- All right, it's 5 o'clock. I am calling to order the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission meeting
- for Thursday, May 14, 2026. Would staff please call the roll? Rennard Cross? Yes. Jack Baker? John Butler?
- Here. Oh, that's the commissioner. Commissioner Castaneda? Commissioner Duesner? Here. Commissioner
- Duffy? Here. Chair Hacker? Here. Commissioner Golden?
- Commissioner Schlegel. Here. We have quorum. All right. I'd just like to say really quick, welcome back
- to Commissioner Cross. Thank you. Next up, approval of the minutes. Do I have a motion on the minutes?
- I'll move to approve. All right. Commissioner Schlegel has moved to approve the minutes from April 23rd.
- Is there a second? I'll second. Commissioner Duffy has seconded. Any comments? Hearing none, I think
- we're ready for the vote. OK. We've got Treasurer Butler. Yes.
- Commissioner Duesner? Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Chair Hacker? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel?
- Pardon me? Yes. Minutes are approved. Excellent. Next up, we have certificates of appropriateness. We
- have two for staff review. Mr. Stanwyse, please take it away. So our first COA of the evening is certificate
- of appropriateness 2627. Petitioner is Kendall Noak from the City of Bloomington Engineering Department.
- This application is for the replacement of 15 feet at the end of a 110 foot length of WPA limestone
- sidewalk. This is adjacent to a notable rated 1925 Craftsman bungalow. The north side of West Dixie
- Street to the west of Rogers is paved with 110 feet
- of square and octagonal pavers installed by the Works Progress Administration in the 1930s. Overall,
- the sidewalk appears to be in fair condition. The pavers closer to the curb on Rogers appear to be more
- damaged by weeds and traffic. As required for a road servicing project not paid for by federal money,
- which would trigger the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act, the
- City of Bloomington Department of Engineering is requesting to replace the eastern 15 feet of the sidewalk
- with a code
- required curb ramp. In this case, staff approves COA 2627. While the district guidelines from the McDowell
- Historic District do not provide guidance on sidewalks, historic stone and brick sidewalks are generally
- not exempted from review. The ends of the stone sidewalk adjacent to South Rogers
- is somewhat more degraded than the rest of the sidewalk overall. And the proposed ramp installation
- is required as part of the roadway resurfacing project. Thank you. Moving on to our next item. So COA
- 2628 for 213 South Rogers Street, the Frosted Food Building. 213 South Rogers is an individually listed
- historic property. A former factory building, it is served as an auto repair shop, sheet metal workshop,
- and refrigeration company slash slaughterhouse. The building is a limestone facade with picture windows
- and a parapeted, a stepped parapet facing Rogers. Most of the building is brick with large metal gridded
- industrial windows. This application is requesting the installation of a rooftop solar photovoltaic
- PV system on the existing building located at 213 South Rogers. The system will be installed on the
- existing roof and is intended to provide energy for the building's electrical use. You can see it will
- be installed at the southwest corner of the building. The installation will not alter the building's
- footprint. The placement of the panels will be designed to minimize visibility from public rights of
- way where feasible.
- while maximizing solar efficiency. Staff recommends, or sorry, staff approved COA 2628. The proposed
- solar installation would not obscure or damage any historic features on the frosted foods building.
- So I have one COA for your review tonight.
- So next up we have, for commission review, COAs and demolition delays. For each item on the agenda,
- the Historic Preservation Program Manager will first present a staff report. We will then hear if the
- petitioner has any additional information about their request, followed by a public comment. Once public
- comment concludes, commissioners will be able to ask questions to staff, the petitioner, and the public.
- We ask that petitioners, the public, and commissioners refrain from speaking until addressed by the
- chair, unless the question is directly addressed to them.
