And Beth, turn on your recorder to make it a little easier for your minutes. And I'm going to apologize to you all up front. I am living proof that having all your family come for recovery can be deadly. So I've had bronchitis, and I'm just now being able to talk some. I already talked to Margaret and Beth, and when I quit or can't do it, they're going to take over. So, first of all, Phil, I'd like to say that we certainly have sympathy for the loss of your sister at this special time of year, and we're sorry, really sorry, and I hope you did get our note and word about that. Yes, I did. Thank you very much. And thank you for being here and continuing on, helping us through your difficult time on things we had to review. Attendance, it looks like we do have a quorum. I'm here. Robert's here. Margaret, Hannah, Sean Denny, thank you, from Keith's office. Tiffany, our attorney, is here with us again today, and Phil Meyer and Jim Coleman, Phil Hager, Will Meyer. Christine, welcome, Christine. Glad you're feeling well and going. And Joanna, I have on my screen, Beth, that Stephen Howard's name is here, but no picture. I know he's our new member, and I would like to introduce him, if we can pull him up and let him say a few things ahead, if we can get him there. Okay. And I see also that our Commissioner Horn is here. There's Stephen. Hi. I see him now. Great. Hello. How are you doing? Welcome. We're glad to have you. He's our new Central Kentucky Billing Association rep. You want to say anything or tell us anything we need to know about you? I'm just looking to participate in the group, and I do have a building and farm background. So, I know Beth. I've known her for a while, and I look forward to just being impactful. And thank you. We're delighted to have you. Thank you very much. I'm sorry. I happened to be on the road today, so I apologize for that. This is one of the good things with a big board, about being able to do this on Zoom, is when you have a board this large, with people who are so involved, that it's a good thing to be able to do this. So, from time to time, Robert meets with us from his combine, so we're used to this. We do have some absences that have been noted, so Mary Quinn is definitely asked for. She's on the leadership Kentucky today. She and I texted this morning, and if she has any break at all in her leadership meeting, she's going to try to buzz in with us. And I think that Keith is on now, too, Commissioner. Thank you. I think the first thing up is to thank Beth again for really good meetings and minutes and all that she's done. It was a big packet this time. We've had a lot of really important things to review this month. There's really been a lot at the end of the year going on. So, I'm very appreciative, Beth, of those efforts and your good minutes. Did everyone get their packets and their minutes? Everybody? I see a nod. So, are there any changes, additions to these minutes? Anyone? Then I'd like a motion to approve the minutes as sent to you. I move. Margaret, is there a second? Hannah? I see Hannah's hand. All in favor, show of hands. Okay. Unanimous, Beth. Okay, thank you. We have some unfinished business to take care of, and it's a very happy time, I'll have to say. I owe, and we all do, board members, a very special note of thanks. This has been a very detailed procedure. A lot of work has gone into this. We have worked through this small farm ordinance, and I want to thank particularly our Commissioner, Keith Horn, and Sean, who works with him all the time. Our law department, Margaret, thank you for your help. Certainly, Beth. Anyone who has looked at this, the other board members, Robert and Phil, to make suggestions and anything to make this as perfect as possible. I think it's really important that we do this very well and as detailed as possible up front so we can hit the ground running. And because of that, all of you all have worked. That's why I want to thank you specifically for the time and effort that has gone into this. I think it is really, so far, very well done on the front end. And we only had just a few things, changes, and since the packets went out, the board did receive the entire ordinance. I do encourage you all to try to pass this today so we can move it on. Our goal was to try to do it by the end of this year and to hit the ground running by the end of the beginning of next year. We do have adequate bond funds, and I think we're in really good shape. I'm going to have a taste of hot lemonade, and I'm going to turn this over to Commissioner Horn and Beth and or Margaret to carry on. Please explain about this with the board. Okay, so I'm going to go over some quick typos and things we noticed today in a reread before the meeting, and then turn it over to Commissioner Horn. So, on the last page on page 9, or actually on page 8, and I'm just starting back there because it's changed. We noticed that it jumps from section 279 to 2713, so that needs to change to 2710, and then the last paragraph will change to 2711. So, that's just one small change. And then on the first page, at the bottom in item 274, section 23, where it says approve pursuant to section 2715, the acceptance of payment for release of a conservation easement, that will need to change to section 2711. And then the next sentence will need deleted. It says approve the release of a conservation easement that is within the rural service area boundary, and we're proposing that they cannot be released unless they're incorporated into the boundary. And then on the next page, we're going to talk to you a little bit about the conservation plan versus an ag water quality plan, but that's a discussion item, so we'll come back to that. I'm just going to cover a few little typo type things. And then on page 6, where it has linkages and says 4 possible points, something was inadvertently added at the top that said adjacent existing conserved land 10 points. That is already covered in proximity, the first scoring criteria, so that will be deleted. And this one, linkages, is to things like parks, nature preserves, like if they were next to Raven Run or Floracliff Nature Sanctuary. So, if they're next to a Blue Grass Conservancy easement or PDR or PACE, that's included in proximity. And on page 8, in section 27.9, it says that it will take a vote of 7 members to authorize the chair to enter a contract of sale. That's actually 8 members because it takes a super majority of you all to acquire an acquisition. And then on the very last page, in section 2A, for release, that will be the same change. It says in the 4th sentence down that 7 members, that will take 8 because release also requires super majority. And the one question I will ask, because this is just more of a Commissioner Horn, who used to be at the law department, and Tiffany, who is here for us, and Margaret, the one question I did note today was in section 2, on the last page in 27.11, where it talks about release, it says the Rural Land Board shall approve the request and authorize the chair to execute a release of the conservation easement. And recordable form upon the following conditions. But I wonder, should that be may? Does shall say that if they've met all these criteria, you all have to do that? I mean, I wondered if may, saying may instead of shall would. What did you say, Margaret? There's definitely a difference between may and shall from a legal perspective. So, what, what does what is the provision in our existing PDR easement program? This is a copy of what's in chapter 26. I believe it says shall. But I think it's, it's, they have to, it has to meet certain criteria, right? Yes. Yes, correct. So, and I would, I understand what's being asked, but I don't know that you want to treat the small farms differently than you have the large farms for the program. This, the, as you all probably noticed, the process you're used to for conservation easements remains the same. The only real difference is the size of the farms that have to be at least 10 acres and less than 20 acres. And then there are some minor adjustments to the scoring criteria for the farms. So, and the only other dramatic difference perhaps is that these will not be federal matching easements. These are all local dollars for the small farm program. But most of the, when the law department did its draft of the ordinance, they largely copied chapter 26 and recreated it. We made some refinements on it to try to simplify and make it a little more concise by referring to some sections rather than repeat them completely. And then the sections that