All right, I hereby call this meeting to order. This is the Code Enforcement Special Magistrate for the City of Delray Beach. Cases will be heard in the order in which they appear on the agenda. When you hear your case heard, go ahead and proceed to the podium on my left-hand side, which is over here, which is right over here. The City will put on its testimony and evidence first. You'll have an opportunity to review any testimony and evidence that the City has presented and ask questions of any of the City's witnesses, after which time you can present your own testimony and evidence, and then I will make a decision. This is a quasi-judicial hearing, which means the formal rules of evidence do not apply here. However, all testimony is taken under oath, under penalty of perjury. So I'd ask if you were going to testify today, or you think you might testify, or even if there's a possibility that you might testify, that you rise and raise your right hand so you can be sworn in. By the authority vested in me as a notary of the State of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Please be seated. Do we have any minutes to approve? No minutes. No minutes. Good. Consent agenda. Requesting approval for the consent agenda as written. I hereby approve it. Thank you. Any changes to our current agenda? Yes. We have cases that are closed and postponed. Case number one, 25-000-435. The property owner is Louise G. Rafferty and Patricia L. Smith. Property address is 14704 Elmhurst Drive. The code officer is Chantel Jean-Baptiste. Good afternoon. Chantel Jean-Baptiste, code enforcement officer for the City of Derry Beach. Hold on one second, officer. Is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent in this case? Louis G. Rafferty, Patricia Smith. I'm sorry, officer. Please go ahead. On December 5th, 2025, a notice of violation was issued for property 14704 Elmhurst Drive for 7.1.4 Subsection C, Subsection 1, Subsection A, maintenance of building. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail on December 17th, 2025. In addition, both the property and city hall were posted on December 17th, 2025. An affidavit of posting is attached in the case. I have had contact with the property owner this morning, which she stated she would have someone to come in compliance by pressure cleaning and painting the exterior walls. Contact owner name. Contact owner of property case is code 250-0435. Case address is 14704 Elmhurst Drive. Owner of property is Patricia L. Smith and Louise. The property was cited for 7.1.4 Subsection C, Subsection 1, Subsection A, and it's for painting of the exterior. As of January 14th, 2026, the property has not came into compliance. I have six photos of the property of this case I would like to introduce as evidence. Exhibit 1 is when I took the first photo. I had received a citizen complaint that exterior walls are chipped and need paint. This is the first photo. Exhibit 2. And going back, these photos are from December 3rd? December 3rd, 2025. Thank you. Exhibit 2. I took a second photo. I took a step back to show the full property, showing that there's the property in need of pressure cleaning and painting. Exhibit 3. On December 17th, 2025, I've posted onto property. Exhibit 4 is the affidavit of posting, which I posted on property on December 17th, 2025. Exhibit 5 was my last re-inspection on January 14th, 2026. Exhibit 6 is the first affidavit of non-compliance for January 14th, 2026. These are my six photos as evidence. If we can enter those, we move to enter those into evidence, please. I'll accept those photos into evidence. This is Exhibit 1 through 5. What is your recommendation? The recommendation is 14 days to come in compliance, or $50 until in compliance achieved. Officer, you said you've had contact with the respondent in this case? Yes, this morning. Did she represent that 14 days would be enough time for her to accomplish this? Yes. She said she'll have someone by the name of Allen to pressure clean and paint the property. Okay. Case 2500453, I make applying findings of fact in life. I notice it's sufficient. I found the property in violation of 7.1.4 C1A. Specifically, the property needs to be cleaned and painted. Respondent has 14 days to come in compliance, or a fine of up to $50 per day may issue. All business, cases 2 and 3. Case number 2, 2025-003-887. The property owner is 400 West Atlantic, LLC. The registered agent is Lawrence I. Blair. Property address is 400 West Atlantic Avenue. Code officer is Connor Lee. All right. Good afternoon, magistrate. This case was originally found in violation on June 18, 2025 for an unparalleled structure erected on the property. They were given 30 days to initiate the permit approval process and 60 days to obtain the approved permit application or $150 daily fine. The case was presented to special magistrate on January 7, 2026 and was set for a rehearing 30 days and with a pause of the daily fine. The case came into compliance January 13, 2026. I have included one photo from the original case and two new photos that show the property is in compliance. This is Exhibit 1, where it shows the affidavit of compliance for