P&z Meeting - Regular Meeting

Okay, welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Montezuma County Planning and Zoning Commission. It's being held in the Commissioner's Meeting Room in the Montezuma County Administrative Offices, 109 West Main, Room 250, Cortez, Colorado. We're going to open with the Pledge of Allegiance and then a moment of silence.

the United States of America. Thank you, John.

Okay, can we have roll call, Don?

Commissioner Hernandez? Here. Commissioner Armstrong? Here. Commissioner Neergaard? Here. Commissioner Lynch? Here. Commissioner Doyle?

Here.

Okay, also present is Don Haley, and Jane will be with us shortly. Please silence. Turn off your cell phones for the meeting. Important calls can be taken outside in the foyer. Has the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed June meeting minutes?

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Okay, I would entertain a motion.

I move that we accept the motion as written.

I'll second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there's, we'll have a vote.

Commissioner Hernandez. Aye. Commissioner Armstrong. Aye. Commissioner Niergaard. Aye. Commissioner Lynch. Aye. Commissioner Doyle.

Aye.

Okay, we have no alternates no further discussion motion carried it was unanimous Or five five yeas and zero nays zero abstains Okay, the Montezuma County and Planning Commission welcomes you to this meeting I The board is comprised of members who are tasked to make recommendations to the board of county commissioners. We are not the decision makers. We encourage public comment after each permit. Persons speaking during public comment will be limited to three minutes or depending on the number of people wishing to speak, it may be reduced. At the discretion of the planning commission to allow all members of the public the opportunity to address their thoughts and concerns. When addressing the commission, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the records prior to providing your comments. Comments to individual applicants are not permitted. Participants may not yield their time to others. I will be voting tonight. Okay, roll call please John Commissioner Hernandez here.

Mr. Armstrong here Commissioner Neergaard here.

Mr. Lynch here Commissioner Doyle Okay notice number one notice is hereby given that the count Montezuma County Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing for review and determination on a proposed two lot moderate subdivision and rezoning application submitted by Sarah PORSMA AND KYLE DUGAN ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6300 ROAD 21 CORTEZ CONSISTING OF 19.90 ACRES MORE OR LESS LOCATED EAST OF ROAD 21 SOUTH OF ROAD G SITUATED IN SECTION 7 TOWNSHIP 35 NORTH RANGE 16 WEST OF THE NEW MEXICO PRIME MERIDIAN. This is a public hearing. Was the public notice published?

Yes, it was.

Was evidence of letters to the adjoining neighbors and mineral owners submitted?

Yes.

Was a sign posted?

Yes.

Okay. Can we have the applicants come on down? Okay. If you would sit down and bring the microphone close to you and turn it on. Okay. Then we can all hear you. Perfect. Okay, can we have planning department findings?

Sure. So the applicant is proposing a two-aught moderate subdivision on their just under 20-acre parcel. Agencies were notified in June. Access is from County Road 21. the proposed new lot that would extend 221 would have to obtain its own driveway access permit from the county utilities are in place to the existing residents and are available to the the proposed lot rural water is with montezuma water company they've got a four inch line on the east side of road 21 Water is available for an additional $0.58 residential service. Septic would be through a septic engineer and a permit through the health department. Fire mitigation. The local fire district states no hydrant is required. Wildfire Adaptive Partners recommends a wildfire mitigation plan. Majority of the parcel is covered in sagebrush scrub land and PJ and it borders BLM land. If the landowners are interested they can contact wildfire adapted partners To schedule a site visit for more information The weed department Email was sent to them on June 9th and is in process at this time. Currently, the weed manager, the weed department's busy spraying for the road and bridge department, so they haven't done a site visit to this specific property. But that will be taken care of as soon as they get the time to take a look at that. And that's basically it.

OK. You have anything to add to that?

The only thing that I believe that I want to add to it is on the plat map that has been provided by Brian Boniface, it came back to me that it was only a 30-foot easement is needed for the driveway. Brian Boniface is putting a 40-foot easement all the way down what would be the north side of the property. And that's because there is an existing electrical, one of the large wire poles that's at about 37 feet from the property line. So we went ahead and included that in the driveway easement.

So that...

We made it a 40-foot driveway easement rather than a 30.

Okay, and that electric line is running parallel to the property line?

It runs diagonal on the property.

Okay, so it's the red one that's shown. Well, not there.

It was up there just a minute ago.

So it's running more or less parallel to Road 21.