are completely copied or printed in the chapter probably have some small slight changes to them for the small farm program. So, Beth, in this case, because the existing PDR program also has the shall language, I think we should stick with shall. You know, we've got in the existing PDR ordinance, we've got some fairly significant conditions that have to be met before it can be released. So, it's, it does take, you know, it would take a vote of the board and they would have to provide a replacement easement under the existing program. Okay, so it's fairly onerous and it was intended to be fairly onerous. I have already commented to Beth and Commissioner that this, the way we have done this now is so concise, so much easier to read that I think the majority of people who look at this now, it will be self explanatory, much easier. And all of the parts of 26 that needed to be copied are referred to, which keeps it down to 8 or 10 pages as opposed to 20 something, but it's all there and it's very concise and very well done. So, thank you all very much. And let me repeat your thanks, Gloria, both to you and Beth and Margaret and everyone who's looked at this and Tiffany and Tracy and Sean, as you said, there was a lot of review and work put into drafting the ordinance. I want to make sure Joanna can hear us on all this. I know Jim is here and I can see him, but I want to make sure she has a copy. And if she has any comments, please don't hesitate. Okay, and Phil Meyer has raised his hand. Oh, I see Phil is at the top people get moved around on my screen. What's the main reason that we are trying to expand the program to the 10 and 20 acres? And why are we not including people under 10 acres? What is the applicant giving up with the small acreage? You know, I mean, I'm wondering how much money they're going to think they're going to get. And then it kind of comes down to how many tracks are out there in the 10 to 20 acre range and how many of them have any do we have out there that's under 10 acres. I don't know how many tracks are less than 10 acres, but I think Beth, you indicated when we talked about it before, that there are probably 1100 tracks that are 10 acres. So, yes, and I think there's almost 2000 under 10. Yeah. So, and when, when we were talking about this program, internally, administrative wise, it seemed like going below 10 acres to us didn't make a lot of sense for that. The primary reason that we're not including people under 10 acres is because we don't have enough. It seemed like going below 10 acres to us didn't make a lot of sense for that. The primary reasons for a smaller farm program would be to number 1, complete and make connections with the larger conservation easements, but also hopefully a component of equity and diversity. In the program to bring more people into the program itself, the conservation easement program. And I have another comment to that, Phil, and that was. Contiguous to our where we are building critical mass where we already have a lot of easements. Sometimes right in the middle of those, we might have 1 or 2, 10 acre lots right in the middle that would could in the future be detrimental to the big critical mass for what happened on that small acre track. So, it was to the benefit of the whole big program to not only help the small farmers, but to try to build critical mass on the edges and in the middle of what we already have to build on that so that we can guarantee safety for people who really do want to continue farming. We did have, we did some research on that, and we do have a good number of those that Beth mentioned of that number actually right. Contiguous to, or in the middle of, or nearby. Property, so that was that was part of it. It was something we had been thinking about for and we talked about this to some degree, even in the beginning of the program. Where did the number start? If you'll recall, which when we decided on 20. And we do have some people who have what we have a lot of people with less than 20 acres who are actually having a farm program use of some sort going on on their property. Well, let's just think, I guess my concern. Yeah, I have certainly have the concern of the little parcels that are out there in the middle of a. A main area that we don't want to get adversely affected. So that's my concern. Can't we also have some 3 to 5 and 8 acre parcels out in the middle somewhere that we don't want something big built on that would be allowed. I mean, it comes back to what. What can be done on these little parcels that we don't want to happen. What are we trying to avoid happening on these little parcels? Well, the program is purchase a development, right? So the idea is that you're purchasing the ability for anyone to develop those in the future. Otherwise, they're the land uses are limited by the zoning. Of the property, so these smaller farms will be appraised for those development rights, like your large farms are, and it will be partly a trial and error to see what kind how much the appraisals offer and whether people will ultimately be offer interested in selling those rights for the amount that they're appraised for. And obviously that'll vary by the number of acres that they have. I'm not, I don't know that in the, perhaps in the future. You may want to examine smaller than 10 acres. I believe there's also and Gloria probably knows better than I do that. There's a 10 acre tie to. Agricultural taxing and things like that, I think. And so, when we were talking about this program, we landed at least initially on the less than 20, more than 10 acres and requiring also an agricultural activity on the. Property, we don't intend to and don't want to purchase the 10 acre tracks that basically have large houses on them and they're just basically residential. Lots so there's also an agricultural activity component. Of that well, that was another 1 of my questions about just what is an agricultural activity? So, if you have a 10 acre track. Okay, and again, if it's 10.0 acres, it would be eligible for this 10 to 20 acres, right? Correct technically would have to be 19.9 acres or below 20 acres to do that. But, I mean, if you have a 10 acre, 10 acre track with the house on it, and they are letting a neighbor farmer coming in. And bail 5 acres for hay, or have a couple of horses grazing on it. Is that is that considered enough for the farming activity? Well, you're the. Farming activity, agricultural activity part of this is already defined in chapter 26. And so we're borrowing that for the same. For the small farm program, so the activities are the same for the program. That makes sense. Also, let me add to what you just said. Commissioner for Phil that a lot of this initially. Remember that the PVA you have to have more than 10 acres if you have a house on it, you have to have a certain number. Above that, in order to get any egg right off at all on your taxes. And we also, in looking into this, Phil discovered there are a lot of 10 acre lots still out there that have no residential structure on them at all as well. So, it was sort of 2 fold. Yeah. And can you still build a church on a 10 acre lot out county. I would have to double check, but that may be a conditional use and it is. So, it's possible, but they have to go through the board of adjustment process to be able to do that. Do we have more comments or questions? Margaret chair. Okay. Chair, this is Jim Coleman. I would because when you're looking at the smaller farms, and this may be so for even larger farms, but I'm thinking about what I've been through myself. That with the, is there going to be a requirement for smaller farms to have to have an FSA number survey official survey and plat. You know, as you get smaller, you know, these are smaller farms where, you know, parents die stays on the farm. He continues to, you know, run it. You've got 3 others that live out of town, but you've got 3 years and Bubba never got an FSA and because it's been in the family for 100 years. It's a 5 or 6 parcels and it doesn't have a plat or survey. What impact will that have on these types of issues as you've got so-called small owners, which could end up being several layers. Applying for a. They, they do have to give. They do have to present a deed. So that's like, that's like, unfortunately. Any family issue you have, you would have to get your brother sisters or whomever to sign off to make sure. You do, you have to do that same thing on the on the 20 and above farm. So it would be the same from that standpoint. We could. Still honor them that could still apply, but