To the flag of the United States of America and to the reps, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Mr. Chair, we have a relatively brief agenda tonight. We have minutes from on the consent agenda and then we have one business item related to direction on lease rates for 421. >> All right. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda? >> So moved. >> Motion by Kate. Second. >> Second by Josh. All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Consent. >> One item. Motion to approve consent. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I talk about it first. >> Well, was there anything to talk about? Do you want to continue with telling us that they're the the minutes? >> Oh, I'm in a new business. All right. I'm catching up. >> Uh, no public hearings. Uh, new business. So the only item we have under business tonight is seeking direction from the commission regarding 431 council. The commission will recall that we have acquired those properties for ultimate redevelopment um in the future. Uh but those properties um came with tenants which is good because they rent to offset cost properties but it also means that we have um currently we're working with the existing leases that were in place with pre that were put in place by the previous owner um and as was discussed at the time we had discussion about whether or not we want to make changes before we draft up our own documents. So, at this point, I'm going to turn it over to Reine to give a presentation. >> Um, I don't really have a presentation, but I'm just going to uh uh share a slide that has uh some, you know, basically the city's costs versus rents that are being paid or uh could be paid. Okay. Um, again to uh add on to Tom's introduction, uh the both homes were being leased by the previous owner for $800 a month. Um, the home on the west, which is 421 Main Street, is a three-bedroom home. Um, the tenant has lived there for 25 years, 75 years old, veteran, and has an income of $65,000. 431 Main Street is the one on the east. That's a two-bedroom home. There's two tenants that occupy the home. Um, they have lived there for uh 20 years. and uh six ages 62 and 55 with the gross annual income of 125,000. Now in our um as you recall the city borrowed the money from the Scott County Community Development Agency uh for the properties and we have a loan agreement with them u in place. It's recorded as a mortgage against properties and in our agreement with them we've agreed to lease them at affordable rates. Although the city has a large large discretion in how do how we determine affordability. Um in consulting with the CDA they have given a couple recommendations of how they sometimes calculate affordability. Uh one being based on income and one being based on um using HUD guidelines. So uh what we've done here I guess is just taken those two recommendations from the CDA and we don't have to choose either of these. We could simply choose something in the middle. Um uh but I've used that in the memo for your consideration. So the first one is um using the HUD maximum rents and based on just the number of bedrooms and the income levels of the two tenants um they're showing actually I'm going to step up. So I think it's important to note again that the did um acquire the properties from acquire the properties through a loan and we are making monthly payments to the CDA to um over this 15-year term. In addition, we pay taxes on the property. They're not tax tax exempt because we do receive income from the properties and we pay insurance on the property. So, those are three um costs associated with the properties. So, 421 Main Street here, you can see our our monthly cost is about $1,737 per month. And then 431 Main Street, $1,716 uh dollars per month. Um we do not do any maintenance on the properties. We have not gotten a single phone call related to maintenance. That's part of their old lease agreement. In fact, even if their appliances break down, they're responsible for replacing them. Um I think one of the tenants owns their appliances already. Um today I think the f furnace and major components um furnace, water heater, stuff like that would possibly fall back on the city. It's the lease agreement is extremely limited. It's very bare bones. Um we'll ask Andrea to help us draft a new lease agreement based on your direction. So um so knowing that the our monthly costs are um as shown there in the in the top of the table. Then moving down into the tables below um again the the monthly costs are carried down the city's current rent of $800 per month. And then looking at the two affordable rents, um, you know, pretty significantly different. The 421 Main Street with the single 75 year old person, um, this the Scott County CDA is saying or based on HUD um, the published HUD maximum rents based on the three-bedroom home could go up to as high as $2,200 a month. And then the three two bedroom three I'm sorry that was the three-bedroom home and the two-bedroom home at 1,685. Now if we f uh look down to the using their income affordable is consider is when you a person spends no more than 30% of their income on household related expenses. So in your memorandum if all the household related expenses were considered rent um we could jump the rents up to 1625 and 3125. Now that in that table in your uh memorandum I didn't account for any other house household related expenses such as water and sewer, gas and electricity. Um I personally would you know make a round estimate that those will probably be about $300 a month. I haven't conferred with the um tenants on that and we if you're interested in using something along this lines we can confer with them to narrow