Yes, so we're giving additional easement to the electrical department in the event that they need quick access to that pole.

Okay, and that belongs to Empire?

It should be an Empire pole.

Okay, it's wooden.

It's wooden.

Okay, it belongs to Empire. Yes.

Where is the easement on that? I mean, I'm not saying it looks like this is the property. The flag lot, yeah.

So you can see where the house.

It would be the property, right.

Yeah, you can see where the residence is right now. I'm looking behind you. Oh, on the previous map.

That's what we like, yeah. You're creating a flag lot. That's what we call it, yeah.

So the bigger piece of the property is that rectangle to the right and that strip at the top of that map, is that right?

The top of the map, correct. That is a 40-foot driveway right there. It came back that we only needed a 30-foot, but if you notice the power line that goes across the property there, And there is a pole right at about 36, 37 feet. So we decided we're going to leave it at the 40.

At the 40.

Just so that. Okay.

Yeah. Would help them if they ever had to get to it.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, and or if they put up fencing and or whatever, then the pole will then be on the outside. Outside of. if they were to put a property line fence there.

My question was whether this is an easement at all or is it part of this other property?

Part of the other property.

It will be real property to the county road. It's not an easement. It's actual real property.

So 40 feet is just fine.

Anybody else? Comments? Questions?

So in the application, it says that a fire mitigation plan is required, but it doesn't give the status. I'm assuming that's in progress?

I contacted the fire department, goodness, over a year ago in consideration of doing the slot split. And the main thing was at that time was I going to need to have a hydrant run. 10 acres out or halfway down the property line. All I learned at that time was no, I would not need a hydrant. I did not know about the mitigation.

And you said, Dawn, that's forthcoming, right?

The mitigation plan is required per wildfire adaptive partner. We'll make sure that she gets that contact information.

Okay, so that's good. Let's see, the second parcel, the large parcel, lot two, is that going to be retained by you or is it for sale?

It will be for sale.

Okay, thank you. Anybody, anything else? We're going to open it up to public comment. Anybody wishing to speak for or against this application, come to the podium. OK. Seeing none, we'll close it. Bring it back to the commissioners. I'll entertain a motion.

I will make a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to approve of a proposed two lot moderate subdivision rezoning application submitted by Sarah Roseman and Kyle Dugan based on the following. The proposed use is in conformity with the code. Proposed use should not generate any significant adverse impacts on other property in the area, and public utilities and services are available or can be made available to support uses consistent with proposed zoning. And the condition is that you'll get that wildfire mitigation plan completed.

Okay. Is there anything else that I need above and beyond that?

One other condition is that if and when you sell that property, that the new owner be made aware of the county land use code.

Okay.

And I did have a question, Dawn, if you bring up the picture again. I remember now that the – is that – And will it be – That little building there, that meets requirements on the corner? First of all, is it a building?

That's my son's home and then a garage.

A garage, so there's a structure. Do we know it meets the requirement?

That I could not confirm.

Let me look here. So the setback from the road and setback from the property line.

Do you know what year that was installed?

I do not, sir. It was on the property when we bought it. And we purchased it in 2016.

Well, we can make that a condition also, Don, that we find out that building meets the required setbacks for the county. That's from the row 21 and the south property line.

So if it doesn't, she can apply for a variance, right? Coming after the fact variance?

Yeah, or possibly move it to make it compliant.

Sure. Yeah. So whoever did your map, your subdivision map, that surveyor, probably needs to go back out and show what those dimensions are.

Okay.

Yeah, and if, yeah, have Brian check that. If it was installed prior to 2020, the setback requirement was 25 feet at that point, not 30.

Okay, and that's from the center of the road, though, correct?

No, that's from your property line.

Okay, because they're considering from the south property line. Right. Okay, so the back of the garage.

Correct. And also from the roadside.

Okay, because we were measuring the road. I did the surveying. I went out and hiked the surveying with the surveyor. Anyhow, we had to measure from the center of the road.

So the center of the road, it would be... And we had to find a pin in the middle of the road. So it would be 55 feet from the center of the county road.

And or from the property line. Okay.

What's the resolution if it's not? If it doesn't?

Yes, if it's not. I need to know that.

Um... So it gets tricky when you didn't put it there, you bought it that way. You can look for an after-the-fact variance or move it to make it compliant. Depends on what kind of structure it is and what's involved there.

You're the one that brought it up.

