Historic & Cultural Landmarks Commission - Regular Meeting

This is an art wall here. Thank you. Thank you.

R-O-B-A.

Thank you so much. Thank you.

Oh, my God. Are you ready, Lorelai? Yes. Staff ready? Okay. By my watch, it's 2.06, so I'm going to call to order the meeting of the City of Fort Worth Historic and Cultural Landmarks for August 2026, and we will get started. Are there any announcements from, oh, I'm sorry, we need to have the statement. of the Open Meetings Act.

Don't forget about me, Chair Herring. Oh my goodness. Welcome to the August 10th, 2026 Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission. Our commission requires a quorum of six members to be present and available for voting. The following board members are present today. Chair Rick Herring, Vice Chairwoman Anna Katrina Kelley Gardner, Commissioner Estris Tucker, Commissioner Roger Sheffalo, Commissioner Corey Malone, Commissioner Brian Ketchum, Commissioner Tim Halden, and Commissioner Graham Bresendine. Staff present today are Lorelei Willett, Nathan Beville, Andres Hernandez, Trey Qualls, Hywon Kim, and myself, Laura Young. Today's meeting agenda can be found online at www.fortwoodtexas.gov. Speaker registration forms must have been turned in prior to the start of the meeting. Today's public hearing is being documented by video conference recording, which will be available on the city's website. To achieve a timely and orderly meeting, the HCLC requests that the following rules or procedure be respected. Each case will be called in the sequence listed on the agenda unless otherwise directed by the chair. All ensuing dialogue shall be directed to the HCLC only. After each staff presentation, the applicant and other proponents will be given a total of seven minutes to speak. Opposition may then speak for seven minutes. Continuation beyond the speaker's allotted time will be subject to the chairman's sole discretion and approval. All other meeting procedures will adhere to HCLC adopted rules and procedures to the extent practicable. Following the official close of each case hearing, the HCLC will remain in open session to discuss and vote upon the item in question. During this time, no further public testimony or commentary will be allowed unless directed by the chair. A closed executive session may be held with respect to the posted agenda items to enable the HCLC to receive advice from legal staff. For additional information on any case on today's agenda, you may contact the Development Services Department by calling 817-392-8000. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you very much for that. And do we have any announcements from staff?

Yes, just a couple. I told you downstairs, but we're very happy to have a new historic preservation senior planner, Nathan Bevel. And then I also wanted to remind y'all, our first meeting for the preservation plan update is going to be Wednesday, September 16th at the Ella Mae Shambly Library between 6 and 8 p.m. I hope to see y'all there.

All right. And thank you. And on that note, welcome, Nathan. We're certainly glad to have you. And for the first meeting, the one you just announced on September 16th, commissioners, I would encourage you all to attend at least that meeting. There will be a couple more after that, I believe. But and I'm sure if you do that, Lorelei or whoever is conducting the meeting will be happy to introduce you. or recognize you, so you get something for going. But are there any announcements from commissioners? All right, seeing none, let's proceed to the approval of the July 13th, 2026 minutes. And we're open for a motion and a second.

Second.

Okay, we've got a motion to approve by Vice Chair Kelly Gardner and a second by Commissioner Brizendine, I believe.

We have a motion and a second. Chair Herring, how do you vote? Yay. Vice Chair Kelly Gardner. Commissioner Malone. Commissioner Ketchum. Yay. Commissioner Brizendine.

Yay.

Commissioner Sheffalo. Commissioner Tucker. Yay. And Commissioner Holden. Thank you. Motion passes eight to zero.

All right. Thank you. Well, let's move on to our first case, please.

