This conference will now be recorded. you you you you you you you you you you You you you I'm going to take a break. I'm going to take a picture and start. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Camper, are you over here now? Brandon says yes, you can hear. Okay. Okay, I think we're good now. Okay. You might, if you don't mind, I apologize. I think you might turn it from the beginning just so we can make sure that it's not all getting at the board. Sure. Oh, well, it's better for sure. So starting with ZTA-25-02, which is more housing now with a focus on workforce housing. Tomorrow is likely the final county council hearing on the matter. Just in the procedures for ZTA, that's just kind of how it works. So we're rushing to get written testimony in, which we'll discuss tonight. I think everybody has a copy before them. And that will also be testifying in person, tomorrow either, or two hearings, one in the afternoon, one in the evening. Other municipalities will also be submitting written testimony and a few folks will also be testifying in person, in person well. And to keep in context. Here we are with housing proposals at the county level is way ahead of where we felt we were in the fall. So for context, the as proposed, this CTA affects at most 10 village properties, eight on Connecticut Avenue and two on Wisconsin. And the sponsors have said that historic properties will be excluded from the program. And if you exclude historic properties, you are down to a total of three properties, one on Connecticut and two on Wisconsin. So the effect of this ZTA is, dare I say it, a minimus, certainly not for everyone affected by it, but- For their reduce, it would only be two properties. Everything on Connecticut would do this door to a varying designation. But everything on Connecticut would do this door to a district. And that would leave only the two properties for someone who was done and one of which is active. Good. So of course we want to influence the outcome of this proposal as much as possible, but just so that everyone, again, keeps that context in mind, the impact on the village is far less than what the AHSI proposals would have included. So with that, we learned that they're going to keep the record open until March 24. We only learned that in the last few days. It was unclear if our testimony, if what we were going to say, was actually had to be submitted today before we'd be able to discuss it tonight. So this testimony was initially drafted thinking we wouldn't have an opportunity to discuss it. But fortunately we do have the opportunity to discuss it, make a few changes if the board so desires, and we can submit that updated testimony at any time tomorrow when I give my in-person testimony or even later, there too, if the board so desired. We have until March 24th, but of course, we want our testimony going in as early as possible just to have this big of an impact where as much influence over the county council as possible. So if we shift to the draft testimony, because I do think that- Can I- Yeah, please do. I would assume that given the bill in the first section five, part-to-dition, that we're probably really lucky and unique. Are any other municipalities, do they have large quantities of the start properties that they would find themselves in the same situation? We are, that is exempt. Not large quantities. So the town can confirm that they have one property that is designated as an historic resource that is one, the Connecticut Avenue corridor. There are none in section three and five. Martin's additions has now been completely excluded because this is now focused on the corridors and Martin's additions is solely east of Brookville Road. And then I am posed to rep question to the planning staff of just how many homes in the approximate 25 hundred that would be eligible under this legislative change are located within established historic districts. They did not know that number off hand, but they were going to be coordinating to get that answer. They indicated that they should have that answer to us within the next couple of days. So we are quite unique. Correct. And that there's only one property. Really? What are we? It was going to be narrowed to you. Less time to get an update. There were some things get unsettled. And one of them I thought was what constitutes a corridor. And has that been settled? Because I think under the 100 feet of Grapplet Street could be a goal. Yeah, so thankfully, they came, the county released a map, which designates the specific properties that this legislation would apply to. So that really helped to clarify, and you had raised the observation keenly last month, that the legislation appeared to read that your property happened to be addressed to the corridor that is master plan to a minimum width of 100 feet, et cetera. And your reading was indeed correct, and the map confirmed that. But it's only properties addressed to Connecticut. So that's why, although there are many more along Connecticut and Wisconsin that directly above those two corridors, there are only a total of 10 physically addressed to those. And the other one that stuck in my mind was the question of whether, for example, the one that said I actually that's right. Yeah, no, no. Um, maybe princess. No, no, I'm just gonna remember. Has him. Oh, oh, oh, oh, yes. Oh, yes. Yes. The question of could they, switch the, could they, why the next door neighbor would have to be a bigger backyard essentially, because the house that's stored in the back is being rented at the moment and it would be kind of private for