It's a two-story, two-car garage, and I sure hope that the gentleman that built it, he is in the construction field, so I sure hope that he knew.

He knew. Again, this is why we're relying on you for the new property owners to be aware so they don't build something.

Correct. No, understood, and I appreciate what you guys do.

There's remedies, but let's find out what those distances are, get that to Don, and then we'll...

Okay, I have to go back out there tonight because I'm babysitting dogs. So I have to go back over there with the dogs back in.

If it doesn't meet the setbacks, then you need to seek a baroness, right? Right, yep. That's the condition. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, yeah. I'll second the motion if we're done with the discussion. Okay.

You second? Mike? Mike did. So we have a motion and a second. No further discussion. Call the vote.

Commissioner Hernandez? Aye. Commissioner Armstrong? Aye. Commissioner Neergaard? Aye. Commissioner Lynch? Aye. Commissioner Doyle?

Aye. Okay. Motion carried. It was unanimous. Five ayes, no nays, and no abstentions.

May I just ask, if it requires a variance, what's the requirement?

You'll have to just contact me.

Okay. And it's just paperwork, basically?

Well, you have to get it approved by the county commissioners.

Okay. Okay.

But, yes, it's another application and documentation. Okay.

All right. Good. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Hernandez? Here. Commissioner Armstrong? Here. Commissioner Niergaard? Here. Commissioner Lynch? Here. Commissioner Doyle?

Here. Okay, number two. Notice is hereby given that the Montezuma County Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing for review and determination of a proposed subdivision amendment and rezoning application to the JJ Lanier single lot development submitted by Joseph and Jennifer Lanier on property located at 27193 Road 10, Pleasant View, Colorado. consisting of 10.09 acres, more or less, located west of road 10, north of road CC, situated in sections 30, township 39 north, range 18 west of the New Mexico Prime Meridian. And everybody left us. This is a timeout. Oh, here he is. Okay, this is a public hearing. Was the public notice published? Yes, it was. Were evidence of letters to the adjoining neighbors and mineral owners submitted? Yes. Was a sign posted? Yes, it was. Okay, can we have the applicants come on down? I want to bring those speak those microphones right up to you yours is on his is Working hit the button. There we go. We're on.

Okay Plenty department findings, please Yes, so the applicants are proposing to out moderate subdivision with one lot roughly three and a half acres and the other parcel roughly six and a half acres and It's in the J and J Lanier single lot development. Access to the existing residence is from road 21. This is a different road 21. A lot further north. And the road department stated if the applicants want an access off of County Road 10, they'll need to apply for a new driveway permit access. Empire Electric has utilities to the parcel. Montezuma Water Company has a three-inch main line on the west side of Road 10 providing water to the property, and they also have no problem to provide another additional five-eighths-inch residential service. Irrigation water, which we don't have oversight on. The Dolores Water Conservancy District has some rules and regulations on subdividing and parcels smaller than, I believe, 10 acres. So the applicants have been notified of this. They'll just have to deal with Dolores Water Conservancy on the water. irrigation water rights fire mitigation wildfire adaptive partnership recommends a mitigation plan due to the majority of the parcel is forested with pj fuels the landowners can contact them for a site visit again the weed department has not been able to physically Assess this property, but it is in process.

Okay. Okay, anything to add to that? I don't think so, no.

No, except I'm not sure what road 21. Yeah.

Is that not road 21? I don't know. It's road 10. It is 10. Yeah. Yeah, it's road 10.

Okay.

Okay. We all see it's road 10.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, commissioners, comments or questions?

Yeah, I just have a question about the overhead power line on the new property. Are you guys going to have an easement on there for access to that?

If that's what's needed, yes.

I talked to Empire about it.

Okay. Yeah, make sure that... Yeah, it does go right...

basically cuts the property.

They might need access at some point to work on that. So check with them and see. And if you do, add that to your final.

So that would be something we talk to the surveyor about?

It's actually the property line, once it becomes effective, if you're going to put a fence through there, then they'll need a gate so that they can traverse.

Oh, yeah.

Okay. To replace power, the poles, the cross alarms, whatever.

Yeah.

Yeah, your surveyor should look up what that access easement is if one exists. Sometimes they don't exist and you're going to have to dedicate an easement to them because they'll have to sign off on your plan.

Okay, so the question I have then, the second parcel, the new parcel, will have access off of Route 10.

no no the the access would be coming around past the um I know. So the existing house, you can see that driveway.