they do have to give us a deed. Yeah, you have to be able to transfer the title has to be clean on it. And it's in the sense of in order to get a legitimate easement on the property. That's not challengeable. Anyone with an interest in the property would have to be involved in the transfer of that. And Jim, for the majority of Jim, for the majority of our farms, we do not require surveys. It is only generally in cases if they are on the, if the farm crosses the border of another county, or if by some chance, the deed does not have a legal description that our attorney can use. But as long as that deed has a legal description that can be found with title search and everything, then we generally do not require surveys. But it would be it would be nice because I know you have coming back here and running your family farm. So, 1 thing that we were talking about a little before this right before the meeting started is that I and young who took Charlie's farmer's place with reached out just yesterday and said. After he had read it that he thought the farmers with the small farm program that a Kentucky ag water quality plan would be sufficient versus a conservation plan. And so I sent that to Charlie farmer, and he agreed that was fine. But I wanted to put that out there for a lot of you on this board or farmers and see what you think of that. So, do you have any thoughts about that after going through it yourself with coming back here and running your family farm? I think that that would be good because that is applicable to how when we go out to get grants, other grants, we have to submit that. So, that would be consistent with how a farmer would apply for a grant. And do you have the conservation plan in place? I have to have that for the Cape and other programs that I participate in. Okay, so I was bringing that up because when I moved back home, I own my farm. I'm the sole owner, but I built a brand new house here on my farm and I was ready to go. And the builder told me, I'm going to go down tomorrow to get the survey at the county office. He called me back that night. He said, we've got a problem. You don't have a survey and you don't have a plant. I said, what is that? I had to rush in to get that done. So, I just know that probably other small farms that have been a family and you even if you even have a sole owner, they may not be aware. So, you know, I wanted to make sure that do you need a deed and also a survey and do you need an FSA number? I think they will probably need to possibly be filed with the farm service agency. They definitely would if we leave it as is, as it's written, they need a conservation plan. If we reduce that to an ag water quality plan, I'm not sure, but as you pointed out, if you're going to participate and try to get a lot of the NRCS plans equipped and such things and help get help with equipment, then you have to go ahead and do the conservation plan and such. That would be consistent. Yeah, and I don't do, you know, 1 of the things I discussed early with Gloria, at least was for the small farms. I don't want it to be overly burdensome for them to come into the program. And so I have to rely on you all to say that, for example, it's not that difficult to get the conservation plan. It won't be that hard for them to do that. And that's why that question about the water quality came up. But so if you all are saying, yes, it's okay to do the conservation plan, we're going to leave it as written. Otherwise, we'll be making any of these changes we've discussed prior to submitting it to council for approval. So, if that's something that you all want to remain there, we'll just leave it as is. And I think I saw Hannah's hand, Hannah. So, I'm for this, but I am just concerned since this is tax local taxpayer money. And we are faced with a critical housing shortage that if, for whatever reason, the paper gets a hold of this or whatever, that we have a clear, concise message why this is being done. We've had the situation where the Fayette County schools raised the topic of the 10 acre properties getting the ag break on their taxes when they were just large houses and not even a flower pot out there. And I have many clients that purchase 10 acre properties because they want their 2 horses in the backyard. So, I am personally all for the 10 acre tracks. I just want to make sure that we have a clear message. If we're ever asked, and it's printed up anywhere, why we are doing this. I will tell you Hannah that yes, the ordinance is very clear and is very specific and this would have only applies to the lots outside the urban service boundary in the already designated even by the new plan in the rural service area. So, there should be no should be no conflict at all with that. And we have been on record as supporting affordable housing as well. So, if anything, we're partners with trying to help that not not in conflict. I agree. I'm just thinking of. PR, because I want this program to be. Continuously supported, so. I just was bringing that up. Thank you. And remember a component of this. For me, anyway, is the hope of getting some more diverse applicants into this program, because I believe there has been criticism of this program over the years that it's not a very diverse. Program, and so hopefully that would certainly be a component of it in addition to, as we discussed the, not the overall number of acres in the easement program, but also important links and. For lack of a better term consolidation of the areas that have larger. Conservation easements on them, and initially. There's not an additional cost to this program, because we're going to be using funds that are already appropriated for conservation easements for the program. If it, and I hope that it's a very successful program, and if it is, and it becomes necessary to request an additional appropriation, I think, as it presently stands, we have good counsel support for that as well. I do want to add just for addition to what Hannah mentioned that it is very important to note for the record. That not everyone living in the rural service area. Who lives on less than 20 acres on the 10 acre track. Has a mansion as people like to refer to those. That a lot of people live in the houses that they built and have lived in since the 1950s and 60s. And before that, as Jim has already noted, have been in the family for generations. So, this is not intended. To assist people who already. But those who actually want to farm or trying to farm and can encourage that part of our economic development security in Fayette County for 1 of our major industries. So, I think that's the point Hannah, we will stress is. This is actually a very important part of our overall economy. Are there any other comments based on the total number of parcels that we were saying that are available? Do we have any estimates on what the total amount would be if we got 100% penetration? Are there any other comments based on the total number of parcels that we were saying that are available? Do we have any estimates on what the total amount would be if we got 100% penetration? On the program well, 1 of the things to remember is that those numbers don't necessarily indicate how many of them are engaged in agricultural activity. Fair statement Beth. Yes. So, at this point, we don't know how many would actually qualify. But as people come in and apply, we'll be able to determine and forward the ones that actually. Qualify for that agricultural activity conservation easement program. What we're trying also part of the entire program, as we've seen. Across the United States as small farmland is being lost. To farm production is conserving that land for farm. Production in the future, so that's another. Part of this is making sure that land is. Conserved in the future for farm production, because there's so much farmland being lost. In the United States to other activities. I will note that part of the reason federal government is so supportive financially with this program is because they realize. Around the metropolitan areas, which we are that you need those small farms. For, if nothing else, growing vegetables to give into local grocery stores to supply folks who live here with food source. So, I, for instance, have a neighbor who just lives a mile or so up the road who's 10 acre track. The rest of their farm they've put into is totally. Thank you. I haven't I haven't new. Thank you. I have some new lemonade presented. The, the person grows. Nothing, but vegetables for all of our local. Grocery stores, and it's done it for 2 or 3 years running