- Following the commissioner questions, the chair will entertain a motion from a commissioner regarding
- the petition. Once a motion is made, we will then open up a discussion for the item for members of the
- commission only. Finally, once the commissioners have each had a chance to speak up to two times, the
- commission will vote on the petition. We encourage all commissioners, petitioners, and members of the
- public to be civil and respectful at all times. All right, first up is COA 2629. Is the petitioner here?
- You are Thomas? This is for certificate of appropriateness 2629 at 2330 North Fritz Drive in the Matlock
- Heights Historic District. Petitioner is Thomas Yizer. This is a contributing 1957 limestone ranch with
- a large attached garage and picture window. It retains a high degree of integrity.
- Near the end of 2025, the new owner installed solar panels on the roof of the garage at two locations.
- The request is I received it. I would like to apply for retroactive certificate of appropriateness regarding
- my installation of solar panels. On the 20th, October 20th, 2025, I bought the house at 2330 North Fritz
- Drive in Bloomington, Indiana.
- Federal tax credits for the installation of residential solar panels were set to expire at the end of
- 2025. I hired West Biddle of Atomic Electric and Solar to install a grid-tied photovoltaic solar system
- on the house before the end of 2025, so I would qualify for the federal tax credit. On December 12,
- 2025, the solar panel system passed inspection by the Monroe County Building Department.
- I was unaware of the historic preservation program and the requirement to apply for a certificate of
- appropriateness before installing the solar panels. In my 2025 conversations with new neighbors, realtors,
- and tradespeople, it did not come up that this installation would require approval. It was not my intention
- to bypass this requirement. In the future, any plans I have to alter the exterior of my house would
- be proceeded by consulting some combination of the Matlock Heights Neighborhood Association,
- the Matlock Heights historic district guidelines or the historic preservation program manager.
- The recommendation from staff is for the approval of COA 2629. The petitioner in this case contacted
- staff to seek retroactive approval after learning that the house he bought was located in a historic
- district. So this was prior to any other notification of staff that solar panels were installed on this address.
- Having bought the house after 2025 mailers had been sent to the property owners in historic districts
- and before local designation was added to property report cards in the Monroe County ESRI system, he
- was apparently unaware of the home status and was seeking to take advantage of an expiring solar incentive.
- The work, as you will see, meets district guidelines being set on the garage close to the roof pitch.
- Does the petitioner have anything that he would like to add? No? OK. Are there any public comments in
- the room about this petition? Are there any comments online about this petition? All right. We'll turn
- to commissioner questions. Commissioner Butler, do you have any questions about this? No, I don't think
- I do. Commissioner Duffy? I have no questions. Commissioner Dueser? No. Commissioner Cross? Yeah. Forgive
- me if I missed it.
- But how did you eventually become aware that there was a requirement for a COA? I did receive a postcard
- from the city alerting me that I was in this district. But I believe that came after I contracted and
- put the panels up. The other way that I found out was through the neighborhood group. Talking to them,
- I mentioned, well, everyone knows everyone in the neighborhood, and I mentioned
- It just came up. You get approval. But that was this year when we started walking outside. I talked
- to several of my neighbors also. Go ahead. But this was post you're being made aware. When I moved in,
- my first objective was to get solar panels on the house because it was expiring. OK. And just confirming,
- I think it goes without saying,
- I just want to confirm that your realtor did not mention this to you. Did not. OK. Commissioner Schlegel,
- any questions? I think it piggybacked a little. I don't know who to address this to, so no, I think
- I'll kind of start with you. Do other departments know when there's a historic district, like for zoning
- or planning, do they know when there's
- Like, there's a neighborhood that has that, that they... Planning does if a permit from the planning
- department is required. Okay. The city building, sorry, the county building department now should, because
- that information has now been added to the county GIS system. Okay. But it was not on there at the time
- that this happened. Okay. And also I don't have regular communication with the county, unfortunately.
- Okay. I was just curious, I just wanted to make sure
- City kind of knew, or if they were. That's all. Thank you, though. If I may, from who does he require
- permission from to put up solar panels to the city or county? I think that's for you. At least with
- myself, I'm trying to look back to when I had my panels put up in my house. I don't believe I required
- a county permit.