that down. We do know the water bill is about $95 per month. So um >> so long and shorties based on market based structure itself based on specific household Those are ceilings of reasonable definition. >> Yeah. So, we were really just looking for direction from you on a starting point or how where you want to take this. We don't have an opinion or recommendation um related to it. U the overall goal was to allow the city redevelopment opportunity. And um >> do you have to do both homes as >> well? Sorry. Do you have to do both homes as HUD or both homes as 30% income? >> You could do one one and one the other. >> It's my opinion that it's your decision. >> There's some rationale that you would maybe be consistent between in the methodology that you use. >> We have to explain it. >> We have to explain it to I'll have to meet with the tenants and explain to them. >> Did I hear right? We don't have a lease with them. Some is a just kind a passed on lease. >> All right, there's step one right there. We need to have our own lease. >> Yeah. >> Would you all agree? Start with a lease. >> That's what's part of this. So maybe a starting point on the lease >> well just a lease as a tenant not obviously we'll talk about >> costs we don't have our own lease >> we'll draft it seems discussion it's kind of a question One option is you look to choose a methodology which it is and then what is are you looking to maximize it or is it something is there related to the price? So is it a flat forever or do you increase discussions with the CD they will use a 5% per year increase on certain properties and so I think we could start with a high higher level direction and then maybe find where there is majority consensus detail >> I mean I'm not interested in raising it all that much uh at this point um I could probably talk about some sort of cost increase or something or or an inflationary increase or something like that. But I mean, we go up anything, even if we were to get to the 30% income of the low end or the low end of the HUD max, I mean, you're still doubling somebody's rent, and I'm not in going to be in favor of that at all. Uh, I mean, and I would I would say too, I I tried to take out the individual data or information and look at it of what would these properties be regardless. So, um, These properties I think it's reasonable to assume that we got them at slightly market investor similar cost. >> Yeah. No, I mean and if if there's nobody living in them, it's a different discussion. there's people living in them. So therefore, I mean, I would favor keeping it pretty dang close to the exact same with some inflationary increase. And then when the tenants turn over, if the tenants turn over, then we have a discussion of bringing them more closer to a market rate or whatever makes sense. But >> I would have to agree with you, Josh. I am not in favor of doubling or even I mean that 2,200 for that 421 main, that's a big chunk of their income. So for the year that that scares me even the six I I'm not in favor of doubling it. I don't mind doing the inflationary increase. Um and when like you said when you vacate it then we look at changing the price if we're going to keep it a rental at that point. But I I have a hard time going even to the 1600 or even the 1300. I have a hard time jumping from 800 to 1300. I want to be clear. >> We don't have to. >> These are just what we would consider to be ceilings depending on what affordability. >> No, it helps to frame it. >> Yeah. But >> um like this the city monthly expenses on the properties >> like it would be ideal to >> gradually make our way up there, but I also have no desire to up and double people's rent that haven't had a rent increase in a long time >> when when we purchased these, did we contemplate this? I mean, did we know I mean, was I can't remember the discussion. >> We were going to lose money. >> Yeah. And we were okay with that. >> Yeah. Or I I guess I won't speak for anybody else, but >> there wasn't a decision on what the lease was, but we knew what was purchased that maintain a rate and that was a discussion at a later date. The upside is when we acquired the properties, we paid more because they were rent properties. So market upside is there was long time solid tenants. They have been good tenants for us through the process. So there's value in that. But you guys was discussed that discussion, >> right? >> And they have not contacted you. They're not asking you to upkeep anything. I think >> I think that portion is huge. Not that >> what was the cost per year? Did I hear 5% come out? >> That was a recommendation that the Scott County CDA said that they use in some of their leases. >> I don't remember a cola going 5%. I'd be like 2%. Two and a half% is kind of where my number would be because cola isn't a percent really. >> Or is it? >> Bob wants to talk. He keeps going. >> He's he's all about the Roberts rules and stuff. No, I'm just I I don't >> It does seem to me that we had discussion on this before and when the purchase was made that the seller was interested in having these people be able to continue to live there >> very much >> because they had a relationship going which kind of set the price a little bit more affordable. Well, the other the other thing is that eventually I would assume the city has a use for it or wouldn't have been buying it. And if you did go to some type of taking, >> it's going to be considerably more expensive. So, I wouldn't expect that we should have to have these people pay for the property from the standpoint that if it was necessary to have it in the city, it was going to cost a lot more later if indeed you had to go through a condemnation or