the 13th day of January. And then this is Exhibit 2, just showing that the tent had been removed on January 13, 2026. There is an accrued fine of $21,300, and the owner is here requesting for a reduction of the fine. And the city suggests... We're going to wait for the owner. How many days out of compliance was this property? Or you can tell us the time frame. Oh, June 18th to January 13th. And so it was over six months. And compliance was simply the removal of the tent? Yes, removal of the tent or get it properly approved. It wasn't approved by the compliance date, and so it was brought in for a lien hearing on January 7, 2026. And then that is where the special magistrate ordered to have a rehearing for 30 days and to pause the daily fines because the property owner had initiated an eviction process. I guess that was me. I mean, the property owner is here. Maybe he can refresh your memory on the circumstance. I'm James Thomas. Go ahead, Mr. Thomas. I want to thank Connor and Mr. Thompson for reminding me. I had not been informed by my tenant. Oh, well, I was informed, but lies that it had been approved. It had been approved. Never would I have allowed it. But we were just about to put a lien on my property. And when I was notified the day before the last hearing, I've been working on a project in Valdosta, Georgia. And so I jumped on 75, got in, and came. And thank you so much for stopping the daily cost. My tenant is three months behind in rent. I'm asking. I'm probably going to have to eat the fine myself, me and my family. I'm just at the mercy of the court right now. But I do thank Mr. Connor. And the day that I was here, I promised them that I would have it done that Sunday or Monday. And it was done that Monday. I contacted the tent company who has business here with the city. She also expressed that she was owed funds as well, but she would remove it. At about 2 o'clock on Monday afternoon, we removed the tent after all that time. But I had no knowledge that for six months almost or whatever, that there was an accruing $100 or $150 a day on that. So now probably we'll lose the rent and the cost of eviction and whatever you decide that the reduction is. It's your petition, sir. What are you asking me to do? I'm asking you to. Well, we have not because we asked not. I did not know. I don't know if Your Honor could not just reduce it. I would love to eliminate that. But there's another that's coming up that I didn't know about either, dealing with some signs. He told me he had removed the sign, but he removed one of two or three. Yeah. It's a tenant that is, as much as I try to help those who look like me to have a business on Atlantic Avenue, this is not the first time. This is the second time that I'm getting burnt. First time I lost over half a million dollars. And this time. Sorry to hear that. Yeah. That's a lot of money. But it happened. Believe me. Trust me. It's a lot of money. So on this one, I can't go that far. So with the three months rent that he owes, I'm going to, as a matter of fact, when I leave here, I have a meeting at 2.30 with another person that is interested in the property. So I'm leaving here to do that. So whatever you would see fit in doing, sir, would be much appreciated. What's the city's recommendation here? The city suggests a reduction to 25% of the total accrued fines with a maximum amount of $5,325 to be paid. I actually think that's pretty generous by the city. That's, uh, you walked in here with $21,000. You walk out of here with $5,325. I'll knock it off a little bit more to $5,000 even. How much time do you need? Um, do you give me 30 days? I'll give you that. I'll give you more if you need it. 30 days would, uh, would, uh. I'll give you 60, just in case. Fantastic. All right, in case 250-03-887, I'm going to reduce the fine from $21,300 to $5,000 payable within 60 days. Do keep in mind, sir, if it does not get paid by that time, it does return to the original amount. I appreciate that. Thank you so very much, and thank you. We have the other case. Case number three. All right, one more. Signs. 20-25-00-4957. The owner is 400 West Atlantic, LLC. Registered agent is also Lawrence I. Blair. The property address, however, is 404 West Atlantic Avenue, and the code officer on this case is Connor Lee. Good afternoon again, magistrate. Um, this case was originally issued by a past Clean and Safe officer, and the property was originally found in violation on October 9th, 2025, for four banners installed on the property without proper permitting. And they were given five days to correct all the violations or a $400 daily fine. Uh, I have included one photo from the original case. This is it, and then two new photos that show the property is in compliance. I conducted the re-inspection on December 9th, 2025, and that is the affidavit showing the date with the case number. And then this is a photo just showing that there were no banners left in front of the property. Is this an adjacent property? No, it's the same one. It's the same property. So, if you look at it, um, this was the tent. Go back one photo. Okay. So, if you kind of look at it, to the left is, like, the