- Unless that was filed for by the solar company, do you know? We're going to ask our staff member.
- So yeah, from planning zone perspective, we never saw it. We did not receive any permits or applications
- from the county that were forwarded to us. For solar installation, it's possible that all they required
- was just an electrical permit, which we would not be involved in. We were only involved with building
- permits. All right.
- And if I may ask you, I don't know if you know the answer, but who licenses electricians? Is it the
- state, the county, or the city? Electricians would be the state. The state. And never mind.
- It's the state. Thanks.
- I do not have any questions about this as well. So I think I would be to the point of entertaining a
- motion on this. I'll move to approve. OK, Commissioner Duffy has moved to approve COA 2629. Commissioner
- Schlegel has seconded. Commissioner Duffy, do you have any comments? It seems very clear that he
- wasn't aware of the requirement. And despite communications with various people who might have told
- him. And as soon as he found out, he tried to seek our right for active approval. So I have no problem.
- OK. Commissioner Schlegel. Yeah, just like Commissioner Duffy said, I think it was a genuine
- oversight, and it seems like anything else in the future, now that you're aware, you're willing to work
- with us. So I'd be happy to support this retroactive COA as well. OK, Commissioner Cross. I'm also going
- to support this, but for those who might not know, I tend to have an issue with retroactive COAs. I
- strongly believe that you come into a situation
- There's a significant burden on the homeowner. And I'm not going to quantify significant burden. There
- is a responsibility to find out, to be proactive to find out what it is that you're getting into. However,
- this thing keeps coming up. And I'm still trying to, is it possible that we could get some money to
- stick notices on signposts?
- telling people that you are now in a historic district. I've seen some communities have it. And Prospect
- Hill has quite a few of them. Can we make that a thing? So you're in a historic district. Residents,
- please call this number if you are going to do this thing. There must be a way that we can improve the
- situation of people coming here and saying that they didn't know.
- Is there some way we can integrate it into the documentation, the application forms, certainly those
- that the city controls, to ensure that if any approvals have to come through any city department, that
- it is one of the things that are checked mandatorily. So if any part of that is a question that might
- be addressed to me. No, it's a question. OK, OK, it's a comment. Yeah.
- That's it. Commissioner Duesner? Commissioner Butler? I agree with what my fellow commissioners have
- said. I also share Commissioner Cross's concerns about moving forward, trying to minimize the amount
- of people who don't seem to know about COAs. I don't think that that's the petitioner's fault in this
- case. But I think that
- these are all wise things that people said. For me, I know, I believe it's this year where on the real
- estate forms they've now included a historic designation disclosure on that. So that is going to be
- helpful, but that happened after he bought his house. So he didn't have that automatic thing. So I'm
- hoping that will decrease the amount of times we see it. Probably won't completely eliminate it, but
- we'll at least have a thing to be like, well, what did your disclosure form say?
- Does it have it on there or not? There might be other problems. I also would like to thank the petitioner
- for voluntarily contacting us and trying to make this right to make things go forward. I also add that
- typically the solar panels are staff review and typically reviewed or approved on a regular basis. So
- based on all of those things, I'm willing to support this. Anybody have any secondary comments?
- Seeing none, I think we're ready to call the roll.
- Motion on the floor, COA 2629. And we'll go take a roll call vote. Treasurer Butler? Yes. Commissioner
- Duesner? Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Chair Hackard? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? Yes. COA 2629 is approved
- 5-0. All right. Thank you very much. Thanks for coming out tonight. And if you have any other things,
- make sure to talk to Noah.
- All right. Next up, we're with demolition delays. We have DD 2606. Mr. Sam Weiss. All right. So first
- demo delay for the night. This is demolition delay 2606 for contributing property 527 North Prow. The
- petition is for a full demolition, and the petition are disabled buyers. Yes.