Thank you, commissioners. Your first case is HCLC-26-184. The applicant requests a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the contributing structure located in the historic Harbor Heights Historic District. The subject property at 5536 Bong Drive is a contributing structure located within the historic Carver Heights Historic District and retains all seven aspects of integrity to support its significance. The property is consistent with the remaining mid-century properties that are indicative of the development patterns of the district. When applying for demolition of a contributing resource, the applicant must prove either a loss of significance or an unreasonable economic hardship. The applicant turned in information to prove loss of significance. Staff observed several deficiencies noted in the conditions assessment provided by the applicant at the site visit on August 3rd. The structure showed signs of shifting in the foundation that have caused the concrete skirt to fail and leaks in the roof. Prolonged water intrusion has led to the interior sustaining some water damage. The vinyl siding is falling and some wood soffits and eaves need to be repaired or replaced in kind. The pier and beam foundation is still in good condition and would need to be leveled and the roof damage addressed in order to shift the property into a place for the best rehabilitation option and to seal and dry in the structure. Otherwise, the structure seems sound. Therefore, staff believes the property is not damaged beyond repair. When staff assessed the historic Carver Heights historic district criteria for demolition, the property still retained significance and the seven aspects of integrity that supports it contributing to the district. Staff also considered the Secretary of the Interior standards two, five, and six, which emphasize retaining a property's historic character, preserving distinctive materials and repairing rather than removing deteriorated features. Having regard to the foregoing, staff recommends the following, that their request for a certificate of appropriateness, COA, to demolish the contributing structure located at 5536 Bong Drive be denied without prejudice. Staff also received two letters, one in opposition to the denial from the historic Carver Heights neighborhood, hold on, sorry. Staff received two letters, one in support of demolishing the structure from the Historic Carver Heights Neighborhood Association and one in support of the denial of the demolition by Historic Fort Worth Inc. This concludes the staff report.

All right. Thank you very much for that report. Is there anyone in the chamber who would like to come up and speak on this issue? Yes, sir. Please come forward and just give us your name and address for the record, please. And I think the middle podium will be the best.

Hello, my name is Michael Forbes and I'm with Trinite Construction Management. We're located in Arlington, Texas, 172526 Arlington, Texas. Let me just give you a little history on the project. When I got involved in the project, I was contacted by Mr. Daniels, who was the original contractor on the project. And what happened, they were looking to renovate the home and three different contractors came in and gave them their assessment and told them that it's too much damage and it would be more beneficial to go ahead and demo the house and start again. Subsequent to that, Mr. Daniels went down to try to get the demo permit, and he was told about the COA and all that stuff, and he wasn't sure how to do it. So he contacted me because I've done it before, and I've dealt with the historical department before, and that's when I got in contact with Laura and turned in all the paperwork. When we did the site visit, I mean, it was obvious that this house is not livable, and she kind of gave them a rundown. The house was built by their dad, and they moved out the house four months ago, trying to move back in and get it fixed back up, but were unable to do so because of the challenges that they didn't know how to go through. Now we're at this point, they don't have nowhere to stay, and they're trying to get this thing rectified one way or the other. Number one, they can't get financing to renovate the house. Number two, the house is, not only it's... in bad shape structurally. It's also got mold issues. It's got water damage issues. It's more to it than just going in there and renovating a house. I think we talked about it during our site visit about the deterioration of the house. One of the things that was concerning to me when we did our site visit, there were several boards there. And like Laura said, one board gave a letter in support, one board gave a letter in opposition. And I believe the ones that gave it in opposition, when we were there, I think something like this, we need to make decisions based on what's actual and factual and what's best for everybody. But the young lady that was with the board, she basically was soliciting... the client to do the work. And it didn't make sense to say, how can somebody who's on a board to make a decision? I understand she's not with the city, but the city does weigh heavily on the decision of these boards. So in that meeting, she should not be soliciting work, which is what she did. And it's like, she basically told, oh, I can fix the house up for you. However many more houses they're doing that for, I don't know. But this particular house, this client is trying to move back in. They're moved out right now. It's her and her brothers and sisters, and they need somewhere to live. And this house is nowhere. There's nobody in this room that would go and live back in that house after it's renovated if it's not renovated correctly. And to do that, you have to tear it down because the walls are bowed. They all have... water damage, there's just no way to fix it. The electrical's gone, the mechanical's gone, everything's gone.

All right, Mr. Forbes, thank you for that information. And commissioners, any questions for Mr. Forbes at this point? Thank you, we may call you, oh, excuse me, I'm sorry, foster.

So what is the cost of the demolition? To demo, the house is going to be about $12,000. Okay. What is the cost of restoring the house? $220,000. Okay. So have you done any research to bring that cost down? Have you developed a plan to, you know, do it in increments or where it will be more cost effective? Because if you're telling me that, if you're telling us rather that The demolition of the house, on one hand, you're saying they don't have anywhere to live. Next thing you're saying, tear the house down.

