All right, we're good. Thank you. We do have a quorum. Thank you, Headley, for making the extra effort. The next thing on your agenda, we're going to start at the top. The next thing on your agenda is approval of the minutes. There are only, the only addition that I see is under number eight, we needed to add KRS 618101B and F to that. And we needed an adjournment time. Is there a way to determine that? Were we not on the air after closed session so we can at least give a pretty good guesstimation of that? Gloria, I think it was about 6 o'clock. It was very late. Will thinks it was about 6 o'clock, so let's... It was pretty late. Okay. Yeah, I think. All right, considering those two changes. All right, all in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All right, thank you. Minutes are now approved. Chair, can you tell us who made the motion and the second on that? It's just not showing up on here. I'll try to restate it. Healy made the motion. Healy Bell made the motion. And the second was by two folks, but Phil Meyer and Will Mayer, an E and an A. Is that all right? The next thing is we have an amendment to the committee appointments. We need to delete John McNamara since he has resigned, And we need to add Marianna to the applications because we had enough on Phil's committee, so she has gone to the applications. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Is that all right? Aye. At a motion? Do we need a motion? So moved. All right. Second. The motion is made by Dee Dee Delaney and seconded by Zach Davis to delete John and add Mariana to the applications. All in favor? Aye. Unanimous. Treasurer's report. Phil Meyer, you're up. On March 28th, myself, Don Robinson, and Dennis Anderson were there. primary to set up meeting dates we scheduled another meeting on April 11th which we subsequently canceled we made note that the council budget link meeting was to be April 24th which was this morning with the full report to the council on tuesday may 28th and so we recommend to the full board that we consider moving our may monthly meeting from may 22nd to may 29th so that we can meet immediately after knowing what the budget is has been presented so we'll know where we are on money and we also looked at the budget that was submitted by Beth for operating expenses and we were satisfied with what we saw there so that was short and to the point do you want to make a motion about moving the date of the meeting I I would yes I'll move that we move our next meeting change it to May 29th 29th May 29th I believe that's because the count the full council budget meeting is on May 28th, correct? So I move that we move our meeting to May 29th, same time, same place. Is there a second? And Don Robinson seconded that. Any discussion? All in favor, please signify by saying aye. You're signed in, so maybe it'll vote. All right. Dennis is not here. DeeDee's. You're a yes. It's not working. All right. We're missing one. It's a unanimous. Committee reports. Let me remind everybody to all of the, at your first meeting, you adopted your schedule for the year, the dates. Make sure Beth gets those, that the chairs get those, so we can get those out to all of the board members. So they can also be posted on the website. And any of the board members who want to attend will know the times and dates and where they are. So make sure you get those. The next committee is Zach, your outreach and education. Thank you, Madam Chair. the outreach and education committee has met twice since our last meeting we had a march 25th meeting the minutes of that meeting were approved at our subsequent meeting and i would submit that they be included in our record today at that meeting we discussed at length our the potential of a pdr program logo and and an update to our signage which is original to the program We discussed that extensively with members of the city's creative staff, and they agreed to help us and submit a few ideas for our subsequent meeting, which they did. We discussed social media opportunities, our PDR website within the city website, and then the city website itself, media opportunities, relationships with council members, and who best could meet with certain council members to assist them in their understanding of our program. We discussed at length agricultural impact data and a number of other items. The minutes from that meeting were approved at our April 22nd meeting, which was this past Monday. At that meeting, we worked again with the city's communications staff, and we think we've narrowed down a design for the new signage, which our goal is to bring to this board at our next meeting for final approval so that we can complete that project within this fiscal year. We have discussed the need to develop a cohesive message coming from our board and a strategic plan that we have decided the theme of which is going to be redefine and re-educate. And so our next meeting will be the first week of June, and I will report back at the following board meeting. Thank you. Thank you. And you have the minutes to put in with the official, right? Yes, Beth. All right. Thank you. All of our minutes will be on file with the committee's actions, so if anybody doesn't hear this or needs to see them, they'll know what's been going on. Will Mayer, applications and donations. Thank you, Madam Chair. The applications and donations committee met on April the 15th. Maynard Ferguson, Mary Diane Hanna, Elizabeth Jensen, Gloria, Mariana, Mary, and Beth, and myself for attendance. We really discussed kind of three broad areas. We started with a really broad discussion of the PDR application process. And having several members of the PDR program as well as Maynard being a past director has been very beneficial. some of the things we discussed issues that