- Built in the late 1920s, 527 North Prowess is a severely altered English cottage style house with a
- steeply gabled front entrance. The building has a small rear addition and most of the exterior materials
- have changed. The first identifiable owners of the house were William and Catherine Hicks. William was
- the manager of the legal loan company. The couple moved out in 1934, renting the house to university students.
- Subsequent owners in the 1930s and 40s include accountant RM Snyder and Albert Pogue of Pogue's used
- cars. From 1950 onward, the house was owned and occupied by a succession of students, including geneticist
- Henry Butzel Jr., business scholar Ben Thomas, visiting sociologist Bruce Lair, and Margarita Fedulova,
- who taught Russian for IU's Air Force Language Training Program.
- The recommendation from staff is the release of demolition delay 2606. All right. Is there anyone in
- the room who has a public comment on this demolition delay? Yes, can you state your name? Amy Butler.
- I just want to say I think it's a shame that they're going to tear down yet another house that probably
- has a lot of life still left in it. OK. Anyone online?
- Oh, okay. Does the petitioner wish to add any comments? I don't have any comments. No, I was going,
- I was trying to share something about the Indiana Seller's residential disclosure on the last one, but
- I couldn't unmute myself. The historic location disclosure has already been added this year, so that
- wasn't there.
- But for the smoke delay, no, I don't have anything to add. OK. Is there any other public comment online?
- All right. Hearing none, we'll go around the room for questions from commissioners. Commissioner Butler,
- any questions? No. Commissioner Duffy? No. Commissioner Duesner? Looking at this on the map, I wasn't
- familiar with Prout. How close is this to the proposed cottage groove
- District. It's south of 10th Street. Yeah. It's a few blocks out east of there. No questions. Commissioner
- Cross, any questions? No questions. Commissioner Schlegel, any questions? No questions. For me, no,
- I just wanted to clarify, did you say most of the exterior is not original material? That's right. It's
- basically the shape and general placement of windows and doors. All right. Okay, thank you.
- I have no other questions. Now it's time to entertain a motion. Can I make a motion? You can make a
- motion. Okay. I will move to release demolition delay 2606. I'll second it. All right. Jeremy Ackert has
- Move to release demolition delay 2606 and Commissioner Duffy has seconded. I guess I'm going to call
- myself to start the comments. I don't think we have enough in terms of his historical significance or
- architectural significance to make a legitimate play at a historic designation for this building. Therefore,
- I think we need to release it. Commissioner Duffy. I agree. Commissioner Butler.
- I agree with both of your comments. I think it's a real shame that I have all this power to talk to
- people about fenestration and no power at all really to do the thing I'd like to do, which would be
- to prevent these sort of demolition delays. And I also don't understand why you would purchase a house
- and not embrace the house for what it is. I mean, that house could be something. It could be fixed up.
- It could continue to be rented out. It's just a real shame. Can I make a comment to that? Hold on, please.
- This is just for commissioners only. Commissioner Duesner. I just hate seeing cases where the houses
- are worth more debt than alive. All right. Commissioner Cross. I agree both with Commissioner Porter
- and with the chair's position.
- I didn't see anyone who could make a case, but I also regret to be done. And also, another disposition,
- it's unfortunate that that responsibility doesn't fall before this commission. It's planning, I think,
- who designates this area is what can be done. I'm sorry. Commissioner Schleykman. Yeah, I mean, I hate
- saying these, but
- made a good point. We can't save it on its own and buy a house just to tear it down. It just drives
- up all the rest of the market values. And we have no affordable housing. We're looking at why. And I
- wish we had more teeth to be able to back this back down, because it's just going to make everything
- else worse. But unfortunately, our hands are tied. There's legally nothing we can do. CHRIS RODGERS.
- Any secondary comments from the commissioners? All right.