We're tearing the house down because he submitted a new plan to build a new home. But in that process, he was turned down because of the COA process. So we do have a new set of plans that they're planning on building. They've already obtained the loan and the financing to do that, but they ran into this obstacle. Now, what I'm saying is, the cost that it would take for them to repair this home, they don't know what they got. They're not at the age where they can be constantly fixing a home. So they were told to do a brand new home. And I also told them that when we redesigned it, because the plans that we submitted originally, I kind of perused them, but I haven't been into detail. But I did tell the city, I understand that we need to build it back to the existing characteristics of the neighborhood to maintain that historic look. So it's not something where they're just trying to get back in the home. It's either they're going to have to renovate it which they don't have the funds to renovate it.

But they have the funds to rebuild.

Because the bank's not going to invest in it like that.

Have you all tried that? They've tried that. Okay, I'm confused.

So, if I hear you correctly, they can't get the funds from the bank to renovate the house, which I can understand. Let's push that aside for a second. But they can get funds for a new build, probably the reason for that is a new build. He can give us, he can give them an estimate and stay with the plan and build it for that amount of money and the bank's confident with that. But in a renovation, like we talked about before, they could get into that renovation and all of a sudden it's, it's, let's just say they originally said it was maybe 200,000. They could get into that renovation and run into something and that number may just blow up to 250 or whatever. And a bank's not going to make a loan on something like that. And that's what he's, it sounds like he's investigated all those options.

Okay. And all that getting, get an understanding. Okay, thank you. You're welcome.

All right, any other questions for Mr. Forbes?

And I hope I remembered your name correctly, sir. No, you did. All right. Thank you very much. And as I said, we may need to call you back up for further discussion. But thank you for that information.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the chamber that wants to say anything or speak on the case? All right. I have a question. If you would like to come up, ma'am, please feel free. And just give us your name for the record, please.

My name is Hazel Curry, and I'm with one of the co-owners of the house. We contacted three different people to see if we can get it renovated. They said it's best to tear it down because once you start renovating, you're going to run into a lot more problems. They said if you do away with it, then you won't have the problem again. We'd rather go ahead and do away with it because it's damaged too bad. All right.

Okay, thank you so much. Any questions for Mrs. Curry? All right, thank you, Ms. Curry. All right, if there's no one else that wants to speak on this case from the public, then we'll close the public portion of the hearing. And commissioners, questions or discussion? Yes, I have a question.

So would it be probable, right, to tear the house down and rebuild, like,

maybe keep, I've known in cases before that they've kept like some of the boards or whatever things were salvageable. So would it be an option for them to, hold on. I'm not gonna say anything. Would it be an option for them to rebuild it based on the historic design without any issues?

Can I say something to that real quick? Yeah, go ahead. Uh, yes.

When we had, when we had our site. No, hold on, sir. We have a, we have a protocol. And so, we have to reopen the public portion in order for you to speak. So, just a moment.

Yeah, before we get to that question and we'll, we will reopen the hearing. But any commissioners, any comments on Foster?

So, he's made, both of them have made really good points. And, and I love the way you frame that. You know, there's more to it than just the construction. You have an elder couple that want to get back into a house. They have limited finances. They have a commitment from a bank to build it. The timetable it takes to build a new house is probably going to be a lot quicker than renovating this thing. All those ingredients, the time, the commitment on money, and the security of knowing that you're in a space that's not going to have a problem a month after you move in because it's new, I get that. And these pictures don't look good to me from a standpoint of turning the house back into something that is going to be better than a new build. Now, when you talk about building something that will kind of give a nod to the old house that was there, I think at this point, we just have to kind of push that aside and then let the code dictate what the design has to be in that neighborhood.

But- We have a photo of other houses in the neighborhood. Not on that block right now.

I think Michael gave you all some in his packet. Okay. It's all in there. All right. But yeah, any new construction would come before you.

Yeah, that was a question I was going to have. That would be a whole new case. That would be a whole new case. Has anything been presented on said plans now?

Not to staff. They might have already had some, but they haven't shown it to us yet.

Is there ever a situation where approval of demolition is given in conjunction with approval of a COA for a new construction?

Sometimes, but they have to present it at the same time. So I will say, commissioners, I know there is talk of a lot of numbers, but what you have before you is whether this property does not have significance anymore. If they would like to come back and apply for unreasonable economic hardship and show us those hard numbers that they're talking about, that's an option. But that really is not part of your discussion today because you don't have the numbers to look at, right?