a young fellow who's made a real success of it. So I think by this program. Hopefully, our job can be to encourage people. On the smaller lots to do just that grow vegetables have bees have pumpkins do the things that will help support our local economy from that standpoint. So, I'm, I'm very supportive and this is something that I've wanted to do. For a long time, and I feel really to say, I'm not only supporting, but I feel really good about. What you all have written and what you put together. Madam chair, I'd like to further follow up on what you just said is that I know just from my little farm, 13 acres. I used 1.4 acres this past year. And I grew over 20,000 pounds of produce, and that's without a hoop house. If I had a hoop house and expanded it to 3 acres. It would even be way more so you're exactly right. The smaller farms. Could really be major contributors to vegetable production. You know, all types of sheep and goats and all types of specialty meats that really would add a lot of value to our economy. So, I think preserving these farms that are smaller between 20 down to 10 could really add a lot of value. There's a lot of people want to get back into farming. They want to leave the big cities and to come back home and. The opportunity truly is there to make your farm successful, sustainable financially, and to be a major contributor. Hopefully we can send out some literature cheerleading along with our ag extension folks. Try to help make that happen. Phil, I saw your hand up. Thank you. I have a question. I'm sitting here thinking some of these 10 acre tracks out there. Are part of larger farm operations with the same owner. I think that's correct. So, if if 1 of those farm owners out there says. I'm sorry, I did that 20 years ago and I want to. I want to do this program on the 10 acre tracker. I also want to look at. Merging these 10 acre tracks back into my larger farm track and just making them disappear. Is there any service that we provide as a rule? I'm a board or. Margaret with bluegrass conservancy, these people. I would assume if they want to do that, they just maybe have to get an appraisal before and after all their 2 tracks and get the tax. Get the tax advantage that they can get from it and just get it done. But I'm just wondering if they might, they might get a bigger tax break doing something like that, rather than putting. PDR on that small tract of land. It's certainly an option for them to do that. And, and, you know, in the original program, if someone agreed to consolidate existing 10 acre tracks, there was an advantage to doing. So I think that. I think the thing that is going to be the most difficult to manage with this is the expectations of what people are going to get paid for their easement. Because under current zoning law, they don't have the right to divide those parcels into anything smaller. So, I think the appraisers are going to struggle with what is the, what is it that they're giving up, which was the question you asked. And so what are they, what should we be paying them for it? And I think we have tried to put in there that at some point, the board would have the option of setting up. You know, a set amount so that it could be, you know, we decide we're going to pay 1000 an acre because I think the appraisal question, I think it's going to be a challenge. And I do hope that we can manage the expectations as to what people will get paid for these. Tiffany, I see your hand up. Yes, so I just wanted to make sure that you all are aware of just one thing. So, the last time that we reviewed the ordinance, it was when it was like the 20 copy chapter 26. It was like a 14 page document. I know there's been some changes that have been made since then, and we have not reviewed those changes. So, I didn't know if you all wanted to have us review it before you acted on it, or if you're comfortable acting on it. Anyway, I just wanted to bring that up to make sure that you all are aware of that. I think Tracy reviewed it. Because I talked with her about it after we made the modifications to it. I'm not, I'm not for sure because I talked to Tracy yesterday and she seemed like she hadn't heard about it since we sent the draft the 1st time, I guess, back in October. She has definitely worked with it since then. Yes. Are there any other comments or questions? Steven, I just want to build off of what Miss Graves said. The appraisal is, there's just a lag in the process. And if the, if the goal is to expedite the process, set amounts would entice people to do it. And the validity of one appraisal versus another appraisal when it's just a 10-acre track. And if the, if the goal is to expedite the process, set amounts would entice people to go through this program versus doing a full-blown type of PDR analyzation. That is done on larger tracks, just my two cents worth. Any other comments or questions? Commissioner, what is your preference for our moving forward? I think that for the council, what they'll want to know is basically your recommendation. If you're recommending that it move forward, then I think your motion would basically be that. Or however, you typically phrase those things. Board members, what is your preference? Somebody. My preference would be to move forward with what we currently have, Madam Chair, to move forward and make any improvements as we go through the process. But I think it would be good for us to move forward. Also, one of our members just talked about it being more simple and more maybe a flat rate. I think for smaller farms, that would be more appropriate and would create more excitement and attention to the program and our intent. It may be difficult to do that right away just because we don't really have a sense of what that value would be. So my thought had been that we would do appraisals at least initially. And then after we had some comfort level as to what the value is, then have the ability to decide that we were going to offer a flat rate. And I'm not sure. I was just trying to look through the ordinance or the proposed ordinance to see if that flexibility was given to the board. I know it was in a prior draft, but I don't know if it's in the current draft. And I'm somebody else who's looked at it more recently than I might be able to answer that. Yeah, I think that, like you're saying, Margaret, that initially we need to do appraisals and see how it's turning out. I think there were some other potential legal concerns circling the idea of setting a standard amount so that if it looks like there's going to be an issue after we get some of this under our belt, we would come back to perhaps address it again and talk about it again from that perspective. But initially, we need to at least go through the usual process for the conservation easements before we talk again about whether there needs to be an adjustment to how we're doing that. I do want to add that we did talk to the appraisers, if you'll recall, about this, and they said, yes, they could do it. And they said they did not want to try to do it for a set price, because these tracts, like all of our farms, are based on the point system, and they're all going to be different. That some are going to have road frontage, some are going to have national registers, some are going to have this, some are going to have that, some are not. So, some, like our easements are always, some are more valuable than others for all the obvious legal point reasons. So, they, in addition to what Commissioner Horne just said, and what Margaret has said, they thought we could start out by, they could do some of these. And then after that, we see how it goes. The board can certainly move on from there after we have, exactly like we did with the Ordinance 26. Once we have a feel for this, we'll know how to make changes if needed. Although it's, thank goodness, so much work, Margaret, was put into the initial Ordinance 26, because it gave us a great base on which to begin. So, having said that. Madam Chair, for the smaller farms, you may have a home that is appraised at, or built at $800,000. And it could, for the overall estate, you could be looking at the overall value of the farm being 1.5 plus million dollars. And so, I'm sure we have it in our point system of how to adjust that based on that higher value property, that home that may be on it, to where our goal is to try to preserve land, not to preserve a big mansion. Right, and that is correct. That is there. This is based on the land and its qualities. Yep. Any other comments? Robert has his hand up. Robert? Yes, in Section 