Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

One minute warning, y'all. One minute warning.

All right, good morning. We'll call this meeting to order. This is the January 29th, 2026 meeting of the City Plan Commission. Before we get started, I want to introduce Colby Adams, new commissioner representing Council District 3. Colby, do you want to give a brief introduction to yourself?

Sorry, I got it. Colby Adams, happy to serve and represent Council District 3. I have been a Fort Worth resident for coming up on seven years now. I have my wife, three kids, 10, eight, and four. And so we stay busy and are happy they're back in school today. But glad to serve with you all, look forward to being here.

Thanks, Colby, and welcome. All right, turn it over for announcements.

Morning and welcome to the January 20, 29, 2026 in-person meeting of the City of Fort Worth City Planning Commission. The commission meets monthly in open session to conduct public hearings on advertised cases. Specific rules and procedures governing these hearings include the city subdivision ordinance, city planning commission rules, regulations, and bylaws, and related provisions of the Texas state law. The commission's primary responsibility are to review and act upon subdivision plans and plats, streets and alley right-of-way vacations and closures, annexations, comprehensive planning, and other land development issues affecting the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction area. The commission is made up of 11 Fort Worth citizens, each of whom is appointed by the city council. A quorum of six of the 11 members must be present in order to conduct the commission's business. Nine members are present, therefore the hearing may proceed. Seated at the center of the table is Ms. Caroline Kranz, the Vice Chair of the City Planning Commission. Other commission members present are Colby Adams, Commissioner Lambert, Commissioner Henderson, Commissioner Sims, Commissioner Risher, Commissioner Farda, and Commissioner Gillette. And last but not least, Commissioner Johnson. Staff members present today are Alex Parks, Paul Rodriguez, Rich McCracken, Jessica Williams, Alex Johnson, Michelle Pena, Barbara Soltero, Leo Valencia, and other representatives from DSD. My name is Steven Murray, planning manager and facilitator of today's meetings. Copies of the meeting agenda and staff reports are included in the commission's docket and are available on the city's website. Staff reports have been compiled by the city's development review committee to inform the commission and applicants of city code requirements and technical issues associated with the cases to be heard. Today's public hearings are being documented by cable television and streamed on the internet. To achieve an orderly and timely hearing, we request that the EU observe the following rules of procedure. All cases are called. Applicants and others in support of the case will be asked to present their testimony first for a total of five minutes. Opposing testimony will follow and be given a total of seven minutes. The applicant will be allowed two minutes for rebuttal. Each side will be allowed a collective total of seven minutes for initial presentations. We have Barbara Soltero keeping the time today. And when you're up here presenting your case, clearly state your name. and city prior to addressing the commission. All dialogue will occur between the speaker and the commission only. Upon the chairman's initial closure of the case, the commission will remain in open session to discuss and vote upon the case. No further public testimony or commentary will be allowed. Be advised that the commission's decision on planning matters is final. Action on the other docket items constitutes a recommendation to city council. If you need additional information about a particular case, please call the Development Services Department at 817-392-8027. Thank you for your attention. Ms. Chairman, Commissioners, an order of business is, the first order of business, the approval of the January 8th meeting minutes.

All right, if y'all have had a chance to review them, I'll call for a motion.

I move that we approve the previous meeting's minutes. Second.

A motion from Commissioner Johnson and a second from , Commissioner Gillette?

Sims.

Sims, okay. All right, we'll just do a voice vote on this. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? All right, that passes. All right, if we'll call the first case, please.

First case, VA 25029, vacation of portions of an alley located north of West Seminary Drive, south of West Anthony Street, west of Union Pacific Railroad, and east of Hemphill Street, in block eight, south side addition, Council District 11. General location is north of West Seminary Drive, south of Anthony Street, west of Union Pacific Railroad, and east of Hemphill Street. The applicant is Britton N. Crawford.

Good morning, Commission. As mentioned by Steven, this is VA 25029. It's a vacation of this alley, as you can clearly see in the yellow highlighted boundary. Yes, the yellow highlights are back. Yes, you're welcome. So normally the subdivision ordinance is clear that you cannot create any dead end alleys. Take a look at the exhibit here. The existing alley comes in off of West Seminary Drive, comes up, and it currently dead ends at the railroad track. When they vacated this portion here, it would have terminated the alley on this location. In order to prevent the termination of the alley, they have rededicated it back to the south, out to West Seminary Drive. So staff is supportive of the waiver request. Right now, this is simply a matter of land consolidation for future commercial development, but there are no plans at this time. Does anyone have any questions?

