owners or whatever inspectors for those types of permits will get the permits. So you call the company. Yes. Not the person.

That's usually if one of our either an inspector or a neighborhood improvement officer if they see that will usually reach out to the business, not necessarily the homeowner. It's not a hard and fast rule though because if we don't know who's doing the work, you you know, we couldn't we're But I mean, if you walk up on them and that company's out there installing a furnace, you would call that company. You can. Yeah, that's probably the most the the most common logical thing to call the company because they're the ones getting the permits every day. Most homeowners or business owners, if they call and get a furnace installed, they're not calling the city going, "Hey, did you did you I got to get a permit." Usually, it's the company, isn't it? typically on those. Yes. All ahead.

I would also note a lot of times when it comes to nuisance and building code and zoning code and other different IP IBC IRC code violations, typically there is a requirement that it go if we're going to send out formal written notice that it goes to both the property owner and the contractor or the like for example with code enforcement. A lot of that is required no matter if the person that owns the home isn't living in the home and the leie is the one that's supposed to be mowing it. Unfortunately, sometimes we are required to send it to both. But obviously, if we can get compliance without having to involve a party that we know is not causing the issue, we go that route.

I get that. But if you're walking up and these guys are putting a furnace in, you're not going to send a letter out because they're already in the process of doing it. You're going to say, "Did you get your permit?" Correct. I suppose it would depend on the situation. I mean, there's not a It's not like there's a hard and fast rule with that. I mean, if if it's a property that has a history of issues, I imagine we probably would send him a letter. Anybody else?

Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Motion to adjurnn. Second. Have a motion and a second to adjurnn. Any discussion? Hearing none. Roll call. All in favor?