27.9 of the Ordinance 26, it says, It specifies that in no case shall the board pay more than fair market value for a conservation easement. Would that language preclude us from eventually deciding to standardize a payment on a per acre method because it requires us to know what the fair market value is of the easement? It certainly would initially, and that's what I mean about if depending on how the program goes and this is new for all of us, and if it feels necessary to come back and address it again, we would have to make an adjustment to the language. Okay. Do I hear a motion? Madam Chair, I'd like to move to recommend the language as presented, or I should say with the changes, corrections that Beth mentioned at the beginning to advance that to the council. I second. All right. That motion has been made and seconded. May I comment that those will be sent once they're done back to this board to make sure they understand every single one of those. I think that's a given. It is also my understanding that in that case, there's also time before council were to vote on this for us to make any additional changes if the board sees after this is sent to them. Is that correct, Law Department? Is that correct, Commissioner? I would say yes, but my plan would be to blue-sheet this in January for when they get back from January, so that as long as there's communication about fairly soon, in terms of if there's anything else that someone wants to comment on. I know it's a busy time of year for everyone, but could we just turn this right around and get these back to the board members, please? I don't know. Yeah, they're not really significant. No, they were not, but I'd like for them to see it. Yes. We should be able to make these edits quickly and send it back out. All right. With that caveat, all in favor. Is there any other discussion before I call for a vote? All in favor. It looks unanimous. Let me hold, Gloria. Everybody held up their hand a minute and let me make sure. Okay. I see everybody. Stephen is even there and Joanna can't vote, but she's been listening. Okay. Are you holding your hand up, Stephen? Yes, he did. He waved. All right. Thank you. Waved. Great. All right. I thank you all so much. I think this is a great advancement, helping small farmers and I think it helps stabilize our agricultural economy. I think it's a good thing. It will make us do a little more cheerleading, helping our farmers make sure they get all the help they need to do these, but I think it's a great thing. Thank you all. I'll try to move us on here. See, we still have plenty of time. Beth, can you give us an update on our easement closings? Yes. All good news. We closed three easements on October 31st and we sent you all those details via e-mail. Then we had two closings on Monday and Tuesday of this week and we have another tomorrow. That's going to bring our total for this fiscal year to 10 just since July, which is great. We're really excited. We will provide a quick PowerPoint presentation of those farms at our January meeting. We wanted to wait until these close this week and just do all six that closed in October in this month together. We may have a little one or two more before then. Also, Farm 12023, to which you all authorized an offer at our October 23rd meeting, accepted their contract or signed it right before Thanksgiving. That one is newly under contract as well. All good news. Do you want me to move right on to application cycle, Gloria? Okay. Yes. We received four new applications in October and we're working with those landowners to put them on the federal application, which is due next week. NRCS is requiring some new maps with the application this year, and they're concentrating on those and don't have our ranking maps yet. I'll do the ranking of these in January for you all and tell you more about each one of those. But we will go ahead and submit those next week. A couple of items down, I think under new business, we'll just have you all vote to authorize me to put all eligible applicants. There's potentially one of these that surpasses the AGI and may not be able to go on. But the pending farm bill, as we understand that the house draft eliminates the adjusted gross income limit. We don't know about the Senate version and from what I've heard, that farm bill is not probably going to pass this year. It's going to get kicked again. It was supposed to pass in 2023. But if that AGI gets eliminated, that's going to be really great for us. So, we'll keep you posted on that. But we did get four new applications and are working with those landowners and GIS to get that submitted next week. Are you going to show us a map of where those new applicants are? Yes, not today, but in January, I'm going to show you all. Yes. So, they all are adjacent to PDR, which is great. Great. Yes. Then as a matter of fact, we could go ahead and skip to save time, Gloria, to new business to just have them. It was the AG, our 2025 application, and we just need a motion for them to authorize me to put all eligible applicants on the 2025 application. The chair will entertain a motion to that effect. So moved. Okay. Motion made by Margaret. Do I have Anne? Christine is the second, and Hannah was the second, and Phil is the second. So, it does sound like a good idea to everybody. All right. Beth, are you, Margaret, or? Okay. She's short-term rentals next. Tiffany is still here. We got to vote on that motion, don't we? Okay. Go ahead and vote on the motion. All in favor, show of hands, everybody. Okay. Okay. Good. Joanna was on the screen, so she also voted. Okay. She's there. I can see her. All right. And then, so next is update on short-term rentals in the rural service area. And so, you all, in your packet was the staff report the planning staff gave to the planning zoning committee last Thursday. And then the draft that they did that was based on what council sent to them. The council sent it as a text amendment, so the planning commission only has 60 days to act. And so, they are going to meet tomorrow and have to take action. They made a couple of changes. Well, the council made two changes. One was to allow tracts that are 10 acres or less to have an unhosted STR. And then they also reduced the 1 mile limit we had proposed to 500 feet or less if they're 10 acres or 500 feet if they're 10 acres or less. So, the only changes the council made to what we put forward were to say that they can have unhosted at 10 acres or less and that they have a shorter distance requirement. The planning staff's version made a few changes, some cleanups. The one change I think that we have voiced some concern about and hopefully we're going to talk about that being removed is that it said no PDR farms can have an STR. Because, as you all know, every easement is different and that really needs to be a decision that the board makes. So, other than that, Margaret, did you have comments that you want to make about it and what we may get feedback tomorrow? I'm planning to go to the meeting tomorrow with Beth, the planning commission meeting. I think that the big question is, how strongly does this board feel about allowing unhosted STRs on tracts that are 10 acres or less in size? I think there was concern that there are a number of existing STRs in the rural service area that are on tracts that are less than 10 acres in size. And Council Member Plowman did not kind of want to force those people out of business, so to speak. They were not complying with the law and having those STRs, but they exist. So, I think that's a question for the board to kick around a little bit, like how strongly do we want to fight that particular issue? I don't know that we'll be successful, but I do think that that's worthy of discussion. And I do think that the planning commission's statement saying that STRs are prohibited on all PDR parcels is an overstatement or an oversimplification of the situation. Because every easement is different, and the feds seem to give some greater flexibility with respect to ag tourism. And so, I really think that for STRs on PDR parcels, it should come before this board first. And then, depending on what this board determines, go to the Board of Adjustment. And I think the Board of Adjustment would probably be very glad for us to be the first stop, because they're inundated with STR applications. So, those are my thoughts. I mean, I think unhosted STRs in some situations are not problematic, but in other situations could be problematic, depending on their location, the adjacent neighbor, et cetera. At least by