something. >> We wouldn't because it was economic development. >> So this was economic development more than right away or whatever. >> Okay. I'm sorry. >> Yes. Misunderstood. >> But but the point but you are correct. It was made clear through our informal discussions and purchase that we were approached as the city because we were we were not going to do what we discussed would happen if the private investor bought it. they were confident that we would do it and the family who could have quickly turned it was very patient if you recall us going through the process so they were accommodating with specific intent at the city and I believe there's two purpos for that they the city acquired those properties they would be would be to the benefit of the city as a whole and they would likely turn into apartment properties over time would be much less and that would probably just see that happen. And I think that was reflected in the fact that they had a very fair offer on the properties. We felt it was very reasonable within the market price. So just in round numbers, my sense would be that we're covering at least the interest cost and the loss of property tax on this that we would have. maybe not reducing the principal having what they're but at least covering the city's cost of which are really the interest and the loss taxes from the standpoint that they're they're maintaining them. So, um, because I always look for justification because I I think we we do have to watch ourselves that it's nice to be benevolent, but by the same token, it's taxpayer money. But I I I think we can make the case easily that the cost of carrying this is really the interest and the foregone taxes, which probably are in the vicinity of what we're talking about, just ballparking it. >> Rene's pulling I can she read in your mind she's pulling up the amortization table right now. I'm trying. >> Sorry. >> Yeah. The uh the interest payment is, you know, roughly seven00 a month. Seven between seven and 800. And what's our insurance? >> 55575. >> So $800 to $900 a month is our would be our cost for the items that Bob's identified. >> Which is a way of saying I'm fine with that too. I just I I do think >> towards that even I mean if if we did want to close that gap a little bit if there is if it's under slightly I mean then it would be reasonable. And and I guess I would suggest that we have small incremental increases just because we should and I think the tenants should be used to that because everybody else would be kind of in the same boat. But we're still then adhering >> to the reason we got this >> for somewhat of a reduced price >> because a previous owner was trusting us to >> treat it as they wished and that's why they gave it to us less expensively than we probably would have had to or certainly would have to if we went out later. So, thank you. >> So, if we go up the 5%, you're talking $40, >> correct? So, if you did even like a 3% within a few years, you would make up the difference and then also be able to keep up with, let's say, your increases in insurance and some of those other items. >> Do we do do we not think that they would be okay with a $40 increase? >> We don't know >> for sure. >> One of the tenants I and I'm kind of going through a little bit of telephone from the real estate agent. I think one of the tenants wouldn't have a concern about it. One may >> well and I mean and I guess I I get back to the I'm trying to depersonalize this as much as I can too. So not not thinking about the details of who's living there andor personalitywise or whatever. >> I mean so can we justify whatever this rent should be at least now and then again I think it's a completely different discussion if they decide to move out or or whatever then >> then then we have full freedom to to make some changes. It's also important to note that if if the increase is too much and it's not well defined when we met with our uh the rightway or the relocation benefits company, we hired a relocation benefits company to help us understand and meet with the tenants on this. If we increased it too much to a point of displacing them, we would be responsible for relocation benefits, which could be substantial. >> That's right. >> I don't think the increments that you're talking about would even come close to that. But if it was um something that was shown in the table like doubling their rent that that could trigger that. >> And do do you have any recommendation on on when to start this? is typically at the end of a calendar year kind of thing or we I mean and obviously in moving forward it can be if we say it's effective May 1st or June 1st or whatever it'll be that June we can >> our our anticipated process is that after it's a monthto month that they have now they know this is coming at some point and quite honestly they're probably going we haven't heard anything why haven't we heard anything so I >> why don't say anything >> yeah which is >> so I think after we get direction from you I we would draft the lease we would meet with the tenants go to go over it with them. One of the things that we would point out um because they may not realize it themselves that if it wasn't the city they because a new buyer is not obligated as we are to have a limit on how much the rent increases that this is realistically you'd be paying at least this much. So your rent is being subsidized. also explained that they had the benefit of having that rent because those properties were probably bought and paid for a long time ago. And so the previous owner could afford to do that in a way that any new buyer except for us would not be able to do that. And I think we would explain this is what this this is what the EDA has directed and based on the discussion I'm here I think it's a very objectively easy case to lay out that this is still a hell of a sweet deal for you. Um um I think the question what I'm hearing and I'm just to move the discussion. It sounds like there seems to be support for starting with the rent that they're currently paying, but there's some discussion about whether or not there would be like some sort of an inflationary adjustment going forward and what that should be. Is that a fair statement? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> So, um 5% is $40. Um, we know if we go with the logic that Bob laid out, um, we're maybe $100 below what those non-principal carrying costs would be on an annual basis, not including, hey, we have to replace a roof, we have to redo the windows, or we have to replace um, the furnace or something like that. U, but the roofs are in reasonably good condition. the major HVAC and plumbing items were reasonably in decent condition and new newish. So that's not likely to happen ex of a catastrophic incident. >> And unlike another investor who has a pot of money and he has to have sitting capital if something breaks we would have we could go and replace it and then decide about future rent adjustments. Um what about term? So you if we were to do an inflationary adjustment undecided yet, is it every year going forward? Is it for x number of years? Is there a certain time we want to set the leases through here that gives us the ability to revisit the terms um at some point in the future? Uh any feedback on that? >> Aren't most leases a year? >> Yeah, I think you do it for a year >> at least for sure to review set that. So we could set it at a year and then it renews month >> by month to month until we >> That's typ new lease every year. >> New lease every year. Well, I'd like to I personally just because uh I'd like it to revert to a monthto-month with you know just so we're covered >> but that every year on X date it increases by >> in case it gets missed by staff turnover or something. >> So it runs for a year and then it goes monthto month until we review it >> and then it goes back to year. We review it every year, but in the event it doesn't get reviewed, it's still >> it allows it to >> keep it a month to month, but we review it month. >> So, we could re we could put a new one in or >> so. Typically, you'd you do a one-year lease and the automatic language is if it's not renewed, you continue on a month-to-month basis unless the city decides we're going to renew that lease for another year with whatever terms you decide. So, that would be pretty standard. >> Okay. the month the month also gives them the flexibility that they can be done in a in a month as well. Um >> I assume the lease would have some out terms anyway to like I mean if they sign the one-year lease let's say in 60 days the lottery and want to move out they can provide a whatever day notice of terming their lease. We could certainly include that they would have the right to vacate prior to that one-year term >> with a proper notice and health considerations. >> That's always >> and before I mean I would say too I mean and by the time we work through this process there will be probably notice uh but to build in some notice too. I mean, $40 may not sound like a lot, but for some on a fixed income, blah, blah, blah. And again, we know what their income is, but I'm trying to like think into the future, too. >> Well, I'm what I would suggest is that we're already this far into the year that any percentage increase would potentially effective January 1 of >> next year, >> January 1. >> So, it's the same all year for >> So, I'm seeing a lot of positive body language with some of the concepts that are being discussed. >> What annual rate adjustment would you or lease adjustment on the rent would you want to do? Well, is it something that we have to set or is it something at that review time we review because it when things could have gone sideways in the market and in the economy and then we leave it open or is it to set it at this with the possibility of raising it or lowering it um in case I guess I don't know what the recommendation >> I think for the first one you have to set something so they know what they're up against starting in January. I agree with you. >> So like X percentage but then have the caveat of if there's like drastic market changes or >> and again once it's monthtomonth we can bring in a new lease at any time but it also provides a certain set it and forget it element to it >> but I think we're doing a year lease and then once that year is up then it becomes monthtomonth >> correct but I believe we can also structure it that we also say annually it increases by 3%. So we could leave it at monthtomonth perpetually if we wanted to if we wanted to set it and forget it. The monthtomonth allows us to come back and change the overall terms of the lease if we wanted to do so for something major like Josh was talking about >> because like 5% of 800 is obviously not a huge increase but as their rent increase 5% becomes >> more. Y >> I would just add being the lone in the room is that I'd be pretty happy with 5%. Like it goes up a couple hundred for me. A year 100 or two a year for me. >> Easy, >> especially these last few years. >> Yeah, it's been about 5% is it doesn't sound like a lot. >> Can we say something like up to 5%. So then like if we decide >> 5%. >> I just don't like boxing. Yeah, we if we want it to be 10% one year because of whatever, >> but once we're monthtomonth, right, >> we can come back and bring a lease back. >> I mean, if we have a horrible year and we know in 2027, we're going to have