side building, and this was the tent that was there before. And then the signs, there was some, the sign was there. And then, so, from the last case, if you recall, now all of that is gone. There's no tent. It just looks like some chairs outside. Yeah, and so, the, this re-inspection was conducted before the tent was removed on, on December 9th, the day I put in compliance. This looks like it was a code board order? Um, yes. So, what we would ask, it was a code board order. I believe we are, um, we're not proceeding with code board at this time, but we would ask the respondent, you know, just, just so he's aware that we're only proceeding with our special magistrate to hear code enforcement cases at this time. So, this is why we brought this back before the special magistrate. What's the, the, I'm sorry, I interrupted your presentation. Please go ahead. You're fine. Um, there is an accrued fine for the amount of $20,000, and the owner is here to ask for a reduction. Would you like my suggestion, or would you like to hear about it? Well, let me hear from the respondent. As, as I mentioned on the past. Let me guess, same tenant, same problems, right? Well, believe it or not, same tenant, same problem, same, as a matter of fact, this is my fourth appearance. I came with him, uh, two times when, I think it first happened, and, um, I've been out of state since May 2nd, uh, of last year. I'm working, I'm in radio. Yeah, I mean, it's, it's an unfortunate truth that the way that code, I mean, whether it's, eh, unfortunate might be not the right word, but it is the truth of the way that, that code enforcement works, that it's ultimately the owner of the property that's held responsible. Even if, uh, you know, even if you have, if you lease the property to someone else, it's still your property, and the, the codes follow ownership. So, then, you know, the, yeah, believe me, um, I, I wish it wasn't that way, because I don't license him to do business, you know, but the brunt does fall on, it falls on the owner. He's licensed by the city to do business, and the enforcement of him, uh, being able to continue to do business, not pay rent, not pay fines, you know, uh, but that's just, that's just the way it is. Yeah, it's, yeah, I mean, maybe not the most efficient system, but that's the one we all have to look at. That's, yeah, that's where we are, so, um, again. It's not unique to Delray, that's just how the law works. Oh, no, no, I, I, believe me, uh, I find the same thing in Dade County, I find the same thing in Georgia, uh, pendings and all of that, so. The city's telling me you got 20K on this one, what are you asking me for here? Oh, well, I, uh, again, elimination, because I've got, already, you've given me 5,000 for 60 days, so, um. I mean, I, I'll, you know, since you're, you know, there's not a lot of people waiting, I don't usually take a lot of time for explanation, but it, I'll, I'll give you some, because I think it's important for you to understand. The, the purpose of these is to prevent, you know, at the end of the day is to, to encourage compliance and prevent compliant, you know, people from violating before. For the most part, I, I'm never all that inclined to go for a reduction of fine to zero for a couple of reasons, but the most important one being, I don't want to set a standard or a, uh, uh, an example to the people that might otherwise be watching these things or listening to these things or seeing the transcripts or seeing what I've done in the past and think, well, it doesn't really matter if I comply, I can just come back later and wipe the thing away. Um, so it, and while I, I, I believe everything that you've told me, I, I do, um, I, I'm not generally inclined to wipe these entirely away because I don't want to create that kind of standard for the city. Well, may I ask for 10%? Well, let me see what the city thinks. Um, the city suggests a reduction to 25% of the total accrued fines with the, with the maximum amount of $5,000 to be paid. So what is 25%? $5,000? Well, it's $20,000 would be $4,000. If you're asking what 25% of. Oh, my apologies. Yes. Well, no, four. Yeah. 5, 20 divided by four. Yeah. 5,000. Yeah. 5,000. Yeah, I was right. This is. I've been taking algebra in a while. No one, no one realized we had a math test here today, but, um, but this is what I will. I'm going to reduce it to 20% to give you a little bit of a break because I do appreciate, um, the fact that you clearly have been cooperating with the code to try and get this into compliance. Yes, sir. I will tell you this. Here's my, my warning. I'm a one-time guy, which means that if this stuff comes back again, I tend to have very little mercy in my heart because you know what you should be doing at this point. But I. Believe me. Yeah. Uh, and I have a relationship with Connor now and when there's a problem, I just, I want to be, I want to be notified and not that, uh, just the tenant. And. All right. So I'm going to reduce this to 4,000. I'm going to give you the 60 days on this as well. I appreciate that. Thank you so very much. All right. Case, uh, 20, 25, 0, 0, 4, 9, 5, 7. I'm going to reduce the fine from 20,000 to $4,000 payable within 60 days. If it does not get paid in that time, it returns to the original amount. That's true. I think that's it for us, right? Yes. All right. No further business before us. We are, are you here for a case? Yes. Well, we are not adjourned. Let me, let me see why he's here. It may have resolved. Let's see. A case on our agenda. 