- We're ready to go to a vote. We already had public comment. OK. I wasn't sure. Well, this is still for
- commissioners. Understood. There's a motion on the floor. It's commission only. All right. So there's
- a motion on the floor for demolition delay 2606. We'll take a roll call vote. Treasurer Butler? Yes.
- Commissioner Duesner? Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Chair Hacker? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel?
- Yeah. OK. And that is approved 5-0. OK. Thank you very much for that. There will be public comment at
- the end. There's an additional public comment on the end if there's additional comments that people
- want to make on this. Next up, we have demolition delay 26-03. Mr. Samuelson. So I've received a letter
- from the pit. We need to read into the record. Oh my gosh. I'm so sorry.
- Can I have the address? Yeah, can you go back, Noah, really quick? 527 North Avenue. Today, regarding
- the property located at 527 North Proud Avenue, the Historic Preservation Commission declares that it
- got notice of proposed demolition and after today's discussion, sees no need to review the plans any
- further and waives the rest of the demolition delay waiting period.
- The HPC may later recommend the property for historic designation to the common council. All right.
- Thank you very much. Demirits to me for forgetting that. So I'm going to have to keep the tail of that.
- All right. So now next up is this next demolition delay, Mr. Simmons. OK. So I received a letter this
- morning that was addressed to both myself and to the director of the planning department, Mr.
- David Hittle, from the petitioner, Alan Sin,
- who is petitioning for both COA 2603 for the demolition of 1331 East Atwater and for demolition delay
- 2604 for 326 South Eagleson. The petitioner wrote, I would like to withdraw both of my petitions for
- the demolition at 1331 East Atwater and 326 South Eagleson at this time. The petitions are DD 2603
- and DD 2604. So this petition means, or sorry, this letter requesting withdrawal means that the action
- to be taken on both this demolition delay and the next one coming up is the withdrawal on the part of
- the petitioner, which means that a CZC for demolition is not going to be issued. And it also ends our
- involvement with the demolition delay process.
- Is Mr. Sin online? I don't know if he wants to offer any comment on this or not. I just wanted to make
- sure. So I think that also means if we are interested in doing anything designation-wise for the houses,
- we would have to add it to an agenda in the future. We cannot take that up right now because they have
- formally withdrawn this. So we are not going to have a conversation about the further investigation
- of that process tonight.
- I would be curious to see if the commissioners are still interested in pursuing that now that the demolition
- delay has been removed, and seeing if we want to add that to a future agenda. I don't know what people
- are. We can go around. Commissioner Schlegel, what would you like to do? I would be, just because even
- if he was able to sell the property or anything
- the next owner might be the exact same thing we just had with the demo delay before this. They just
- come in and buy it to raise it all. And without at least exploring the options, or I know we've talked
- about what's underneath the siding in this house that's on the screen currently, just to get a better
- feel. And I feel better knowing what's there and knowing the potential than waiting until it comes up
- again, and then we have to scramble it. So I'd rather open the discussion, invite the neighborhood,
- Isn't it across the street from Elm Heights? I can never remember. I was going to call it the wrong
- district. But I'd rather open up those discussions and explore that now and just see what's possible.
- So if anything does happen, we can say we did what we could without scrambling. Commissioner Cross,
- any thoughts? Yes. You'd like to do it? Yes. OK. Commissioner Dueser? Yes. Continue discussion. Yes,
- continue discussion.
- Yeah, I think that's a great idea, especially with the proximity to Elm Heights. If there's a possibility
- of adding these to Elm Heights, I think that would be great. I don't know if there is, but I'd like
- to explore that. All right. Is there regarding both properties? Yeah. OK. I just want to be clear. Well,
- because then if the one was, then if the other one would be adjacent, then, right? Right. I think it's
- worth discussing. So I think, Mr. Samwise, if you can, on the next agenda, be able to.
- put a discussion item for this. That would be great. I don't think we need to vote on that. I'll just
- ask him to do that. All right. Well, thank you very much for that. Do you need time to make a note?