Yeah, that was the question I was going to have too. That's the only thing that I'm struggling with is how it was presented. And the discussion where we're going is just different from the way that it was presented. Right.

Okay, Commissioner, before we reopen the public hearing, any other discussion amongst ourselves or with staff? If not, let's reopen the public hearing for a moment so Mr. Forbes can address the question of the salvageable materials.

Well, since her daddy built the home, we talked about it at the site meeting that we would like to take some of the existing materials and incorporate it in the house in some form or fashion. We don't have a problem with that. And we understand that we have to go by, there's a design standard for historical homes in that neighborhood that we have to maintain. And we would try to incorporate something from inside the house, whether it's the wood flooring or something to that effect to maintain that nostalgia that they have. So we did talk about that.

All right. Thank you very much. I have a question.

I have a question. I have a question. Is the new house, from a site plan standpoint, is it the same square footage? Is it just a rebuild of the existing house, or is it a different design?

It's going to be of the same square footage, maybe a little bit bigger. Roughly. About the same thing.

Okay.

Thank you. Okay, thank you, sir. And let's close the public portion and commissioners, let's discuss and we'll be open for motion and second. But first, I do have a question for staff. And I know you may not have the statistics for this, but in the our report, staff report, there is a picture of a new house across the street from the subject property. And I know sometimes these things just slip through or whatever. Do we know anything about, how did that come to be or did it come before us?

It did actually. However, I think I know the one that you're talking about. So what What seems to have happened since we went out to the site visit, I'm looking into it and coordinating with different people. But it seems that that builder, whoever that was, did get approval for one design all through permitting, all through you, and then just built something different in the field.

Okay. All right. Well, I was just curious, and that's totally separate from what we're talking about today, but when I see the picture, it just made me wonder about that one. Okay. I just have a comment. I certainly understand the difficult feeling forward commission. Oh, I'm sorry. Yep. I understand the difficulties the family is facing with the house and its current condition and all of that. And a lot of emotions come into it and just, you know, human feelings of compassion and everything else. But what we're tasked with, we have these historic districts and you can look at every one of them in the city of Fort Worth, especially the ones we see over and over. And sometimes the houses are way far gone, more far gone than this one. And to maintain the historic fabric of that neighborhood and what the neighborhood is trying to preserve, you know, sometimes takes a lot to keep these properties maintained and keep them as part of the neighborhood's historic character. So I just wanted to be on record as saying that because A lot of times that's what happens with these homes. So having said that, that's my two cents worth. Commissioners, other comments or questions for staff discussion?

I think it's just brought in the wrong way. I think this is a hardship case. And this is similar to the driveway we had a few months ago. So it's like, I think if it comes back to us as a hardship, it'll probably get approved. Because I think there is a hardship and there's a lot of unknowns here. But going on the evidence we have, it doesn't apply here. But then it's like, are we just extending this out another month? But really, we have to go on what was presented to us. So I'm leaning towards denial, to demolish for that reason. And it's just unfortunate that it was presented the wrong way or what it is.

I'm sorry, could you repeat your leaning towards?

Demolishing it.

Yeah, because... Not demolish.

I'm leaning towards not demolishing it because based on the information we have in front of us tonight, denial of...

Right. And so this goes back to several things that we've talked about before, right? So if we deny it without prejudice, it will give them an opportunity to present the hardship, okay? then we already know when they present a hardship that we're going to approve it, if that were where we were going, right? On the other side of that coin, if would we be able to approve it with based on them still presenting the hardship, right? that they're facing right now, would that be an option? If we say, okay, well, we approve this based on contingent upon you presenting your hardship to staff, is that a possibility?

No. Just procedurally, it has to come before you.

Okay.

Yeah. And there's a lot of documentation that's needed for the hardship. a lot more than what is in this packet right here. So that's just all information that needs to be provided to you and staff. Okay.

And you're right, we've done it that way before in some other cases, but to me it's sort of, in this particular case, just sort of kicking the can down the road, you know, for them to have to go through those additional steps, time, expense, if we already know kind of where we're leaning. Yeah.

I agree.

An additional question along that same line. So if we vote to deny demolition, to deny without prejudice, talk a little bit about the timeline they have to present the data for the economic hardship. I mean, it's a lot. Do we provide any support for that or some guidance on how that happens and the timeline?