I hope this is a simple one. So the applicant owns the property on both sides of the alley in this case? That is correct. So I note that Anthony Street kind of seems like it's abandoned at that point.

It has a large drainage channel running through it today.

Ah, that's what that is, okay.

It's essentially a drainage infrastructure and an outfall to the railroad.

I guess what I was coming to, do they also own the land on the other side of Anthony?

No, that's owned by another property owner.

Thank you.

I believe that property owner also owns this business here.

Any other questions for staff? Okay, thank you, Alex. Is the applicant present? If you'll come forward, have you filled out a green sheet? All right, if you'll state your name and city, please.

Good morning, commissioners. My name is Christian Golubievski. I live at 7136 Windchime Drive, Fort Worth, Texas. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer.

Any questions for the applicant?

Maybe just to add to what Mr. Parks have said. So the connector that we're proposing is an actual paved parking lot, and on the south side, it ties in directly to existing driveway. That'll make really easy access for utility companies to access the power lines that are still within the alley.

Thank you very much. Appreciate you being here. Anyone else here to speak in favor? Anyone here to speak in opposition? Okay. Close the public hearing and entertain discussion or a motion. This is in council district 11.

Pending discussion, I'll go ahead and motion to approve a recommendation of the vacation of portion of the alley in block eight and south side addition. I second.

Motion by Commissioner Risher and a second by Commissioner Gillette. Michelle, if you'll call the vote, please.

Commissioner Adams, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Sims, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Risher, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Farta, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Vice Chair Kranz, how do you vote? Yes. The motion passes.

Next case, VA 25031, Vacation of Portions of Grove Street, Iron Street, and Wallace Street, located north of the Trinity River and on the east side and west side of Beach Street in Page Company's east side addition, second filing, Council District 11. General location is north of the Trinity River and on the east and west sides of Beach Street. Applicants have an associates.

Okay, so this one is a little different than stuff we normally see. These are essentially just paper streets only. The remainders of these right-of-ways that these used to join have all already been previously vacated. For whatever reason, these portions of right-of-way never were, and so this is simply to clean up the two properties on either side of Beach Street for future planning. This is what the grid used to look like in these areas, and it is now much different, obviously. Staff recommends the vacation of these right-of-ways to city council. Does anyone have any questions?

Okay, don't see any. Is the applicant present? Anyone here to speak in favor or in opposition? Doesn't seem to be, okay. Then we will close the public hearing and entertain discussion or a motion.

Just like to commend the staff for such lovely presentations today.

Well done, Alex.

Thank you.

I believe this one is also in Council District 11.

All right, I'll go to a motion to approve the vacation of the sections of Grosse Street, Iran, Iranian Street, and Wallace Street rights-of-way located on the east and west sides of Beach Street. Second.

We have a motion by Commissioner Risher, a second by Commissioner Johnson. Michelle, if you'll call the vote, please.

Commissioner Adams, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Sims, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Risher, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Florida, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Vice Chair Kranz, how do you vote?

Yes. The motion passes.

All right, next on the agenda is other matters of business. We have an election of officers, but did we want to do the infill first?

Let's go ahead and jump to that and take care of agenda business, and then we'll do that.

So we have staff here to present the revised infill ordinance information.

Thank you, Alex. Thank you, Stephen. Thank you again. Commissioners CPC for providing us the opportunity to come back to you guys again Can I trouble you to get a little closer to the mic please thank you Is it better now? Thank you So we have had a chance to walk this document through various levels of our leadership to fine tune our amendments and bring it to this shape as we present before the CPC today. Hopefully all the commissioners got a chance to look at the document that we had shared last week. I would move to the next slide. So we already spoke about the background and everything. We are also joined by our consultant, Tom Galbraith, retired from Danaway, who has helped us in this journey.

So thank you, Tom, for coming in.