we know that are taking place such as the delay between applying and closing we talked about the perception of PDR as a sort of wealthy horse owners game we discussed soliciting donations from owners of tracks less than 20 acres compiling email addresses of landowners and issues around absentee landowners and multi-generational family issues Going forward, we reviewed the materials which are sent to landowners to solicit donations and inform them of the program. We're going to make some changes to those materials. So Elizabeth Jensen has actually volunteered to provide some new text. I'm going to look at graphic design and we're going to have a working prototype for our next meeting. Finally, we adopted a schedule of meetings, which next will take place on May 21st, with the following meetings on June 25th, July 23rd, and October 22nd. Also, all future meetings of our committee will take place at the Fayette County Extension Office. It's off of Red Mile Road, and we'll be at 1 p.m. We'd love any other board members to attend if you'd like to. and we also have some action items for our next meeting. We're going to review the application form. We're going to look at specific PDR properties and targets. We're also going to craft an application specifically for donations, as we see that as integral to achieving our goal of 50,000 acres. and we've also talked about reviewing the public information session and what we might do to retool that and to get people in the door so that's very good thank you not intentionally we have good news and we have the closeout letter which you've already sent them right you want to go to the mic and talk about the closeout letter just or just getting through this I'll go ahead in here but in your all's packets let's see I think it was behind the minutes we have the letter that NRCS sent us about our 2015 grant and that is the letter saying that all the farms, the ten farms we closed last year that we was total of about 716 acres and we spent about nine hundred and four thousand and this is a new thing they're doing but they are reviewing, I think it's part of the new farm bill, they are sending us this letter afterwards stating that they've reviewed the grant and our expenditures and that everything looked good to them and that you know they thanked us and for their partnership and then I shared this with our accounting and within LFUCG and they said that it matches their numbers as well so we just wanted to let you all know that and thought that was good news to share with you all are there any questions if not thank you file it away in our positive five. Back to the committee reports. Our long-range planning and ordinance review, our update. Dee Dee Delaney. We met on April 15th and took up possible amendments to the code of ordinances. Currently, the code provides that an applicant may indicate a preference for payout of the cost of the easement over time. The committee has asked our counsel, Tracy, to work on some language which would clarify the circumstances under which this would be permitted, which will be considered at the next meeting. Currently, also, the code authorizes lease appoints to any farm on the B list of special natural protection areas, but the internal auditor felt those areas were not clearly defined in the plan. Chris King, the retired director of planning, who participated in the drafting of the plan, suggested that the language relating to B-list sites be deleted and that those areas be assimilated into the generic language at the end of the section. Tracy is also working on that item for the next meeting. Recently, the council adopted an ordinance amending the membership size and quorum and voting requirements for the board, but a couple of cross-references need to be added, so we will include those. A final issue discussed was whether it was necessary to incorporate the 2017 Rural Land Management Plan and or the 2018 Comprehensive Land Use Plan into Code Chapter 26. Tracy noted that the definition for those items in the plan included amendments, so it was decided action was not required in that area. Turning to bylaws, as noted, the council recently adopted a change in membership voting and quorum requirements for the board. The committee accordingly voted to recommend to this board that the applicable provisions of the bylaws be updated accordingly which Tracy has drafted for the board's consideration today. Also the bylaws currently provide for an executive committee while our articles of incorporation prohibit it. The committee is therefore recommending that that section of the bylaws be deleted. So the draft revised bylaws by Tracy include both of those recommendations for the Board's consideration today. Our next meeting will be on May 6th at 4 o'clock. At that time we will consider possible other amendments to Code Chapter 26 and also hear a presentation from the Division of Planning regarding the 2017 Rural Land Management Plan. It is our plan to hold all Code Chapter 26 proposed amendments until the committee has completed its review and bring them forward to this board in one proposed ordinance. So the only action we're recommending today is the bylaw update. Are we turning that over to Tracy? Are you going to comment? Tracy has prepared that. We have the bylaws, but did you want to comment? Basically, you have the changes in front of you. We just increased the membership to be consistent with the ordinance that the council adopted to 16 members, which required changing of the quorum and the majority for acquisition votes, and then we deleted the reference to the executive committee, so it'll be consistent with our articles of incorporation. The chair will entertain a motion to that effect, and if we have a motion to second, then we can discuss that. Second. Phil