requiring that they get a conditional use permit for this, they would have to go before the Board of Adjustment. Neighbors would be notified. They'd have an opportunity to object if they felt that there was some adverse impact. So, but I'm curious to know what you all think about this. Can someone remind me what an STR is, please? Oh, it's a short-term rental. It's like a VRB or an Airbnb. Bill? Yeah, I certainly have a problem or, you know, the potential problem of an unhosted STR on land that's adjacent to a larger tract. And if the council's going to allow unhosted STRs on 10 acres or less, at least we could try and get the caveat in. You can't do it if it's adjoining or it has to, or if that's something that the Board of Adjustment, whoever's looking at it, looks very strongly at. What the adjacent can use is. Yeah, the adjacent factor is a big one in my mind. Yeah, and then I agree with you to say no STRs on any PDR farms is an overstep. Because I think we're going to be able to turn around and put a farmstay on them. And so, you know, and maybe that's all that we need is just farmstays out in the rural area. But I think that's just kind of a, that's overstepping in my mind at this point. But then on the other hand, I'd like to see the short-term rental regulations strict and they can always be lessened, but it's very hard to tighten them back up later. Right, and I tried to make the point when I met with Kathy Plowman that, you know, there were a number of reservations about STRs in the rural areas. And that the committee tried to kind of strike a compromise between not allowing any and allowing them and trying to propose regulations that were strict, but that would start us, you know, start allowing them under certain conditions. And then as things developed and people got more comfortable with them or less, that could be adjusted. But I do think that that's going to be a hard battle. I think the Planning Commission would be more receptive to our concerns about adjacent properties. And I think that maybe if the Planning Commission recommends that that be, you know, very considered very carefully and that the STR owner be required to provide some sort of protections for adjacent landowners. I think we're likely to get a more favorable audience with the Planning Commission is my perception. I'll have to say that my obsessive compulsive taking care of the farms, I'm just as concerned about those 10 acre lots and this new program being negatively impacted by the possibility of this, because many of those 10 acre and smaller lots are right next to areas that might want to do this. And I want to make sure that conditions are such that they are protected and that regardless of the size of our farms, that they're going to be safe from negative impacts. I hope we can stress that. I also think for somebody who has 10 acres, if they're looking at the option of an STR and the revenue that that would generate versus the revenue that they might receive on a one time basis from the PDR program. They're going to choose the STR because the STR is going to is going to generate more income. And I think so, in some ways, I feel like we're getting some conflicting signals from the council as to what they want us to do. And on the one hand, we're being encouraged to conserve properties that are 10 acres, 10 to 20 acres in size with easements, which I'm supportive of. But on the other hand, we're allowing people with 10 acres to have or less to have STRs. So, I think where we're going to have a challenge is with those people who have 10 acres, because they're going to have a choice to make and that the economics are going to be not in our favor. Are there any other comments or questions? I agree with Margaret. I mean, you look at the, you're trying to put an appraisal on a 10 acre track with a nice house that's could be a short term rental. And you give away the right to have the short term rental, I'm afraid that appraisal might come out zero. Because they're going to lose money. It's like, say, the short term rental income is going to be worth more than the PDR appraisal is going to be. I mean, that, you know, that's speculation on my part, but I think it's worth raising at least with the planning commission. At least making, you know, having them consider that. Hannah? I agree with Margaret and Phil as well. Unless they were somehow to have a farm stay, which would be, in my opinion, different from an STR, because you would have to be actively involving the person staying there with seeing what you're doing. But I agree with Margaret. I think if you allow STRs on the PDR properties with 10 acres, it's a problem. I think they're going to choose that option. They're going to choose that option. And I think it's very well known, my opinion about STRs, and I'm trying to be diplomatic about it. But, you know, people need to purchase the property because they want to use it and enjoy it and not strictly in terms of just investment. And there are enough people out there with money that can purchase it and just use it strictly as that investment. And we want people to live on their small farms and actively do something with it. Because I agree with Jim that there are a lot, we're going to see much more smaller farming happening and it should be encouraged. And the STRs is not going to be a positive thing for us that are trying to keep people farming. I'll be quiet now. Stephen, I see his hand. Yes, I just wanted to understand the term farm stay. And what I understand and what I've seen over the years, a lot of people stay on farms when they bring their horses, particularly the equestrian riders for events, whether they stay in their really nice vans or there's a place for them to stay. And their focus is on being near their horses versus, I know there's a house behind my house that gets rented out from time to time, particularly during Keeneland. And that's a large group. You can tell there's a lot of people in the home and I can hear it, it doesn't bother me or anything. But it's just the fact that there's, that's obviously, someone's obviously renting that house to a group that's coming there to have a weekend in Lexington versus just generally working near your horses. What's the definition of farm stay? It is, it was defined back in 2017. The Kentucky revised statutes changed a lot of things in several areas to allow agritourism and farm stay was one of the things they addressed along with the horse industry that all got added. It is defined in KRS and it's basically staying on a working farm and it's for more for educational purposes than it is dude ranch. So, you would be allowed to stay on the property on an overnight stay and the ordinance, another commissioner has texted that he's checked off, but they are, that is part of the STRs. That is added in that STRs. In other words, the short term rentals and staying on a farm in the rural area will be included based on what KRS had added in 2017. Farm stay requires that there be more interaction with the operations of the farm. So, it would not allow a farm stay, the description of your neighbor's activity or the house behind you where it's being rented out and people are coming in for the races, that would not likely qualify as a farm stay. But if somebody's coming and they're keeping their horses on that property for a weekend or for a week or two and training them for a show and then leaving, that is more likely to qualify for a farm stay. We haven't had those, they haven't been permissible under Fayette County's rules. So, it's hard, we know what it's defined under KRS, but there's no equivalent definition in Fayette County now. There would be under this proposed new regulations, they would allow farm stays. I think it's something that has, that happens from time to time. Usually people are so exhausted by the time they are driving from somewhere else, they just stay in their van or whatever. I know it's a function of that business, of that work. Right, and it's more tied directly to the ag operations of the property. And so, that is frankly less of a concern, I think, from the committee's perspective. The committee looked at this and made these recommendations to the council. And the council has taken what our recommendations and turned it into an ordinance and sent it to the planning commission. So, what our concern as a committee was, is that on a typical unhosted STR, the people who are visiting may not have any background in agriculture or any familiarity with agriculture. And are they going to appreciate the risk of, you know, getting