to replace the furnace and the roof or whatever, right? Then maybe or 2028, say 2028, we know we're going to have to do that. Then maybe we're going to have to up it a little bit more to help offset the cost of the new furnace. I I don't know. But >> lease terms could also put some sort of on the >> right >> renter as well if we wanted to do that. Like I don't necessarily want to say you're responsible for replacing your furnace because that's a giant >> that's a huge but like >> reasonably from what we understand it's worked is they've taken care of all normal type of maintenance. They paint the walls, they do all the minor repairs. Um I think I agree with Renee that we would be responsible for major >> um systems repair structural roof that type of stuff. They >> rationale for that is that they're one year or monthtomonth they're not going to get the benefit of that brand new HVAC system or furnace. So it's really almost always the uh landlord that pays for those. So, you said earlier, Renee, you know, one of the homes would be okay with the $40 a month. You don't know about the other home. >> Yeah. And it was only a comment from the real estate agent who had been dealing with the tenants. I and again to go to Josh's point, taking the personalities out of it. Um the I I and again I'm not advocating for it, but what you are discussing in by any objective standard is a very generous lease situation. >> Well, and I think we have to like Bob, go ahead. >> Oh, no. I'm sorry. I just >> Sorry. Just cl uh just a clarification. So we're looking at the rent continues the same until December 31st of this year. >> Correct. >> And then at some point there'd be an escalator next year at some percentage. >> Y >> um well to move it I I'll I'll make a motion that we go the same until December 31st and then would have a 4% increase January 1st on a monthto month knowing that if indeed it had to be adjusted it could. But I tend to agree that uh it's a pretty decent rental amount and to find those facilities for anything less would be really difficult. And I think we're still honoring >> the the the intent of the seller in giving them a really good deal because this is probably no worse than half price >> of what would be. Uh so and I think it's also re them recognizing the fairness of this and that they're being treated well because sometimes if you're um too good about things, people don't recognize the value that they're getting recognize the value that they're getting that they're taking care of it. But I I also think that it's important that they appreciate that the city is being pretty decent with the rent. So, you want to do 4%, not 5%. >> We'll keep it at 800. >> I'm I'm writing writing this down as we're going. So, >> I was gathering that the conversation was going between three and 5%. So, split it at four. >> Four. >> And quite honestly, as far as the city is concerned, >> it's so immaterial >> that it really doesn't matter. Um, so it seems fair to them and >> so what I heard >> was you made a motion to leave the rent at $800 a month >> on December 31st. Add 4% annually or revisit. Is that correct? >> Well, it would be 4% in lease >> for one for one year. >> For one year. >> Okay. >> Would you want to put in an annual escalator in case the monthtomonth goes past the end of that second year? My assumption from the motion then would be that on the January rent would go up from by 4%. So if it was $800, >> yep, >> it would be $832. >> Future future annuals. Then after that, >> still writing it down. >> Right. >> Still writing this down. So >> well, I was >> It's hard unless you're doing an a lease of multiple terms. >> It's one year lease. So, >> might as well just do a one-year le uh say a fiveyear lease and it will increase by x percentage each year and they have the ability to terminate at any time. That doesn't give you the ability to terminate >> and I think Rene >> I mean if you're going to I I think if you are going to say but every year it's going to go up that's more than just a one-year lease, >> right? >> You can't I don't think you can do that. I think you have to keep it at a one-year lease 4% and then we revisit and if we keep it at 4% for 2028 we keep it at four%. >> So just know then that we would need to come back to this body on an annual basis for this discussion. >> So or to Andrea's point if we did a 5year lease with a 4% >> but then that doesn't allow us to get out of the lease if we had to for any reason. >> You could put a put something in there that we can get out. >> We can let them get out >> and then >> you just say that either I mean I'm assuming unless there's something in statute that you can say either party may terminate this lease with x amount of notice. >> Sure. If you want to do it that way. >> That way it's firm. We can set it. We It's clear what the rent would be to them in the future so they can plan for it. anything that we would do with the property isn't going to be like, oh, it's happening in the next 60 in the next 60 days. >> So, you can see on the spreadsheet the increases. >> There goes your There goes your motion. >> Yeah, there's still a motion on the floor here. >> Well, and and the reason I thought we were talking about a one year, I agree. >> So, now we're a fiveyear. >> Now, we're talking about a fiveyear. >> Am I keeping up? And we're at five. Bob could withdraw his motion and restate it. >> I could just buy it, too. >> I don't have strong feelings. >> So, now we're at a five-year lease, >> correct? >> I I I don't think we've discussed it yet. >> I mean, is there appetite for that? Does that make sense to people or do we want to revisit this? >> And do they want to sign a five-year