has made the motion and Zach has seconded. Is there any discussion or questions? No? Then all in favor of A and B, as she just discussed the changes in the bylaws, please signify on your screen. I don't think it. Yeah, I'm dead. All right. Thank you. Unanimous. Thank you, Deedee, and thank the committee and Tracy for bringing us up to date and getting us all legal. I guess on the next report, um i do want i will share with you that per your request i did email one of the property owners that has applied so i've sent that email we've gotten a reply from them which i will share with you when we have a closed session i did attend the american bloom board meeting on the fourth and I will assist them in updating the community profile that they do every year for all of Lexington and Fayette County. I did attend the Bluegrass Trust Advisory Board meeting on the 15th. Two of their members serve on our board, Zach and Christine. We gave them an update as to what we are doing in our committees, and they know that they may attend any and all of them. I did sign the reimbursement letter for the January closing, so that money will be back in our coffers. I attended the committee meetings, the applications and the long-range planning and the education PR, and did go on April 18th to the Farm Bureau board meeting to give them an update. Phil was there. And have met with Tracy and Beth on numerous occasions about property requests that we have, and the agenda for today's meeting and this morning phil and beth and i did go to the council link about the budget it's been a busy month there are a lot of people inquiring about our program one of the things that i was asked to do was to go to the stockyards and meet with a whole busload 50 or 60 people from arkansas who wanted to know about our program they were very interested i let them know that we we can't hold their easements and i had done a little research before the meeting they do not have a statewide program like our pace program that will hold easements but i contacted the southeast representative of the american farmland trust which happens to be a former manager of ours, Billy Van Pelt, who said he would be happy to work with them, that the American Farmland Trust does hold easements. They do have some in that area, four or five really nice ones even here in Kentucky. So we have given the Farm Bureau, our extension agent and theirs in attendance, all the contact numbers. so they had a lot of good questions and they were here touring the stockyards the horse park a hemp place they went to keeneland one day so they spent several days and they had picked our particular area because of their interest in the pdr and in our historic agricultural landscape So it was a very, very positive meeting, and I think it was goodwill with a fellow group of farmers. Beth. Well, and with Gloria ending on that note, that's a good way to parlay into my next one. So I, Dennis Anderson and Jim Duncan and I, Jim is the director of planning here at the city, met with the Ocala Chamber of Commerce on April 10th. and that went very well. They had a lot of questions. We only had one hour with them, and I think they could have spent a lot more time. But many of you probably know that the issue they are dealing with, where the state wants to put a connector from the east-west through their farmland, and so their questions were about our program, how does it work, how do you get people here, about the urban service boundary, and a lot of good feedback. It was interesting to learn, too, just the difference. We did talk about which Gloria hates, that they call themselves the horse capital. They did say they refer to us as the thoroughbred capital. But hearing some of the differences, too, that because of the horses they have, that they consider 10 acres, you know, a horse farm. So it's just interesting contrast. but it's really what they're dealing with is difficult and so we didn't get to hear from them a lot about how they are going to address that but the impression we learned from that is that they have the support in their legislature right now to go through with some of it to get that connector you know to have that connector go through it sometimes so they're really trying to look at options and understand items. So we all shared our contact information so that they could reach out to us. But that was a very, it was a good conversation and good learning experience. And so on to our vacancies on the board. The mayor's office did set an April 12th deadline for the council members to nominate their seats for the two new council appointed seats. So they are working on that. and we've also made them aware of john's resignation and commerce lexington is still working on that seat so we expect to see some progress soon on those and on april 14th i did attend the city held their first diversity fair for boards and commissions and they had that at the senior center which i had never been to and is gorgeous if any of you if no one has been yet but and bill wilson who's the chair of the planning commission was there he and i were they had us at a table together and so i got to spend three hours with him which made working on a saturday a pleasurable experience and heedly works with him so he knows but um and so we i think we did have some people interested in you know possibly serving on our board but even if not what we were able to tell people about what pdr is and so that was good um and what the mayor the mayor came by and four or five of our council members, including Councilmember Plowman. And what the mayor was saying is that she hopes by doing these type of things and trying to make the public more aware of boards and commissions that we will build a kind of a surplus of people who want to serve on