0, 0, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1. Yeah, that's in our postponed cases. Postponed, why? Postponed case. I don't want to make this gentleman have to come back. Can the city proceed on this? Sir, why don't you come up for a second? So this is, this is where we are. Please, please. So we requested to, um, we requested to postpone this because, um, I guess based on the, the notice provided or the posting to the property, um, Miss, I was told that Miss, Miss Thompson posted it a little bit later than she anticipated. So we want to give the respondent more time to appear and to present his case. Sir, can you tell me your name? Uh, my name's Tom Beck. Mr. Beck, I'm going to give you the options since you're the one that came down here. Um, the city made the, with the mistake, well, I don't know, technically it's a mistake, but in an abundance of caution because they posted late, they postponed the case, which means that they were going to reset it for another date. But since you came down here, it's up to you. If you want to waive the, the issue of the posting and proceed, we can proceed. If you'd like to, to do what the city wanted to do to begin with and just re-notice this and do it later, we can do either one, whatever you want. I, um, I'm good with, yeah. Okay, if we may have about five or so minutes to get the code enforcement officer present. Yeah, I can, I can, let's take, uh, let's take five and we'll, uh, we'll take a temporary break and we'll be back in five. Thank you. If you can call the case and swear her in, thank you. Yes. I think he was here. You were here to be smart. No, she was, no, she, the code enforcement officer. By the authority invested in me as a notary of the state of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I affirm. Can we call the case number? Code 25-000-441. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Code Officer Latoya Thompson with the City of Delray Beach. We're here regarding a tree removal slash overpruning tree at, um, address 240 Southeast 4th Avenue. On December 10th, I received a phone call from a, um, resident that was in the area stating that there is a, uh, tree being removed at set property. Uh, Supervisor Cartwright and I went out and we seen the company, I believe they're called Tiptoe or, uh, tree company. They were removing the tree and we explained to them that they needed permits and, um, to remove the tree. And they overpruned the tree, but their whole thing was removing the tree. Um, I, I issued a notice of violation. Um, can't remember the date. The first one went out, but I did issue a notice of violation and spoke with the property owner when he received it. He said that because he thought that removing a tree and placing the tree was okay. Um, and I told him, no, he would have to speak to landscape. You can't just remove a tree and replace it. You would have to come get a permit for it. Um, I didn't post the property on time, even though I wrote a notice. It was mailed out before I posted the property. I didn't post it on time, so I asked for it to be moved back. Um, and I reposted the property on January 15th with a new hearing date for February 5th. Um, I spoke with Thomas Story, who was in landscape, and we did look up that Mr. Beck did apply for a permit on January 13th, but it was just in the process. Uh, the posting was done, the second, the posting was done on January 15th, and the affidavit was also done for the 15th, for the new hearing date. It was supposed to be for the 22nd, but I didn't post on time, so I moved it to the February 5th. Okay, thank you. So, for clarification, the original date of the violation was December 10th, correct? Yes, ma'am. And at that time, he was giving time to come into compliance? Yes, ma'am. And the compliance date was, one moment. The compliance date was January 15th? Yes, ma'am. And at the time when you went to check the compliance, although the property owner had contacted the city and applied for a permit? Yeah, he applied. He called prior to, but what happened was the mailing went out and I didn't post the property on time. No, I mean as far as coming into compliance. Oh, coming into compliance, yes. He called on January 13th is when the application was submitted for him to start the process. But a part of the approval, the part of the compliance was to get an approved permit. Yes, an approved permit. Yes, ma'am. All right. So, you took some photographs. What's the status of the permit? The status right now, I believe, is in review. They just. Still pending. Yeah, it's still pending. It goes through different. Can I speak? Hold on one second. Just, I've got to let them finish and then I promise I'll let you tell me anything longer than that. So, we do have some photographs of this, correct? Yes, ma'am. May