We have a checklist with all of that information. it is gonna be a tight turnaround in order to get on to September because the deadline is next Monday for September's agenda.

So realistically, it would probably not be able to be on September's agenda based on what you just said.

It just depends on how quickly they can get the information. It sounds like they have some of the information already. They have bids for repair and for new construction and all of that kind of stuff, but there's a lot more to it.

Right. Is the review process such that you'll be able to let them know immediately if it meets the criteria? I mean, is it something they have to turn in and wait for days or weeks or can they bring it and you can walk through them and say, this works, this works, this doesn't, but you need this. Is it that kind of detail?

Yeah, we'll have back and forth with them to make sure that it's a complete application. Once it gets to a complete application, then it just kind of depends on staff time before we can say, okay, yes, it meets criteria or no, it doesn't meet criteria. And then of course, we'll put the staff report together the week before the commission, just like this one with the recommendation.

We basically already have the answer.

Well, not really, because you haven't seen the numbers. I see where you're leaning. I see where you're leaning.

Yeah, so you kicking the can with a string, talking to another can, and you can't hear nothing. You know what I mean? That's where I am. I understand the whole concept, and you all know how I roll. You know that I'm going to lean on the right side. So let's just think about a moment. And I do have another question, if you would like to answer that for me. We need to reopen it again?

Yes, technically, let's reopen the public hearing for a question to be addressed.

Thank you. What's the time frame if you demolish the property to rebuild it?

It'll probably take, to demolish it, maybe 20 days to get a demo permit. And then to demolish it will take a day. And then to rebuild it, we're talking four months, three months. So it's a five-month process from here on out. And we have to also bear in mind that They've been out of our home for four months, and they don't have nowhere to stay. And at the end of the day, I understand. I understand. I sat on the planners on the commission in Arlington. I get your position, too. But we also have to understand that at the end of the day, they need somewhere to live. And it's like we're prolonging it for something that eventually has to happen one way or the other. I don't know which way it's going to go. But to go through a hardship and present a hardship, like Laura said, that's a lengthy process. That could take another two and a half months, and then to get back on the agenda, and they don't have nowhere to stay. So I want you guys to bear that in mind.

Oh, we do.

Okay, thank you. You're welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right, let's close the public portion. And commissioners, if there's no more discussion, we're open for a motion and a second. You have the staff recommendation in front of you.

One thing I wanna say before just sitting here before we do vote and get to that point, we're here to follow specific procedures that the city has outlined. And I think to me, that's the difficult part of this is considering it from an economic hardship standpoint, we don't have that paperwork. I think we all know that demolition is probably a reality with this property at one point or another. There's a request right now to demo it. I don't feel that it necessarily was presented probably in the right way given what's been discussed currently. The other task that we have also as the Historic and Cultural Landmark Commission is to preserve the historic and cultural significance of properties like this that are designated as contributing structures in these historic districts. and that was one of the reasons why i brought up the subject of a demolition in conjunction with the coa for the new construction because right now what we're what we are going to face i mean if this were to be approved today is they will be back here they will have to come back no matter what because they don't have a COA for the new construction. So they will be here in September. Best case scenario, again, to get that building, to get that COA so they can get the building permit and build the new structure. What I would prefer myself to do, I'm not against necessarily demolition in this way that it's presented. I'm against it just because I don't think it was presented in the right way. But what I would like to do for the sake of essentially us doing our jobs as the HCLC to preserve the historic and cultural significance of structures like this that are important historical structures in these neighborhoods. What I would like to do is actually have these two things presented in conjunction. We already know they're gonna come back anyway because they have to to get a COA for the new construction. I would prefer to package them together so that we do have very distinct control over the demolition approval and the new building approval because I want to make sure that what is brought before us is respectful of this original design of this original house of this neighborhood because it's a historically significant part of the neighborhood. So they're coming back no matter what. I'd rather have them come back honestly The economic side of it I would personally I would not you know go that route. I I would prefer to see it come back as a demo in conjunction with a new construction coa and just sign off on that now with that being said. that is with the understanding that that new construction is respectful of the original design and the design standards of the neighborhood. And I think if that is presented in that way, and there has been work with the department to make sure that that design does flow in conjunction with the historical significance of the neighborhood, then I'm good.