That's up at the top, right?

Yeah.

To the north, yeah. And that's not your property, is it?

So we also own that property.

Oh, you own both?

Yeah.

Both sides, okay. So then that's...

So from the left side of the picture...

Okay.

There's just...

The road that's already in?

It's already a road. Yeah.

Okay. So that one will have to have a...

But it's not a county road.

But we need to have... You'll have to deed a road.

So is that a red sign road? Is that what that is?

So... Right? Yeah.

Yes.

Okay, and this is going to be the access to the new property.

That's what we would like to do, yes.

Okay, so there's going to need to be an easement then from this row, because you own this piece, right? Yes. Okay, you're going to have to have an easement through here for this new lot.

Okay, that'll be a commission.

Okay.

It has to be granted an access easement. Okay. Access and utility easement.

Okay. Yeah. Why don't you... Why wouldn't they just have that on the other side out on the road top?

There's potential for a driveway there, but it's fairly steep and rocky. The terrain. The terrain's not that I want. There's only a bigger option there.

Yeah. To New Lot. Well, being they own both, yeah.

They can grant.

Yeah, but somebody else may own that. What are you doing with the three and a half, the small piece?

Putting a residency on it.

Eventually. We're not. So for now, we'll just be. So I'm Jennifer Lanier. This is my son. So we'll be selling it to. him and his wife.

Okay. Well, he's here. He knows now that there's land use code that you have to abide by. Yeah. Perfect. Okay.

Let's see. One and two.

Two linear farms. Okay. Okay. Anything else?

Yeah, I seem to have a repeating question. So the application says that the comprehensive wildfire mitigation plan is required, but it doesn't give the status. Have you started on that yet?

No, but with that coming up earlier, if we can get that contact information, I'm not sure who to reach out to about that.

Yeah.

So with the applications, the initial application many times doesn't have a response back from Wildfire Adapted Partnership or anybody else. That's why we do the findings for what the updated information is at the point that it's sent out to the different agencies for their review and response.

So we could make it a motion. Motion.

Yeah. This is similar to the prior one. Correct. Correct. Yeah.

Thank you.

OK. We're going to open this up to public comment. Anybody wishing to speak for or against, come to the podium. Seeing none, we'll close that, bring it back to the commissioners. For a motion?

I'll make a motion to recommend to the county commissioners to approve a proposed subdivision amendment and rezoning application to the J&J Lanier single lot development submitted by Joseph and Jennifer Lanier based on the following. The proposal use is in conformity with the code The proposed use shall not generate any significant adverse impact on other property in the area. Public utilities and services are available or can be made available to support uses consistent with the proposed zoning. The conditions do the wildfire. mitigation and road easement the What would that be the east side of the West?

Yeah, West Side between the two properties And then the utility easement and the utilities, but yeah, yeah, just no road a utility easement Okay, we have a second I'll second Okay, we have a motion and a second. If we have no further discussion, we'll call for the vote.

Commissioner Hernandez? Aye. Commissioner Armstrong? Aye. Commissioner Neergaard? Aye. Commissioner Lynch? Aye. Commissioner Doyle? Aye.

Okay, motion carried. It was five ayes, no nays, and no abstentions. Congratulations. Good luck.

Thank you.

Okay, roll call down.

Commissioner Hernandez? Here. Commissioner Armstrong? Here. Commissioner Neergaard? Here. Commissioner Lynch? Here. Commissioner Doyle?

Here. Okay, now it's time for our additional discussion.

I was driving in reverse.

I guess we don't have it. There we go. Everybody has to turn around now.

We've got something up there that's not down here. Why are our screens not lit up? Okay, good. Everybody get a chance to see that, Ted, Mike?

No.

I guess we'll turn it. You read it. Yes, you can. What's going on with this?

Can we table this discussion until everybody's had a chance to read it? I'm just, I mean, it got sent out today and I didn't see it.

Yeah, or we can thumb through it because...

I'll ask these guys.

There's going to be a workshop discussion on it Monday. You can listen in with the BOCC. This is not for us to do anything formal with right now. Okay. This is just the first step of the first train wreck.

Do they want comments? I'm not sure what's being asked of us.

It's just so that you guys have an idea of how bad it could be as a full-scale, full-blown department that there's no funding for.

So the document itself was provided to us as information, not for something to take action on?