boards so that when we do have absences, we're not out there having to look and create that those names are already in the database, that people have said, I would like to serve on that board, and we figure out where they fit. So I think that was a good first start for that. And we are, I've been working with some of our farm owners, meeting with them. NRCS hopes to close several more farms by June 30th, so I will keep you all posted on that. And that's all I have today. Thank you. And Beth did find a place for our bluegrass for the money. And there's some question about if we need to keep it in-house. I will say that when we did this, we were a 501C3. So I don't know if we've had some emails going back and forth, so it was we'll need to see. But we do have a spot to put that check that we have gotten. Madam Chair, if I may. Yes. Just a comment that I'm really encouraged with your energy within our community. to go out and shepherd and share about our program, that you're attending all these committees. I think the committees are outstanding. I think this is a grassroots effort within this organization. Beth, likewise to you, to be involved in the community. I think, in my opinion, that's what it takes. And the dedication that the board is being involved now, I think, is noteworthy. So thank you all very much. As we get requests, we'll pass some of those on to you all to go speak. Thank you. Are there any other discussions or comments before we go on to the new business? Bruce you all are next on the we finally made it to your spot after chasing you down the steps hey I appreciate it I really do thank Charlie Farmer for sprinting I thank Charlie and I thank Absolutely. No problem. No problem. Thanks very much. Again, members of the board, I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here today on behalf of Elkhorn Farm, LLC. It's addressed at 5055 Old Frankfurt Pike. Steve Coleman is the principal of that particular organization. Steve is also the president of CNR Asphalt Company. He bought this farm a year ago, this month, and he also owns a farm adjacent to it in Woodford County. The county portion of the farm is 127 acres, and there's an additional 61 acres to the farm that's also in Woodford County. That 61 acres is not subject to the PDR program, of course, but it is subject to a conservation easement. The 127 acres in Fayette County is subject to the PDR easement, so the entire parcel that he purchased from the Burgers a year ago is all under a conservation easement of some sort. And it was Steve's intention to build a home on the property, principal residence, and to keep the farm operating as it's been operating since 1997, because the Burgers started the farm, they were actually successor farmers, if you will, to the previous owner when they purchased it. So they've been operating a horse farm there since 1997. breeding operation, boarding operation. They have 84 horses today and that of course the number fluctuates but it's been about that steady. So nothing has changed with respect to the operation of this property since 1997 and there's no intention or plans to do so. But Steve did want to build a home for his family. He has six daughters. And so he was looking forward to building a home there. And he did exercise some due diligence along the way. He got an attorney to check about the PDR easement. That's, of course, of record to see if there was prospect of building a home. And, of course, I'm not going to get into the weeds on the language of all that, but it recognizes that when the Burgers qualified for the PDR program in 2009, they let it be known they intended to build a principal residence, obviously subject to the terms of the easement. There's no dispute about that. But they came into the program in 2009. Steve found out before he bought the property. And then in 2012, the Burgers came before this board seeking permission for the construction of a primary residence. And in May of 2012, this board unanimously approved a primary residence on the farm. So Steve was under the impression everything was good to go. he signed a contract with a local builder to build his home at the same location as Ms. Berger. The Bergers had been approved to build their home in 2012. He went and got a grading permit and started the grading, and then when he went to get a construction permit, building inspection said we need to make sure that PDR is okay with this. And this is where Steve called me and said, you know, there's some issue about impervious surface, that there's too much impervious surface on the property, and there's a 2% cap on impervious surface for this property. So we came down and met with Beth and talked with her. We've talked with Beth many times. and looked at all the records, went to GIS to have them calculate so we could understand what all was being included in this impervious surface. And then why was this an issue now when it wasn't an issue back in 2009 when the farm was approved into the PDR program because the impervious surface has never changed. In 2009, it was .237%. It was actually over the limit at that time. It got approved. And then in 2012, this board approved the residence, which would be an additional impervious surface. So we were trying to, you know, like, well, I mean, I don't know. We got approved, but now we got this impervious surface issue. So it got a little confusing. and disconcerting, I think it's fair to say, because Steve thought he had done the due diligence prior to purchasing the farm in order to build a house. And so we understand now that the federal government, with respect to this particular farm, they have to approve anything above 2%, even though apparently that wasn't a problem in 2012. or 2009 when it got brought in. But for any kind of modification for