up, climbing over the fence to pet the beautiful horse or, you know, or getting into a field that happens to have a bull. It's those kinds of conflicts between a potential suburban visitor who has no familiarity with agriculture and an active agricultural operation next door. And so, what the committee recommended was that all STRs in the rural area be hosted. So, that means that the person either has to live in the house or live on the property. So, if there's a farm that has, you know, five tenant houses, the recommendations were to allow them to convert one farm employee dwelling unit to an STR. Because they would be living on the property and essentially supervising the activities. And so, that was sort of our way of sticking our toe in the water without jumping in completely. So, that's what we recommended. The council's come back with something that's more permissive than what we recommended. Bill? I want to add one more on this, like Hannah's thought. You know, we're trying to encourage 10 to 19.9 acre farms to come into the PDR program. And we didn't want unhosted short-term rentals anywhere in the rural area. And the council has come back and said, oh, we want you to have unhosted rentals, short-term rentals, on 10 acre tracks or less. And so, we've got a conflict. All the 10 acre tracks that are part of this estimated 1,100 tracks that are in the 10 to 19.9 acres. Although, in my mind, all those 10 acre tracks that could have an unhosted short-term rental will not want to consider the PDR program. And so, if they allow 10 acre tracks to have STR on it, they're shooting themselves in the foot about the small farm PDRs in my mind. They're wiping out, I don't know if they're wiping out half of the options or three-fourths of the options. I don't know how many 10 acre tracks there are out there out of that 1,100 acres. And so, I'm back to, it's like, we almost, we ought to be urging them to go back and not allow any unhosted STRs in the rural area. Because it's killing the PDR program for the 10 to 19.9 acres. Are there any other comments? I'm not for sure if every small farm that, you know, an owner that's got 10 acres is going to host and have short-term rentals. No, I'm sure that's not the case. Yeah, there will be some out there that will, you know, look at the two, but not, I don't think all of them. I don't even think the majority of them would be, you know, having an STR going on if they're really committed, you know, to really farming. But when somebody with a 10 acre track is considering the PDR program, if they're properly educated, it's like, okay, we're going to give you, and again, if I were the appraiser, it's like, well, we're trying to put a value on your property, or what rights are you giving up? One of the rights you're giving up is the right to have a short-term rental on your property. Whether you want it or not, you're giving up that right, and that to me is going to kill that appraisal. Well, it's going to make that appraisal, I mean, that's a right that has some value to it that is different than, they don't have the right to subdivide, but they'll have the right, they would have the right to run an STR versus not have a right to run an STR. That's going to give some value to that easement, and I think it's the value of that potentially is going to make it more expensive for the board to accomplish what we want to accomplish, and at the end of the day, I'm not sure that that value will be there. I don't think that that value will be greater than the income value that they could get on it. The PDR program would be a one-time payment versus an STR would be unlimited, multiple years, as long as they wish to do it, so I just think that the financial incentives for the landowner may work against the goal of encouraging 10-acre tracts to participate in the PDR program. People that are 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 acres, they're not going to have that option of having an unhosted STR, so I just think it's problematic, and I think they're sending conflicting signals, and it puts us in a difficult spot, I think. Well, I think, Margaret, what we sent to them, they have. You're going to the Planning Commission meeting, you and Beth, and I think you need to stress what this board's already voted on, regardless of what council suggested. I would encourage you to push what this board voted on and suggested, if that's okay with everyone. That's fine. I mean, I'm glad to get the direction, because I know there are council members who feel strongly about the changes that they've made. If that's it, I'll move on to our large-scale solar facilities. I think Tracy did not send us an update. I don't know if Tiffany has anything. I know, Margaret, you did attend the PSC. I did. I think, you know, they did not make a decision that day. I wasn't there for the entire hearing. I just went and made a statement on behalf of the La Grasse Land Conservancy. I think they are expected to make a decision before Christmas, potentially, about that particular parcel, so that's really all I know. I don't, I haven't, I don't know if Will is on this call. He might know more than I. He is on, he is right here. He's with us. Will, is there any more you can add to that about the PSC? Oh, we can't hear you, Will. Turn on your... There. Can you hear me now? Yes. Yeah, okay. Yeah, by statute, they have to make a decision by, I think it's the 26th of December. There have been some, you know, post-hearing motions and briefs that have been filed. It's really pretty contentious, but it's, you know, I think the ball's in the Public Service Commission's court right now. I don't see any kind of further developments playing out in the supplemental briefs, and so we'll see here in the next couple of weeks. Thank you to both of you. Thank you very much. And to our law department that's been very involved. Beth, do you have anything to add about the Urban Growth Master Plan, other than it was adopted back in October? No, it was adopted October 31st, so it, so it is now part of the Comprehensive Plan. So, but I checked with Tracy and she did not have any other updates beyond that. And Phil, I don't think we have a Treasurer's Report. Is that correct? No, no Treasurer's Report this month. Bills are all paid. We're up to our bottom line. I hope. I can't attest to that. I do have a couple of things. I think next up is my report, and I want to say back in October, right after our last meeting, we went to the Preservation Kentucky Award in Frankfort and Beth attended. Margaret attended. Joanna, Hannah, I. It was a great event. Food was wonderful. Thank you all very much for attending. We did get a large, large number of people. Louisville stoneware plaque that I think will just hang in Beth's office as recognition. So, thank you all for coming. And I think it is very good that we've gotten that recognition. I did go to those 4 PDR closings and Beth will give you an in detail report next month. They all went very well, and some of those people I had asked about this new small farm ordinance program, and I think we may have some takers based on that. I will again, thank Beth and Margaret and Phil and Robert, other board members, the planning staff, the commissioner and his Ben Sean for all the time and effort on the planning and that went into working on this small farm ordinance. It's something that needs doing, and I think it's just going to be good. No matter what, if we can get, we have gotten 4 applications for our regular farms this year, and if we can get 4 more of the 10 acre ones, as soon as this passes every, every anchor, every acre counts toward that 50,000 acres and we're now up 32 plus. So, it's a good thing, and I thank you, Beth, for all your effort, Margaret, everybody, and we, Beth and I, she did say, met with, it's interesting how the people who apply still have, even when they get to the signing the contracts at the end, still have a lot of questions. I don't know how we can simplify that. Beth and I've talked about this before, Margaret, and I've talked about it. And I've spoken to the commissioner about it. If we can simplify or educate the public in any way possible, it's a, it's a good thing and Beth and I did meet with the property owner that you all okayed last time and had a nice meeting in the middle of the high winds. On her farm, and we do have a lot of questions answered, and I think it's good for these farmers to feel like they can ask us whatever. I do hope that you all had a very good Thanksgiving. It has been an unusual year, both in temperature and farming, and