I approach? Just want to show. Sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Dr. Newman's Thompson, a national answer seriously marked the city's exhibits one through seven for identification purposes. Do you recognize those photographs? Yes, ma'am. And do you recognize those to be the initial date on December 10th that you recognize the violation? Yes, ma'am. And is it a fair and accurate representation of what you observe? Yes, ma'am. Now, can you just go through them there and there marked on the back as far as the numbers? Can you just go through the photo and explain what each photograph is? This photograph here, which is exhibit one, is the company Tiptoe Tree Services, Tiptoe Tree Services, removing, excuse me, removing the said tree that was now making the property in violation. Exhibit two. Exhibit two is just the tree, leftover debris from cutting. Exhibit three. Exhibit three is the tree that they hacked and getting ready to remove. Four. Exhibit four is the address to the property. The property, exhibit five. Exhibit five is the company's truck, tiptoe. Top. Tip top. Exhibit six. Exhibit six is just another wide angle of them cutting the trees in the property. Exhibit seven. Same picture of them cutting the trees in the property. That you posted the property. This is the date after. The new posting. The new posting. On January 15th. Yes. Correct. And then this is the affidavit that I posted the property on January 15th. So you previously provided, that was it, you previously provided a testimony who posted the property for compliance on January 15th. No, I missed the posting. It was mailed out. I didn't post the property. So you previously mailed. Yes. And notice is an issue because, from what I recall, if we want to get it back on the record, the homeowner waived notice previously on the record. Is that correct? That's my understanding. Okay. So, but in any event, you mailed it, you wanted to visit, depost it, but you didn't make it at the time. Yes, ma'am. But on that, in the original notice that was mailed, there was a compliance date of January 15th, correct? It was the compliance date, yes, around that time. Correct, and then when you checked, it wasn't there, so you re-noticed it to provide the time for the whole room. Yeah, so I can do proper due process. I think I already did. Sir, do you have any objection to these photos? No. All right, I'll admit these as city exhibits. So is our understanding that the status of the permit is the applied, but it's still pending, correct? Yes, ma'am. All right, thank you. Nothing further from the city. All right, sir, you are up. Okay, so first off, everything's accurate so far. And by the way, I don't mind being here today. I'd rather be here today than later. So the tree, when we first, five years ago when the house was being built, we specifically kept a tree. I thought it was an oak tree, which will be important in a moment. It was pretty close to the house, but we liked it. But as it turned out, being close to the house became a problem because it started, you know, some of the branches, it started, you know, getting, well, touching the house and pushing against it. And it's also, it's not an oak tree. It's a mango tree. And my wife is allergic to mangoes, as we, we knew that already, but we didn't know it was a mango tree. So anyway, so recently the, the, we had it trimmed back about a year or so ago and it was, it was really coming back even more. And I asked tip top tree services, I said, Hey, I said, come back. I said, you know, cut it back, you know, a good amount because we just, I just can't, I can't have a touch in the house. And so when he came back, you know, he cut it back a lot. That's probably the, I guess, the hacking that I think you, I mean, I don't know trees that well. But anyway, they, they said, Hey, they, they thought they saw some decay and they said, look, they said, you know, we can take this down. And I, you know, of course my wife was all for it because she hated the tree anyway. But I think she's literally, and I have, by the way, I have a thing stating her allergy to mango. So, and I thought my, my original understanding when we, when we had the house built was we needed a certain amount of trees on the property. And that, and that's where I came to the, or I had my mistaken understanding was, well, if we take this tree down, we put up another live oak. Cause there's a arborist in the neighborhood said, oh, live oaks are, you know, it's indigenous to Florida. It'd be the better tree anyway. Um, so we told, uh, treetop, we said, look, take it down and, and bring a new tree, which they did. And I have a pictures of the new tree. It's like a 25 foot or so live oak. Um, so when I, when I saw the letter, um, with the date of today, uh, it was at the end of December. Um, the tree was already in place that, or the new tree was already swapped out. Um, and I called Ms. Thompson and she said, well, you still need a permit. So I applied for the permit and then a little bit, it was actually pretty quickly. They did turn around pretty quickly. They said I needed a builders and owners affidavit, um, which actually