residents, they have to sign off on it, and if it's over 2%, they're probably not inclined, in this case they have not been inclined so far, to allow this house to come in, in spite of the history of where this issue wasn't an issue up until now. So talk with Steve. He wants to get a house built there in the quickest way possible. And so we looked at, well, what can we do to qualify to bring in the property under this 2% maximum? And Steve, as I mentioned, he's the president of the Sinar Asphalt, and they construct numerous instances what was called pervious asphalt, where the water actually just seeps down into the ground. It also goes into gravel that's a bedding for this gravel, and it actually has a water quality filter in terms of engineering, in my experience in representing developers in Lexington and, of course, urban development. Division of Water Quality is always advocating pervious pavers so that it helps stormwater management. It helps not only keep the water from going off to somebody else's property and creating a flooding situation, but it also cleanses the water, which the old way of doing it just runs off the water and goes into a storm sewer so that the porous, the pervious asphalt has an extra environmental feature that storm sewers don't have. Water actually gets cleansed, so it's actually better certainly than anything else. And we're seeking approval from the federal government to see if that will qualify. If we, Steve, the road is currently asphalt. It needs a replacement. His plan was to take it all up and put down this pervious pavement throughout the farm. So that would be, in our judgment, an environmental asset to what's already there and better than what's there. So we're waiting on the federal government to give us the green light on that. We haven't gotten it yet, as I understand it. In the interim, of course, we have contractual obligations with the builder. They're ready to perform. and so what we're proposing today is to take up, we worked with Beth and the GIS people, in light of Steve's proposed plans for his home in the driveway, that how much of the existing pavement would we need to take up that would then if we put in gravel or if we get approved for the pervious pavement, put in that, that would allow us to be under the 2% threshold. And so GIS calculated that amount. They calculated what Steve would need to build his home. And I know Beth has an exhibit that illustrates the amount of asphalt that we would have to take up and put in gravel because our understanding is that gravel is not considered impervious and I believe Beth checked with the federal people today and they confirmed that so this would at least allow us to get a building permit and go forward with the construction of a primary residence that actually this board approved seven years ago so our request is really kind of one tied together with a condition. One is we would like the permission to build this home as per the plans we filed with your all's office on the condition that we take up the existing asphalt to the extent necessary to qualify for no more than two we're actually be reducing the amount of impervious surface that's been there since this pro since it came into the PDR program we're going to bring it it down from 0.237% to under 2% so that we can build the home. And then if the federal government does allow us to put in the pervious asphalt, that we could then put that in without having to come to the board. We obviously are hopeful that it would because it certainly enhances the quality and the value of the farm, but short of engaging in extended discussions and hearings with the federal government on this because of the exigencies of the situation with the builder, this is the most expeditious, least costly option is to simply tear up this road and put down gravel. then hopefully we can work with the federal government so they'll approve the porous asphalt. So that's what our request is today. Questions? Beth, how was it approved back then? Does anybody know it was before your time? I hope it was before my time. some of our board members don was here don was donnie you screwed it up am i allowed to say that no um do you know any history as to how and what and where do you mind sharing if you do so unfortunately there is not a lot of documentation um the minutes are very brief they say that the board approved a tenant house and a primary residence and that it was unanimous and i think that's about all they say usually your all's packets like we have today are filed with minutes they are not in this case we have all that in a binder there is no memo to the board in there there's nothing about how many square feet that house was or anything about the impervious surface calculations so we do not have a lot of background on that we do have a letter in the file that the previous manager wrote telling them that the board had voted and the previous owner had picked two sites which bruce just mentioned and this house will go on one of the two sites that was mentioned is it one where the house is that has the swimming pool or is it the other site It's, you know, attached to the letter was this exhibit that with a shaded in area approved for the primary residence, it will be within the same area that was approved in 2012 by this board. And it was my understanding that the previous owner is actually the one who submitted that and picked the spot. It was not the board that. Yeah, I mean, they picked it and they said this is the area. It's the high point on the property. The rest of the property slopes down. That's why this was selected. But it's going to be in the same area. Mrs. Berger passed away a couple of years ago. Mr. Berger is 88 and doesn't recall a lot of the details. Their son I have talked to a couple