lease? >> Revisit revisit it every year. >> I would too. >> I would rather revisit every year. >> Bob's motion stands. >> No. >> Well, here's what I got right now. So, a motion to leave the rent at $800 a month and on December 31st add 4% annually with an annual escalator of 4%. >> But would by >> No, it just be one 4% and then it would go month to month lease >> and and again just looking at this I mean at a certain point we start to tip. Um, so now I mean again that's not I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but as they start keep paying more, we keep paying more of the principal off and so the interest continues to go down on our payment schedule. So like there may be a time where we don't want to increase or don't need to increase uh because we're are already make making more or at least covering some of the principle then at a certain point and I don't know how long it'll be but I mean >> that's why it's good to look at it. I think it's good to revisit it more often. >> I think it's good to just do a one-year lease. So, I will second the motion for Bob. >> We're not I'm not clear what the motion is. >> Okay. >> This is what staff understands it to be. >> Bob, that's why I'm writing this down. >> Motion would be that the rent will be $800 per month until 123126. >> Correct. >> Starting January 1st of 2027, rent would go up by 4%. >> Yes. >> Y >> and then be month to month >> and then monthto month >> and well either that or >> the end of the month to month thing keeps confusing. So we are we are one year lease through 2027. I interrupted you again. Sorry. >> So we would re review it again >> prior to January of 2028. We'd >> re Well, but that's more than a year. >> It was a year and a half. Yeah. So we do a year and a half lease. >> Well, so what happens if we don't get to it and it gets forgotten? They they don't have a lease. >> Yeah. Then they would be put in the lease, but they would be month to month after the one year term >> with no escalator >> until we put no escalator. >> I guess if we don't do our job then yes, >> they usable. >> We have to put our calendar on in November that we have to revisit this lease so that it's ready to go by January. or 2028. >> So in stating it this way, the lease would then terminate 123127. >> Yes. >> So we're actually giving them a year and a half lease. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> So it's 800 until 123126. It goes up 4% terminates on or >> 1231. >> It ends on 123127 and then >> month. >> You might I you word it monthtomonth after that. >> Yeah. >> And maybe we don't even have to do them monthtomonth because we've got our ducks in a row and we're ready to present them with another one before. That would be the ideal, >> right? >> And then >> they've moved out. >> They've moved out and we have a motion in a second, but I'm still not there. I got it. >> We got it. >> What are your What are your questions? >> So, it's 18 months. >> Well, it'll be% >> We have to use dates because it'll depend on when we get this ready to go. >> So, it'll be >> Yeah. Someone's got to figure this out. >> $800 till 20 end of 2026. >> January 1, 2027, it will go to $832. That's all you need to know >> for a year till 2020 and 1231 2027 where we do a new lease with them. >> Everybody's clear on this. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> I was going to just say every October because we only have four regular EDA meetings every year. October being the last one of every year is probably >> Well, I just shot out a day. >> No, I know. I know that. But bring it to us in the summer, then we know that it's ready to the package is ready to go. Gives Andrea time to draft it, blah blah blah. >> But Brandon will put it on his on his calendar as a >> every October. This will we'll have this discussion every October 23rd like whenever it is. >> No, make it earlier than that because you'd have to approve the lease at the October meeting. So the sec so the second to last meeting we talked about it the last meeting in October we approved it >> and then that'll give time for whatever's in the lease as far as notice goes of rent increases uh that kind of thing because we'll want to give them notice of what it'll be that next January >> we don't have a rental license in the city right >> no >> you voted that down >> I was I was going to say we voted that down >> first did I hear you recommend that we should do that >> I did not But we'll be able to test it out on us since we, you know, and we can see what we like or don't like about a rental license. >> Um, I have nothing. >> Oh, I miss maybe quick upcoming uh what's upcoming. And Brandon, correct me if I'm wrong. So our next meeting that we will have will be at the end of April. >> Yep. >> And at that meeting we will have our industrial commercial non- retail commercial panel. Uh that will be an hour and a half meeting. We'll be asking the council to move back the council meeting that night to 7:30 start time. Then for May, we're working on our retail commercial panel. And then as we get into June, July, we will be looking at our housing panels. So those are that's our lineup for the next several meetings. >> Will they all be an hour and a half or is it just the first one is an hour and a half? I will like if it depends on the size of the panel and we'll also see how com how uh chatty you guys are at the end of those panels but we would tentatively plan for an hour and a half. >> Do you need a motion or anything to Okay. >> No, when we get to council, we'll need direct we'll need approval to change the meeting time for the council meeting. >> Okay. All right. I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. All >> in favor?