took me a little bit to get. Um, and that went in a day or two ago. So it's, it's in back in the process. But anyway, um, so that's the background behind what happened. We, we did swap a tree out. We did do it without getting the permit beforehand. I'm trying to get the permit now. Um, it's my understanding that at least from a arborist perspective, anyway, and I say arborist, that it's probably a better tree anyway, but that doesn't negate the fact that I didn't get a permit. I'm not an arborist. I mean, I mean, it seems to me the issue here is, is not that you wanted to replace your tree. Cause I'm going to presume that's a reasonable reason to want to replace your tree. You just have to do, you know, the city has tree removal permits for any number of reasons, including to prevent somebody from cutting lines when they move a tree out. And I mean, it, and well, it doesn't even really matter why the city has the rules they have. They just have the rules they have, right? Yeah. Um, what is the city asking for you? The city is asking, um, that the property owner apply and obtain an approved issue permit within 30 days or a $50 fine until compliance is achieved. Any reason to think that this can't be done in 30 days? It just, it could be done before, but just to give them that wiggle room, you know, you never know. I'm not on the building side of it. I'm just on. But from our understanding, based on where we are, it doesn't appear that there's an issue. It seems like he, he just stated that he provided whatever the city was requesting. I think it just has to then go through our, our development services team regarding trees. Yeah. Cause he would have to speak to Thomas and or David regarding on what to, what is approved to be requested. Yeah. Just in an abundance of caution, I'm going to make it 45 days, but do try to expedite it as much as this is possible. I will respond to whatever message I get. Sometimes trees can be a little bit tricky because, you know, the replacement has to be approved and the arborist has to take a look at it. And those, those things can sometimes take time. I suspect in this case, it probably won't, but just out of, out of an abundance of caution, I'm going to make it 45 just to make sure that you, you know, if everything is going on a few days, isn't going to make a difference for us. All right. If it matters, I have pictures of the new tree and my wife's allergy. So I don't know if that matters. Yeah. Ultimately, it doesn't matter to me. I can't approve the tree. Right. No, I'm just saying just for this. No, I believe, I believe everything you told me. And, and, uh, you know, I, I'm, I'm, I'm hopeful that, that, that the resolution for this will be, uh, will be soon. But, uh, that's what I'll do in this case. Uh, I'm going to, uh, write the case number now. 25. 4-4-1. 0-0-0-4-4-1. All right. In 25-0-0-0-4-4-1, I'm going to make the following findings of fact and law. I find, uh, notice has been agreed upon and waived by both parties. I hereby, uh, uh, find the respondent is actually in violation of the listed code sections. I give them 45 days to bring the, to bring to compliance by obtaining an approved tree removal permit. Uh, if it's not done within 45s, it can be subject to a fine of up to $50 per day. All right. Good luck. Okay. Thank you. Before we leave, may I bring up a matter that's not on the docket? You're all set. You're, you're. Yes. So, in regards to case number 25-0-0-0-0-3-8, I don't know if you recall, this is the property that's related, um, for 45 Northwest 8th Avenue. It's a tree, it's a tree case. And based on your special magistrate order on the 7th, um, you ordered the, um, property owner to meet with city staff within a certain amount of time or, um, and then we would come back. I don't know if you recall. It was the one where we had that order. I take your word for it. Pardon? Right, but I mean, I'm just trying to refresh remember on the case. It was, it was, like, an interesting case where the code board initially ordered and gave. Oh, yeah. Correct. And then. I believe the, I believe the order was for them to comply with the code board order. Exactly. And then you said, okay, as of January, on, on the day of January 7th, and you executed the order on the 12th, that they had to come into compliance by meeting with code staff in no more than 10 days. So, today is the 10th day. We had some scheduling issues. So, I wanted to ask you if you wanted us to submit an order, um, reflecting that the new compliance date would be, one second. We have a meeting scheduled on the, um, I believe the 29th. So, we're just asking that, um, the compliance date be updated to 20, the 29th. And is that the understanding of the other party as well? Correct. And we, and we've discussed it with them, and I spoke to the director. Yeah, and since we're, we're scheduling the meeting until the 29th. And I'm just, in this hearing, I'm going to orally pronounce it. We're going to extend the, uh, compliance date to the 29th. And I'd ask the staff to, to formalize that in writing. And I'll issue that as an order. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? That's it.