I'm very grateful for all of you all. And the time and attention you have given to attending these meetings, it is not easy and I'm very glad we can do it by zoom. I would not have, I'd have been 1 of those that would have not been able to make it today and had not been for zoom. So, thank you all and thank you for your attendance. Beth, you want to add anything to your staff report? No, well, it's been very busy with the closings. And so that's all going well and working closely with and busy with things like the small farm program and and we did have, we'll tell you all more about in January. We're still gathering some, but we've had a couple of PDR farms that were written up the city has new software that is catching, I guess, a lot of people's attention. I guess would be a word of the people who are unregistered for but are advertising and so a couple of those have been PDR farms and 1 actually filed an application for a bed and breakfast with the board of adjustment and so I went to that Monday and we told the landowner they cannot have a bed and breakfast and they did not show up so they didn't respond to our notification, but they did not show up on Monday. So, we'll tell you a little bit more that we're still gathering how many of these maybe PDR the, but it is, it does seem to be working. The city's new database does seem to be pulling a lot of names and things, you know, luckily so far. We think only 3, but we'll keep you all posted on that. So I think that's it. Okay, I'm going to ask the board members to report on whatever they've been doing. I'm going to start a fill your, your left. Bottom my screen got anything to report. Nothing to report. I'm sure. Okay, Robert yes, I attended the Kentucky Farm Bureau conference in Louisville this past week. Um, actually, Senate President Robert Stivers. Address the convention floor and was. Voiced some mild concern about the way solar industrial solar is being developed in the state. I don't know if there's any real opportunity there for a bill that might. Might. Tighten up some of the regulations or modify some of the way that the or. Uh, these companies are coming in and building these solar installations, but it was interesting to hear that at least. And otherwise it was a good convention and glad to see everyone there. And that's other than having a good Thanksgiving. That's what I've been doing. Thank you, Margaret, the Conservancy has been very busy with easement projects. Um, we've got a bunch that were closing before the end of the year and and in January. Um, so that's moving ahead and. Keep you posted. Thank you. Jim, madam chair, I was honored to participate in the search committee for our new Dean at the University of Kentucky. And I'm pleased. I'm sure you all know that Dr. Laura Stevenson was selected. I'm very excited about she's got a very strong extension background and she is truly a missionary in agriculture and I'm wishing her all the best. We're also going to be having the fruit and vegetable conference here in Lexington in January as well as the Organic Association of Kentucky will be having its annual meeting also later in January. And I'll be attending all of those and we'll provide an update during our meetings and wishing you all a happy holidays. Thank you. You'll be happy to know that in the fall, I planted all 12 of my native pawpaws. And yes, and around around the farm along with my native persimmons. So we'll see they were only about 2 feet tall, but we had started them from seed. So hopefully we'll, we'll have some wildlife food in the future. That's fantastic. Hannah. No report. Thank you. Phil Hager. Uh, nothing too much. We finished up the sales season for the horse sales season mostly. And then, uh, I had a cool, I was involved in the horse that won the Breeders' Cup sprint, like picking him out as a, uh, as a 2 year old. So that was a pretty neat accomplishment to have. Fantastic. And I can report that the sales went really well. Yeah, Will Mayer. Just to add a little bit to what Robert mentioned about potential legislation, we are watching that General Assembly session starts and kind of based on some conversations that our friends in Bourbon County have had. We do expect some sort of legislation to be filed. So we will follow that and have recommendations at that time. Thank you. Thank you. Keep us posted. Christine. Hi, everyone. I have nothing to report, um, except for happy holidays. Yes. Thank you. Same to you. Joanna. Uh, nothing to report. Jim is basically giving the report of the upcoming conference for the farmers, and I will be attending those and happy holidays. Anything new going on with our hamlets that we need to know about or be supporting? We've had planned an oral presentation where we were going to teach everybody how to do oral, uh, workshop and oral, but it was canceled due to low attendance. So they're going back to the drawing board to figure out how we can get people in the community to be interested in giving their oral histories and stories of the hamlets. So when we get that day, uh, set in stone, I will send it to Beth to send out to the guys. But we really, I mean, you don't have to really be reporting, but we're going to be doing a lot of reporting. Black hamlets, just learning how to do oral history and preserving it is what we're trying to do for the community. Okay, good. Stephen Howard, I see you're still here, but I don't see you. There you are. I'm here here. Um, I've been just following my son's senior football, uh, and now basketball around. So I spend a lot of time doing that. And the only thing I've done is get a new pair of gloves because I help my wife, uh, feed horses in the wintertime. So she loves it when that hits my schedule. Did she give you the gloves as a hint? Yes, the rest of the year, I'm just equipment and maintenance manager. But yeah, she handed me my gloves. It was, it was a honeydew. Yes, definitely. We don't need a closed session that was on your agenda because we don't have anything we will perhaps next month. I do want to remind you that our next meeting is January 22nd make sure that Stephen Beth has the new schedule for the upcoming year that we have voted on. Um, and Beth, just maybe just send the calendar out to everyone just to make sure everybody has an update. I want to remind everybody, please mark your calendar for the year every month. Now that the ordinance does require. A certain attendance in order to be on the board, and I don't want to have to say anything about that to anyone. I love this board. It's a great board. They always show up. Within the last X number of years, even through coven only 1 time did we not have a quorum so that just speaks so well of and to you all and I cannot thank you enough for that. I hope that you have a wonderful holiday. However, you choose to celebrate it. I will say that Thanksgiving having family here for 2 weeks is about kill me. So I'm going to be happy to just live live to Christmas right now. But I'm, I'm very appreciative and I think we are so lucky to live where we do in the place we live in this country. And the daily news points that out more and more how grateful and truly appreciative. We should be for all this. We, this board has helped. For 20 years, make sure that where we live is special and is pretty and does have a good quality of life, both in air and water quality and in a lot of other ways. And we need to encourage that even more next year. So, thank you all. And I hope that you have a wonderful holiday season. And you to you to thank you to you. It is. Let's see. It's about 430. so we're, we're going to leave a little early. Does anybody have anything else they want to say? Do you have some fun things? I hope planned for the break or the holiday. Madam chair, I'd like to thank Kathy Pullman for her wonderful service reception for her last week. And I wanted to also with what Joanna said about the Hamlet's Kathy was able to secure some funding to help us to repair and restore the lodge hall. Your town out of your town lane, so she's just been a wonderful champion and I'm wishing her the best. That is just a great little building. Jim, I wish you to would take a photograph of that little building and just send it out to everyone history behind that is wonderful. And that is a rare and wonderful little history for Fayette County. Absolutely. So, thank you all very much. Hopefully to see you all in January, I'll call for a motion to adjourn the meeting. So moved and everybody's got raising hands. Everybody's ready. Happy holidays. Thank you. Love you all. Thank you.