So I would take some time out to summarize. The document is about since we have new commissioners joining the CPC today, Starting with the definition, so we have attempted to further streamline the definition, taking into the consideration and comments and feedbacks from CPC as well as from the leadership, the city leadership. So we have confined it to infill development where any development is One criteria, it is within the one mile loop of A20 in the city limits and plotted before January 1 of 2000. So that is one criteria to define an infill development in the city, or if the development is within the UR, that is urban residential, any form-based co-district, historic districts, or within the quarter mile of frequent transit routes. So what are frequent transit routes? Are those transit routes which are bus lanes which have a headway or a frequency of less than 15 minutes, or including all the passenger rail stations? So we understand those are potential areas for transit-oriented development or compact development, which is as well a good candidate for infill development. Moving along, the role of development, role of our director of development services as we had discussed before in our last meeting would remain all the same. We haven't had much back and forth communication on this one. I only think we have addressed few of the issues comments that the commissioners have raised on this section. So there are not much changes to what we have presented before on this particular section. A summary of all the infill amendments moving with the first amendment on the connectivity index. We are happy to accommodate the request of one of the commissioners collectively to remove the blanket waiver. So we have induced the language that for infill developments, the director of development services or his designee may waive or reduce the connectivity index requirement based upon the prevailing site condition, topography, and existing neighborhood character. So if you would appreciate earlier, it was a blanket waiver, so we have tried to complete that. On the lot lines, it is For a normal development, it has to be perpendicular to the streets centerline. For infill developments, we will factor into the existing conditions, including but not limited to the topography, easements, neighborhood character, utilities, build conditions, so various factors that would come to the review of the staff. factoring all those conditions, we could even have, for infill developments, those plots which are not perpendicular maybe to the street center line. For lot plotting arrangement, so for infill development, we are providing that flexibility for those lots to front onto a private exercisement or an HOA-designated lot. So that is an added inducement. There has been a conversation on how we try to prevent some design or address some design challenges on what we see with the turned down homes. So we have introduced a language for turn down home lots with access ways perpendicular to a public street. The end lot fronting both the public street and the access way shall have its front yard designed to face the public street. So basically, it tries to address or prevent turn down homes to be permitted. So if there is any, any planned proposal for a turntown home, the end unit will always have to face the public street in order to improve the eyes on the street design consideration as the staff follows. So that is an added linkage we have introduced in this particular section. On the access ways, we have maintained a five-foot paid service for the designated private lot. or private easement of common ownership for access to lots for infill development. We have other criteria defined for other developments which are not infill. Specifically for infill, we only require a five foot paved accessway easement. On the policy that is public open space easement, so at the intersection of an emergency access easement with Usually it is 10 by 10 for a normal development. For infill development, it could be reduced to a five by five easement, unless and until the staff or the director feels the need for a greater dedication, considering the stopping site distance parameter. On the additional right of way requirement, if at all an infill development or a high density infill development is trying to induce more traffic or more intensity in traffic in a particular lane, we would best try to look for or optimize engineering solutions to improve the the lane traffic or the signal traffic, but if at all it is determined that we need to have, to provide adequate public facilities for the development, a lane dedication would be required. We have two tools to do that. One is through the separate instrument or through a replat. So if the infill development generates a traffic that DEGRADES THE LEVEL OF SURFACE OF THE ROAD, IT WOULD BE THE HONORS OF THE DEVELOPER TO PROVIDE OR TO PUT IN THE COST OF THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS. MOVING ON TO THE STREET NAMING AND ADDRESSING CURRENTLY, A TYPICAL LOT TAKES THE NAME FROM THE PUBLIC STREET FOR THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT WE ARE PROVIDING OR WIDENING THE CANVAS OF IT BY ALSO TAKING IT FROM THE RARE EXCESS SEASEMENT AND THE ALLEYS. On the corner clips, that is intersection with the street and an alley. Currently it is 10 by 10. For infill development, we have reduced it to five by five again if it adequately provides the required stopping site distance. This is the section on residential driving access limitation. So as you see on the screen is what currently the subdivision ordinance states that is for any lot, which is less than 50 feet in wide fronting onto a public street. It can only get access by two means. One, it has to be from an abutting side or a rare alley or a right driveway within an appropriate access easement that is from the rare Our second criteria is that they provide a common shared driveway centered over the common lot lines between the two adjacent dwelling units. So how we have tried to amend it is through building three different scenarios. The first scenario is in which we have a single lot of residential infill development that is less than 50 feet and wide from the building line and may have driveway access at the front lot if the lot previously had driveway access. So if it has an existing driveway, it would be under the consideration of the staff to evaluate whether this should be a candidate for administrative waiver. The second scenario is in which if we have residential development, which is redeveloping more than 50% or more than half of a residential block. So that is considered typically a big infill redevelopment. For such a scenario, It would be the responsibility of the developer to construct the alley if he's not in a position to provide the common shared access ways from the end of his property line up till to the end of the nearest street, as you see on the screen, with a material which is asphalt or concrete or higher grade material. So that is the second scenario. The third scenario is in which if a redevelopment is happening partially, less than 50% of the block, So it would be treated to some kind of a feasibility test by the staff. So if there are any conditions or topographical conditions that prevents or deems the construction of the alley infeasible, then it would be up for an administrative review. Or if under that review it is deemed feasible, and the developer is not in a position to provide the common shared drive base, then he is subjected to build the alley. So he is responsible to build the alley from the edge of his property lines that you see in the high intense gray marked with asterisks alley. Whatever is remaining from the edge of the property line to the street is what we introduce a term called interim public alley. That would be paved with a material which is able to substantially withhold 10,000 pounds or more of vehicle load, which would be of reduced grade material. That is even explained in another section in Ali's paving. We had touched upon all of these in our previous presentation back in November, so I'm just reiterating the brevity of all present today. On the alley bits, I remember there was that conversation whether it is 20 feet or 25, so we have tried to address that in the comments response. and we have maintained the same standards, and also proposed that it reduce standards for infill development, as you see on the screen. Towards the last of the league of major infill amendments is the block face length. So except for infill amendments on UR, Form B scored, and H block, block phase long standards doesn't apply to infill, which is less than two acres. The reason we excluded those zones, particularly they have their own standards to ensure or promote better walkability in those neighborhoods. So that is taken care of. So with that, I'd like to also refresh the memories of all of us present today. So when we presented last time in November to here, what all changes what we had introduced. One is on the infill development definition. So now we have the one mile buffer that applies to all the developments in the city limits plotted before 2000. We have tried to remove the NAZ and the urban villages because when we found in multi-criteria analysis in GIS, we found that most of these are already included within one of the overlays, so there was no need to duplicate the efforts. We have introduced something called a quarter-mile buffer of frequent transit routes. That is the definition of any bus lanes which have a headway of 15 minutes or less that is frequently transited, so quarter-mile buffer from that bus lanes, and also all passenger rail stations we have in the city limits. And we have the urban residential end. Sorry, just looking to see if I can take a question here.