- No. We can move ahead. OK. Well, next up is old business. All right. Old business. I guess you all are
- aware that
- Second reading and vote for the Cottage Grove Conservation District is coming up on the evening of May
- 20th. So. I don't believe there's going to be another presentation, but there will be public comments
- and a vote by the Commission. Sorry by City Council. So if that is something that you have strong feelings
- about, then please attend. Anything else? Old business. Old business wise.
- All right. New business. We have amendment to commission rules and procedures. That's right. So I hope
- you've read this in your packets. This is a proposed amendment to Article 1, Section K of the commission
- rules and procedures dealing with the denial without prejudice of
- application, COA applications where the petitioner is not present. So the resolution as it reads, whereas
- the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission was established to guide the city in its intention
- to preserve and protect historic and architecturally worthy buildings, structures, sites, monuments,
- streetscapes, and neighborhoods in Bloomington. Whereas through state law and Bloomington Municipal
- Code, the HPC has the authority to approve or deny certificates of appropriateness
- for buildings in historic districts and those designated as historic throughout the city of Bloomington.
- Whereas state law and the BMC require the HPC to act on the certificate of appropriateness within 30
- days or it shall be deemed approved. Whereas in some instances, if the petitioner fails to appear at
- the commission meeting and the cases continue to the next meeting, as requires by the HPC rules and
- procedures, while 30 day clock continues to run,
- Whereas the HPC seeks to create a framework in which the absence of the petitioner does not inadvertently
- result in the issuance of a COA without approval on the merits. Whereas a denial without prejudice would
- toll the 30 day clock and allow the petitioner to return with the same petition. Whereas a 30 day clock
- can also be told when a petitioner agrees to a continuation. The Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission
- shall adopt the following amended rules and procedures.
- to jump ahead to the section that we are proposing to amend. If the petitioner does not attend a meeting
- for which the commission review is scheduled, the commission may deny the application without prejudice.
- Denial without prejudice allows the petitioner to request the same application be placed on a subsequent
- agenda without having to resubmit the application.
- I'm going to ask our attorney to jump in here as the petitioner for this. Would you like to add any
- further comment? No, I think Noah covered it. There's also a small change in Article IV under certificates
- of appropriateness, just clarifying again that if the petitioner agrees to the extension, that that
- also is tolling the 30-day clock so that the time doesn't elapse.
- when there's an agreed to continuation with the petitioner. So I think this provides you all an opportunity
- to dispose of something, take a final action on something, but allows the person to come back without
- inconveniencing them. They don't have to resubmit the application. They can just contact NOAA, which
- they could have done in advance, too, to ask him to either present it or to agree to a continuation.
- But it allows another opportunity for a petitioner to just request to be put on a subsequent agenda.
- All right, are there any public comments about this? In person, I see none. Online, are there any public
- comments about the amendment to the rules and procedures? I'm not seeing them. We have one person online,
- and I've asked if they wanted to speak. I haven't quite heard them. I haven't had any response back
- yet. OK, well, we'll move to Commissioner Comments then. Commissioner Butler, do you have any questions?
- No questions. Commissioner Duffy? No questions. Commissioner Duesner? No. Commissioner Cross?
- I'm just trying to figure out how this was. Does this make it significantly different from what was
- before? Yes, it does. Because before, our bylaws said that if a petitioner was not present, that it
- would be continued to the next hearing. But a continuation is not an action. It's just an administrative
- process. And so it doesn't stop the 30 days from ticking away.
- And if 30 days elapsed without an action by the commission, then the certificate of appropriateness
- is deemed approved. OK, got it. It's closing the loophole. Commissioner Schlegel. I'm excited that we're
- closing this loophole. I think this is a great addition.
- That's not a question. That's not a declarative statement, sir. Isn't it time? This is out of order.
- You have to end that statement with, or am I? I don't have any questions. You have a follow-up. Yeah.