Correct. Okay. I just wanted to get it in your hands. If any of you had any input, that'd be great. Because this is the full-scale version. This was not adopted, but just drafted from Mesa County. And this is how strict one could be. It's up to the commissioners to do the policy so right yeah, so this is on Monday would it be at the workshop on Monday I Monday Check the agenda. I don't know where the meeting starts at 1 30, but I'm not sure There's like seven departments listed there from Monday, so it could be further down the list but or you can just go to YouTube and listen Sure 4.3

Can you use your mic?

Can you not hear me?

No.

We're on the record. You go to 4.3. Thank you, Mike. You'll see at the bottom it's talking about delivery of a warrant shall be provided or mailed. I think that's either or it doesn't work for me. It should be provided and mailed would be my suggestion. registered mail. Be clear about it. People are going to say they didn't get it. I wasn't told.

I think that wording comes from if it's served with a sheriff's deputy or if it's certified mailed. Certified mail works about like a carrier pigeon.

Yeah. I have to agree with that. Yeah.

People don't respond 19 times out of 20.

And if they're not home, they're not going to get it.

And they don't go pick it up because it's from the government.

Right.

Return to the vendor. And the sheriff goes out. I get a lot of this.

The other question I had down on this was right at the beginning, page one, the second paragraph says, where is section 30-15-401, authorized adoption of ordinances, et cetera, compel the removal of rubbish, and then There's a comment there, whether it be a semicolon, including trash, junk, and garbage. My question is, should the term slash be included there as well? Which I see a lot of outside the municipalities. Here I'm talking about branches, huge piles. These are fire risks. This is supposed to be something that they're concerned about risk within the county. I see some that are, you know, the size of a bus that have been sitting on properties I know for, well, I'll say as long as I've lived here, which is 17 years. Oh, wow. So, I mean, I think there are fire risks associated with that, and I think that should be included, although it may be that slash is handled under some other code. I'm not sure. It's certainly not enforced.

Burned piles?

So yeah, unless they get to a certain magnitude, the county really doesn't have oversight because they all fall under whatever national fire code there is. That's through the emergency manager. He's been managing that with all these legacy... fire waste properties, but that's a good point. And we can bring that up, particularly in a year like now. But part of the problem, too, is there's several piles that people have had for a couple, three years because we haven't had a real winter for a couple, three years. Right, I understand that myself. Right. Nope, good point.

Okay. I have one. Section 1.5.3. The ordinance shall not apply to agricultural land currently in agricultural use. So we're going to let somebody that farms land have 16 junk cars on it.

Depends on what statute, 39-1-10, or 102. 153. Yeah. I don't know what that says. In my opinion, it should apply.

I don't care if you have residential agriculture, you can't have 15 cars, junk cars.

Yeah, I would agree with that.

I agree. Yeah. So we need to address that one. Unless you're a tech, though.

Unless you're tech. Unless you're tech. And of course, the way ag land is defined in the 39-1-103 is... for profit in operation for the last two years.

It doesn't matter. You can't have junk cars or trash.

Washers, dryers. Tires. That needs to be addressed. I don't know why it would be excluded.

I don't know either.

I'm not going there. It gets back to statute, and we're a statutory county, so there's only certain levels and hoops you can bypass and jump over. I don't know.

Well, everybody's going to play or nobody's going to play?

This is the full-scale version of what it could get to. I don't think it's ever going to be anything like this, but I don't make the decisions.

Again, I just suggest you because we're not part of it.

No, fair enough.

But I have a question on 3.6, the accumulation of manure. Okay. Other than as fertilizer because... I stockpile alpaca poop. For a while. At my house, or my garden.

For a while you can.

Okay, well, but this is... Until this ordinance. Mine's there for a couple of years.

Uh-oh. Not under this ordinance.

Okay, I'm just asking the question. I'm asking the question.

No. Yeah.

It's not hot. It doesn't get hot.

Not until you get a heavy winter.

That's what I do. I just spread it on my garden every year before the snow comes. The snow leaches it down. So I got a little stockpile of it.

But the last sentence clears you. What? The last sentence clears you. Agriculture. It says this section shall not apply to manure generated on the property that is zoned agriculture.

But I don't generate it on the property.

Well, I thought you were talking about alpacas.

No, no, I get it from the alpaca people.

Oh.

That's how they get rid of it. I misunderstood. That's how they get rid of it, yeah.

So he's not planning correctly. He's overhauling in his pile.

Who are the compliance officers in this county? Do we have some? Right there. I mean, they keep saying it. It states it here, planning director and or...