So this is part that really surprised me about the frequent transit routes. Can you give an example of where something that's now covered that wouldn't have been covered before, like a corridor you're thinking of? Is that like an interstate highway or an arterial?

So the TRE stop that is in Trinity Lakes is outside the one-mile buffer of Loop 820, I believe. So there's one there. There's a few to the north. We have some that are further north, the Alliance Airport and those areas up there that are frequented more often. And so those are some of the areas that are further out that would not have been encapsulated in that one-mile buffer.

Okay. And I guess, is there a legal definition for frequent transit routes at is in here or otherwise cited?

So this definition is actually taken out of the APA, American Planning Association, how they define it, and also transit-oriented development, which actually originated out of Canada. So there are various principles, definitions that is universally accepted and also adopted by World Bank for how they define the transit-oriented development. So we have taken cue out of that. Also, if you look into the Trinity Metro Rail, they also define the high-frequency routes taking the headway of 15 minutes or less into the picture. Sorry, I do have one more question.

You have an example of a current form-based district that's outside the current definition that we're trying to bring in. Is there an area of town that's got a form-based code district that wouldn't have otherwise been included?

The reason we didn't limit it to just stuff within the loop is anybody can create a form-based code. Those form-based codes are usually generated by the public and then adopted by the city. So if someone were to create a master plan community, someone... somewhere further away from the central city than currently today, then we would like to be able to offer that flexibility and create those pedestrian walkable, pedestrian friendly opportunities within their development and still give them the same flexibility we would to other ones that are located within the one mile loop. There are certain master plan communities like Walsh Ranch that has some opportunities for urban village zoning. Tradition has some opportunities for mixed-use and urban village development as well So there's there's lots of them that are further away from the central city that we didn't want to just limit just this one area and Isolate those opportunities we wanted to be able to give that flexibility depending on where they were because just because It makes sense within the central city doesn't mean it doesn't make sense in other areas if they're willing to adopt those zoning Classifications and the design requirements to come with them

Can we move to the next? Thank you. On the connectivity index, as we discussed in the previous slide, we have introduced that subject to the consideration of the staff or the director or his designee to waive off or to reduce the requirement of connectivity index. That is one change that is from what we discussed last November. on the lot platting arrangement as we introduced a language to regulate the turn down homes and attempt through the subdivision ordinance we would also do through zoning ordinance which would follow suit just to ensure and prevent an aesthetic degradation of the neighborhood. And last but not the least, block fees length. So we had MU or other form-based code district. So MU is already under the form-based code, so we would just like to remove the duplicity in that. That's our plan for February, and we are open to more questions.