- The follow-up question would be, if we was to cancel it or deny it, and it's within
- are under circumstances where a denial would trigger any kind of punitive action. Would those actions
- follow based on or denial in this circumstance? So the denial for absence of the petitioner would be
- a denial without prejudice. So it was... It's not the merits of the case. Yeah, it's not on the merits
- of the case. So I don't think that it would be appropriate for a punitive action to
- attached to it at that point, because again, we're just allowing that person to basically resubmit.
- Right. But what I'm saying is, let's just say there was a NOSA violation pending, and this COA was meant
- to remedy that, and we denied it. Would the consequences of that notice still follow based on the fact
- that it was not heard and the decision was not made, or would we stay that notice
- I think a notice of violation is separate than the action of the commission. So that burden is on the
- petitioner, that if they receive a notice of violation, that they need to come and get something
- retroactively approved or addressed by the commission, then they decide not to show up. That's their
- decision. And the notice would stand. It's a separate item. Until they come and take care of it with
- the law. And the violations are handled by staff, too, so that's not a loss.
- So yeah, that's a great question. Any other questions? All right. Hearing none, I think we're ready
- to entertain a motion. I'll move that we adopt the new language. I'll second that. Commissioner Dueser
- has moved to adopt the amendment to commission rules and procedures as outlined by Mr. Sanlis. Commissioner
- Butler has seconded. Any comment, Commissioner Butler? I think it's a great idea. Let's close the loophole
- and move forward.
- Mr. Duffy. Comments? No. No comment. I support it. Is Commissioner Duterte here? I like it. All right.
- Commissioner Cross. I thank you. I support it. Great. Commissioner Schley, do I get to ask a question?
- Sir. That was a question. Somebody else gets it to merit. All right, we're good.
- I would like to thank our staff for working on this and helping us remedy this and make sure our rules
- and procedures are as clear as possible and make sure people can drive around the stuff that we have
- set up. All right. Any other secondary comments? Seeing none, I think we're ready to vote. It's been
- moved and seconded to accept the amendments to commission rules and procedures as proposed. We'll take
- a roll call vote on that. Treasurer Butler? Yes.
- Commissioner Duesner? Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Chair Hacker? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? Yes. That
- motion is approved 5-0. Excellent. All right. Next up is commissioner comments. Do any commissioners
- wish to comment? Commissioner Butler? I would like to welcome Commissioner Cross back to the committee,
- and I'm really glad he's here. Yes. Seconded. Thank you.
- Any other comments? No, you stole mine. Oh, sorry. Yes, Commissioner Duesner. It was nice to see so
- many people at the Cottage Grove testimony, so many of us, even though it was late and it was great
- to hear. I thought everybody who presented did a nice job and then it was really nice to hear voices
- and even though the circumstances were less than great, so yeah.
- Thanks, everybody. I would like to add, I want to thank Mr. Sanweiss for his presentation. I thought
- it was thorough. I thought it was well done. And I thought he handled the questions really well. So
- I just want to thank him for all the work that he's put in on this. Did a great job. And then, obviously,
- I think the butlers for all the work that they did on doing all the groundwork and things like that.
- So thanks for everybody who's been able to push that forward. Hopefully, we will have a favorable result
- on the 20th.
- Any other comments? All right. Public comment. Are there public comment? Yes. I just wanted to say thank
- you all for coming and staying and supporting us. You guys are awesome. We couldn't have done it without
- your help. That's Amy. And I thank you for wasting your entire evening trying to get out of there
- Are there any public comments online?
- We have someone online. I'm just trying to see if they're wanting to make a comment. How long have you
- been asking them? It seems like there's some issues with the connection. Ah. And we don't have to wait
- that long. Oh, well, yeah. OK, here we go. OK, they said that they're fine. Oh, Jenny. OK, Jenny Southern.
- Thank you. All right, thank you. All right, no other comments. That brings us to the last.
- of our agenda. This meeting is adjourned.