Yeah, and that was a dynamic, mind-motivating thought. The way that you brought that, I concur. Because as we are preserving the historical aspects of buildings, we also have to remember in these cases that we are preserving the historical dynamic of the family who built the house. So I think those things are important. So based on what you stated, it makes perfect sense because they're gonna have to come back anyway.

All right then, do we have a motion?

I'll make the motion to deny without prejudice, giving an opportunity to present it again with the COA, so you'll get it done in one swap. That's my motion. Okay, and do we have a second for that motion?

I second that.

I'll have to double check with legal on the validity of that if they will be able to submit with the new construction and the demo at the same time.

Yeah, I think it's more a function of just timing and having the documents that they need. Same time. Yeah, at the same time. So I think the denial without prejudice allows them to come back at any time, end it there. And if they're able to get all their documents on the same, I just don't think you want to bind them to have to do that. Yeah. Or wait on one till they can get the other.

Technically two cases. Right. Yeah.

So if I understand right, denial without prejudice, gives them the opportunity to come back if they can do them all together, all the better.

And they have to have a second case anyway, because they have to have one for a new.

Right, they would need that, which would include plans and things that we don't have yet.

Okay, and I see you there, Mr. Forbes, but I'm sorry, we're not going to reopen the public hearing at this time. I apologize. And you can, some of the details can be worked out with staff, but we have a motion and a second.

Sorry, who was the second again?

Commissioner Brizendine. Excuse me, we have a motion by Vice Chair Kelly Gardner and a second by Commissioner Brizendine.

Thank you. Motion and a second. Chair Herring, how do you vote?

Yay.

Vice Chair Kelly Gardner?

Yay.

Commissioner Malone? Commissioner Ketchum? Yay. Commissioner Brizendine? Yay. Commissioner Sheffalo? Yay. Commissioner Tucker? Yay. And Commissioner Holden? Yay. Thank you. Motion passes eight to zero to deny the demolition without prejudice.

All right, and Mr. Forbes, Ms. Curry, and the rest, please work with Lorelei. I know you already have been, and hopefully we'll get you back up here very soon to continue with what you need to do to get back in your home. All right, let's move on to the next case, please.

Good afternoon. This case is HCLC 26185, 1300 Bessey Street, new construction. This is the aerial view of the location. The proposed design for the one-story residence reflects an orientation consistent with the predominant character of the streetscape, including existing patterns of spacing, massing, and building orientation. Several elements though of the design should be addressed in order to reflect a compatible new construction within the district. The staff therefore recommends that the request for the COA to construct a new residence at 1300 Bessey Street be approved subject to the following conditions. that the cement fiberboard siding is smooth and has a six-inch reveal, that the windows follow the elevation drawings of a single window in the rear right corner facing Virginia Avenue, that the front porch columns be spaced evenly, and that any adjustments made to the drawings be submitted to the Development Services Department prior to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness.

All right, thank you very much for that report. I have to say this, regardless, is there anyone in the chamber who wants to speak to this case? Don't see anyone, so we'll close the public portion of the hearing. And I do have a question for staff. And I was hoping the applicant may be here, but do you happen to know if they own the two lots that are adjacent to this?

And it doesn't matter, I'm just curious. I think so. I didn't dive too deep into that. Okay. But they did show the drawings that show the rest of them, so I think so.

All right. Yes, and that's what I was noticing. Yes, on that illustration right there, because the next two lots, 1304 and 1308, do say vacant lot with proposed construction. So I was just curious if it was the same owner, but doesn't matter. Commissioners, any questions for staff or discussion?

If not, we're open for a motion. I'll make a motion to approve HCLC-26-185 with the recommended staff conditions.

I'll second.

Okay, now y'all keep me straight, but in this case, HCLC 26-185, we have a motion to approve with staff remarks by Commissioner Brizendine and a second by Commissioner Sheffalo.

No.

Commissioner Halden, I apologize.

No worries.

All right.

Yeah, I know. All the votes. Chair Herring, how do you vote? Yay. Vice Chair Anna Carina Kelly?

Yay. Anna Caterina.

Roger Shuffalo? Yay. Brian Ketchum? Corey Malone? Yes. Justice Trucker? Yay. Tim Holden?

Yay.

And Graham Brizendine?

Yay.

Motion passes eight to zero.

All right, thank you so much. Commissioners, thank you for being here for this rather short agenda, but we stand adjourned.

I try to make it as long as possible.