of times about it, and he confirmed for me that where Steve is building is where his mother intended to build her home. What Bruce didn't tell you is the easement does, they did reserve the right to build a primary residence. I don't think you said that. Right. And at that time, it also said you could not use gravel. But since then, Beth sent it to all of us. The NRCS now will approve gravel. So what he's mentioned to you, just for the record, is gravel is now acceptable, even though initially it was not. They do accept that. So that should be pointed out. And I do have the impervious surface calculations from GIS. and with the current impervious surfaces minus the road, the pavement, they would pull up and change to gravel or porous asphalt, plus adding the new house, they would still be under the 2%. The calculation we're coming up with right now, our GIS, is 1.88%. So even with the addition of the new house, they are safely under that, and that includes an open area porch and some other things that they have included on the map that is in your all's packets that shows the paving that would come up. And there are a few items that when Mr. Coleman and Bruce and I met with GIS, GIS is, you know, errors on the side of adding even more things in, And so I think there's a round pen and maybe an exerciser that they're counting right now as impervious, but they're not covered, but the ground is looking very packed to them. And so Mr. Coleman mentioned those, and GIS wasn't comfortable removing them. That would be something we would have Charlie look at as the conservationist when he's out there. So this estimate would err on the side of even being a little higher than what it may come down to after Charlie looks at that. And we'd actually reduce it from .237 percent to under two. Bruce and I did discuss this, and he understands and the property owner understands that the NRCS is our co-partner, And because they match this, that they have equal say in that and that they are the ones that are responsible for okaying the 2% and whatever final pervious surface they do. We, of course, have already approved, the previous board approved going ahead and doing the resident as reserved in the easement. But they will be responsible for the final on the 2%. And I just want to make sure that everybody understands that fully. Yeah, I mean, we do understand that. Unfortunately, we follow in this category where if the farm hadn't been in PDR until, I think, 2016, if we'd have come in in 2016, we would be able to get up to 4% impervious surface. The initial PDR program, I think for five years, they didn't have any limitation. It wasn't even a factor. But now, with respect to our easement, because the feds participated, one of the 2%, and they're not going to provide a waiver for anything above the 2%. So it's got a convoluted history. As you might imagine, frustrating for a property owner who thought they had checked everything out and everything was ready to build, only to find out that that's not the case. But rather than deal in further debate and discussion with the federal government, we'll just take it up, take up the asphalt, be under the 2%. hopefully we can work with them on the on the porous asphalt and the pervious asphalt and have a much nicer higher quality and more environmentally sensitive farm but if we don't we'll have gravel and that apparently qualifies and so that's what we would ask the board to approve us on those conditions questions madam chair I feel like the applicants being very reasonable on what they're asking for I hope that the NRCS comes back and says that pervious or the porous blacktop whatever is an acceptable form because we need we need more of that you know it's like I think I agree it's better than gravel it's better than blacktop and it ought to be good and so if you're ready for a motion, I'll make one. I think we had other question. Just one for us. The four tenant houses, are they occupied by folks working on the farm? They all work for the farm, yes ma'am. And will this new residence replace one of them or be in addition? It will be in addition. Those four tenant houses. there is in one of the tenant houses right now they're in the process of moving to Airdrie Farm and there's another couple coming in to replace them. The other three have been there for some time, but they all work on the farm. Any more questions? Any other comments? I will say that my sympathy is with the property owner for having five daughters. Six. Six daughters. That's even more. May the force be with you. Yes, now you ready for the motion? I move that we grant the request to Elkhorn Farm that given they remove the necessary amount of blacktop to get below the 2%. And the approval is for one of the two sites that had previously been approved. Is that correct? Yes, approved. One of the two sites that's been previously approved. And given that, then they'd be allowed to proceed to apply for their building permit. And all needs to be said. Hopefully they can get moving. Yeah, and if we can do the porous pavement, I would like to be able to do that without having to come back to the board if that's acceptable to the board. Yes, I think it is, if we are able to notify you. The federal government. That's all. That's the federal government. Yeah, and it's contingent upon that anyway. Okay. All right, the motion has been made. Is there a second? All right, second. All in favor, please signify by saying aye or on your screens. Are they all working? All right. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any public comment before we go into closed session? No public comment? Then pursuant to KRS 61810.1b, we're going into closed session to discuss potential acquisition of property. that would perhaps affect the value. Thank you.