Duties as assigned.

It's a committee of five, and it's the PNZ committee.

I will. I will. That's the biggest problem. We don't have the money.

The reason it's left wide open is because we don't have this department. We don't have this money. We don't have this budget.

We don't have anything.

But they keep wanting to push a rubbish ordinance, so they're going to start with one and see how the discussion goes.

See how many wars they create basically.

So there is no specific code compliance officer? No.

We have none of this and we have no enforcement. Code compliance officers or other authorized representatives.

So it's not saying they're the same thing. They'll either have a code officer or a different representative. So it's not either, it's not and. You said it's and or.

No, no, it's yeah.

My recommendation is we're going to turn this over to the city for enforcement. Okay.

I mean if you had a code enforcement officer, that's $80,000 per year.

Oh, yeah

100 yeah, yeah, cuz you know, especially now an office a chair a vehicle, you know Fridays I also think there's a bit of an issue in terms of I The 30 days plus the 30 days. I mean, you're going to be 90 days, Don, after you hand out the first note, citation to somebody, before they have to do anything.

Exactly.

I want to see that part.

I wouldn't recommend putting enforcement policy in an ordinance. Like, you know what I mean? Like listing out the time frames because they may not work. And then you got to amend the ordinance when you can just say, we're going to enforce it and let whoever's doing that decide.

Yeah, but if you don't put a...

I speak from experience.

If you don't put deadlines on it, then it won't happen. Well, you get somebody X days to comply.

Well, again, that's fine, but that's an internal policy. That's not something that should be in an ordinance. Because what if you decide you want it to be shorter, longer, down the road? Then you've got to amend the ordinance versus just saying you're going to enforce it And just assume that there's a policy internally that the staff are going to come up with and agree upon and enforce it.

I think when you send out the note to somebody that says you got to remedy this.

Yeah, you're you're we're saying the same thing. What I'm telling you is, well, my opinion is at least that you wouldn't put. the time frame from it here in here yeah you can send the letter out and have whatever enforcement policy you want with the number of days and that kind of stuff we i'm just this is how we do it at the city like we give people a certain amount of time but it is completely at our discretion as to how long we give them to respond

Okay, playing devil's advocate, now, if I'm in the city, and you send me a letter that says I've got rubbish and trash, and you say you've got 30 days to get rid of it, I'm going to say, where does it say that?

we say that and we what we do is we list the ordinance and the section of the ordinance that says that's what it is they don't get to challenge the time frames if they want to try to challenge the fact that they don't think it's rubbish that's another story but we've determined through our code enforcement that it meets the definition of rubbish right okay and our time frames are our time frames and i will tell you this Those sorts of decisions about time frames, they are subject to change based on who the city council might be and how important they feel the issue is. And so just thinking ahead, you just create, well, and the other thing that happens is when you do that and somebody changes it and doesn't know what's in the ordinance, then you've just violated your own ordinance. So it's just, I think it's just wise not to get too... Well, that's up for the attorney.

So your recommendation would be to strike the component that says 30 days.

Yeah, I mean, yeah, don't put in the enforcement timeline. Just unintended consequences.

I mean, it's a thought too, Don, that these things get brought to either the county court or the district court. I can tell you the district court doesn't have time to be taking this type of stuff up.

So when you take it to the district court and it goes through the process and then the county wins, then we can go seize the trash.

All right. And then the county gets paid. And that brings up another point.

And we remove it and then we bill the owner or we file a lien.

It covers that. I thought it covered that point. Yeah. All right. When and when and if you remove trash, it must be to a designated area. It's going to go to the landfill. That means an area is blocked off. It needs to stay there for X amount of days, and you tell that owner your trash is there for X amount of days because I guarantee you he's got a Rolex watch in there.

He's got what? Well, if they can't get there, they'll knock them. Exactly.

You're right. You've got to give them a chance to retrieve it.

So now the gas car on the train tracks just wrecked. I told you this is a train wreck.

You're right.

It's insane. So this was, we're not really being consulted here. We're in the frame of being informed.

Not yet. So we have an idea.

I feel like I've been informed, so is there more discussion we want to have this evening? Are you trying to leave? Then I'll make a motion that we adjourn. Okay.

I'll second.

Okay, that motion is adjourned. May I have a second? Can we get a second for that? Thank you.

I'm a favor. Thank you, brother.

Jason? You missed a lot.