Any other questions? Thank you.

Yeah, so one of the things that came up before is there were some, staff had said, oh, there were some mistakes, some typos, types of things, and they were like, The ordinance was presented before. Is there a review of what those were, just so I'm not having to nitpick?

I think the typos were basically on those and or or in the definition criteria, which we kind of explained right now. And the other thing was on the 20 feet and 25 feet on the alley widths, which we also rectified. So those are well taken care of. It's whatever Richard shared has addressed all those typos and if there are more, we are happy to look at them.

Commissioner Henderson, are you asking if there's a red line available?

Well, I mean, a red line would be nice to see, yes, of what we looked at before in depth that we have now. Sorry. There were some other questions that several of us have put to staff about the Oregon State. I'm not sure. I didn't get a response on this.

I didn't get a response, but my questions have all been addressed in this. I was going to ask if yours have as well.

I'm reviewing mine right now to make sure. That was my question, Commissioner. There was a red line prepared to show you all changes that were made since November. I'm not sure if that got shared or if y'all just got the clean version that was sent out last Friday.

Yeah, I think what I got was it's a red line compared to what the old subdivision ordinance is.

That's what I'm seeing as well.

I don't suppose we could have a printed copy we could read real quick.

Let me look and see if I can dig it up.

Other questions? Any other questions or discussion while we're waiting on that?

My one concern on this is the form-based code going fully administrative. What is newer development areas? It doesn't seem like that's really the intent of infill, but I think it was explaining what they're trying to do here. That was a little surprise.

This doesn't necessarily matter for making a decision today, but unless I missed it in the emails, the presentation I got was I think an older version of what was presented. Would it be possible for us to get, just for our records, the version that was presented here today? Mine stops on slide 21 where it says discussion.

Okay, go ahead, Gabby.

We just kept going with some more good information, yes, which I appreciate being in there.

Yeah, sure, we'll definitely send it across to you.

Are we planning to vote on this today? Because it kind of seemed like the agenda said

My understanding is that Steph is asking for a vote today. I guess where we left it last time was we wanted the opportunity to provide comments, see the changes. So I guess question to the group, maybe some discussion on whether or not we feel comfortable proceeding with a vote today or if we feel that there are additional items we need to see or questions that need to be hashed out.

I know that they captured all the questions that I had. I'm not certain to what extent we need to discuss it further, but if there were issues that weren't addressed today, then we can certainly discuss those, but they've captured mine.

Thank you. Any other comments? Commissioner Henderson, do you think we need to wait to see the red line on that, or do you think, were your questions substantially addressed? Any remaining concerns?

There was a couple of them I was trying to figure out if they had been addressed or not on the code.

Please spell it, maybe we can look at them.

I would really appreciate that, thank you.

So you mean to say that the document you had received didn't have any red lines?

I think the document we received, as Commissioner Henderson stated, compares the original or the prior final version of the subdivision ordinance to the currently proposed amendments. It doesn't show the changes between what we saw in November and what we're seeing today.

Yeah, it's just strikethroughs of the original document.

Showing the interim updates.

We can take like a five minute break and then reconvene.

Yes, shall we do a five minute recess while we're looking for that?

I'm logged in, that would do it.

Okay, let's do that.

Rich is gonna send me the document and I'll pull it up out of my email.

We're gonna take a five minute and then reconvene. So if y'all wanna get some coffee or whatnot,

Okay, we're gonna call the meeting back into session.

What? Okay.

Oh, you don't want me to do that?

I think we should do karaoke. Let's go.

I think you should do karaoke.

I got one. Why did the mushroom go to the party? He's a fun guy.

Sometimes I get up on stage.

or paper towels.

Are you ready? Yes. Okay. Call this meeting back to order.

