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.