What this document is supposed to be is a red line to the version you saw back in November. I'm not sure where the specific questions are. We did a little bit of...

Maybe we answer, maybe we go to Lee's questions regarding the red line.

I can, so this was something, I think this came from Tidwell, wanting to have some of the rationale behind doing infill, that was the main change there. This was our definition of infill, where we've made some changes. That was something in the initial ordinance there was a process built in where with the first application the applicant would submit an application saying I'm in fill. It's just not gonna be workable because development projects come in at all different stages and so to try to do that would kind of be a nightmare to try to administer. So the key to that is the staff will be trained to understand that They have to watch out for infill, just like they do on other things they watch out for.

The applicant wouldn't be saying, I want to designate this infill. It just so happens to the process, city staff wouldn't.

It can happen through the process, and certainly, you know, if staff chooses, they can update all the documents to have a checkbox to say, is this infill? They would still have to check against that, but. You may have a development that's only coming in for a building permit, it doesn't need a plat versus one that needs a plat, whether it be preliminary or final or a replat, and so there's so many different touches along the way, it's kind of difficult to have a separate process created just to process whether or not you're an infill. This is on the connectivity index where we had some back and forth where I believe some of you wanted to put some language in that DJ had agreed to last time on the limiting the director's authority to grant waivers on connectivity index to certain situations. That's just grammar. So to what should be new from what you last saw is in red. So the underlined part there that starts with foreign field developments, that should have been in the version you saw last time and it's newly proposed language because it's underlined.

A and B section of five is consolidated to one.

Yeah, I think that has to do with the red line and just how it's showing. So there was a proposal to do this additional right-of-way requirements at high volume intersections and as staff worked through that, it was determined we don't need to add that to the ordinance. We good on this section or is there any questions?

Almost halfway through.

You're only halfway? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you, Commissioner. I wanted to make sure we don't have any more questions.

I don't have any more on this section. I was stating that we're almost halfway through.

Yeah, just capitalization. Great for me. Anybody.

I appreciate the addition of the asphalt here as an option. Is the asphalt or concrete requirement at the direction of development of director services or is that a developer option?

It will be at the developer's discretion. They can do either or if they are going to build the alley. Just a cleanup item.

I appreciate that. I didn't catch that definition of an added.

That would be it as far as. Is that?

Can you scroll back to the interim public alley? I think it's two pages up. Down. Section 21. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Any questions?

I thank staff for getting that pulled up to go through it.

Thank you for walking through that. That was helpful for me as well. Okay. Open it up if there's anyone here to speak in favor. Anyone here to speak in opposition? Okay, we will close the public hearing on that. And I think at this point, reading the room, I believe we're ready to proceed with a vote on this. So I will entertain further discussion or a motion. And I believe anyone can make a motion on this one as it's applicable to all districts.

I'll make a motion to approve the subdivision ordinance textual amendments as they were presented here today.

A motion from Commissioner Farta and a second from Commissioner Risher. Michelle, if you'll call the vote, please.

Commissioner Adams, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Sims, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Risher, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Farta, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Vice Chair Krantz, how do you vote?

Yes. Motion passes. There's a lot of work and many years that have gone into that. Congratulations on getting past this step.

I'd like to really thank Arvon and Alex for putting the work through. There was some transition that happened and Arvon took this up upon himself to finish, so Alex and Arvon, I really appreciate all your efforts in this, so thank you so much.

Great job, guys.

I think the next item of business is to do a vote for the chair. So do we have anybody who wants to do the chair? Do you want to continue doing the chair role?

I would be honored to serve as the chair if you'll have me.

Anybody else want to run for chair? All right, let's go ahead and do a vote. All in favor of Ms. Kranz as chair, say aye. Aye. All right, who would like to do a vice? Oh, anybody opposed? All right, this is new to me whenever I'm a CBC commissioner, okay. So anybody wanna do vice chair or nominate themselves or nominate somebody for vice chair?

I'll make a nomination. I wanna nominate Commissioner Johnson for the position of vice chair.

And I'll second. Anybody else wanna throw their hat in the ring?

I'll accept that nomination.

All right, let's do a vote. All in favor of Commissioner Johnson as the vice chair, say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Okay, so we have Caroline Kranz as the chair and CJ Johnson as the vice chair. Good job, y'all.

And that's our final order of business, so I believe we are adjourned and we will see you next month.