that. Yeah, so I don't know if you wanted to address this. And that's one of the key questions. So in the first point under eligible quarters of the testimony that you've gotten in front of you, we talk about urging a prohibition on the chaining for aggregation of adjacent blocks. And that goes two ways. Number one is making sure that a lot that fronts on the corridor can't be combined with a lot behind it on the interior. And the sponsors and Councilman Freedson in particular have said that was to be excluded. it was never the intent. So we want to see that explicit in the language, but we're confident that that interior lot combination will be prohibited under the proposal. There's also the question of can you combine multiple lots that jointly front the corridor? So two consecutive parcels that could be combined, and maybe you could get more on the combined parcels than on any one individually. So we're also asking for that in that first point in the testimony. We're probably a little less certain that that'll fly versus the interior combination. Does that kind of that kind of just we also don't have that situation. We have one property on Wisconsin plus the parking lot, right? Correct. So Wisconsin's side yes. Yeah. And so the property that you were referencing Mr. Crocket at the corner of Oliver and Wisconsin is actually not one of the properties because they went through an effort a few years ago to have their property re-addressed to Oliver Street. So maybe we need to find out what crystal wall they built into that they made that change. And so it's actually the home at the end of the graphing street that is the other property. So yeah, so and then the second point is on the historic district and to support also what Shana described earlier that that it can be an outstanding or a contributing property in a historic district. and therefore be precluded from this proposal. So that's where we get from, I guess, what was eight properties on Connecticut Avenue down to one. Yeah. And then the last point here on the eligible corridors is just we requested a more detailed listing of what constitutes the eligible corridors. The next page goes through and makes a couple of suggestions, but I'm not gonna walk through each of those individually if folks have had a chance to read it, skim it, and so forth, though, we can just kind of go into question mode. To some extent, because we were writing this believing we'd have to submit it today, on some of these issues, we were asking questions without taking a position. Because we now have the option, at least, as a board to discuss it tonight, we could take a firm or stance. Though, of course, all of the municipalities, I don't know if there's perhaps one exception of all the municipalities were coordinating with. Only one has had a municipal meeting before us in the time since this was released and since the map and so forth was made available. So all of the municipalities are kinda scrambling to take a position, get feedback from residents and we're in pretty good shape relative to them. But with that, are there any questions just already outstanding on this? Yeah. The only question is that we're very lucky. It seems to me that every county council or planning commission is going to have a hard time opposing exemption and start on. I mean, at the end of just from the public policy standpoint, it seems like a rational and strong public policy argument. The only thing I would wonder about was whether, whether or the other municipalities were coordinating with, they're going to have a very different approach. They might in fact, because they don't have the start property, be totally opposed to this legislation. I think I continue. There are some that have more strenuous objections than what we have. Yeah, I'm just wondering whether we can accomplish what this letter says, which I think is well constructed, without essentially taking a position that we support in this legislation. In other words, just take out that first line in the second second paragraph. That way, at least we're a little bit more deferential to our neighboring jurisdictions that might think this is still in our bad mood. Well, but I wouldn't characterize them as not being- So they support them in their position? They support a more precise, it's where everyone is significantly relieved that we have this much more precise approach. And we do have Michelle Rosenfeld joining us virtually. And because she represents this coalition of municipalities, it might be appropriate to let her weigh in to give us a better read on, if she believes anyone's really taken. I'm only aware as Mr. Horseburger mentioned of one municipality that is going on record in opposition. But I believe everyone else's, as Ms. Leonard referenced, are taking a more good nuanced position. Michelle, are you able to get away in on that question? Sure, I'd be happy to. Hi, Michelle. Hey, on one sec. We're not hearing you broadcast in the room. Give us just a sec. Okay. Okay. And if I Sue Ellen has joined us on the virtual feed as well, there are these specific questions that we need her to respond to. All right. Michelle, can you go ahead and try talking again. Let's see if we can hear you now. Sure. Sure. Can you hear me? No, not yet. One sec. We want to put it to the TV. Oh. Side one. We could also try putting a microphone near your volume out. And you know where it was coming out of. Yeah, you can bend that down. Let's see. Michelle, let me try that again. Okay. Can you hear me? No. Okay. All right. Hang on on bear with us. Yeah, I don't think that's gonna be on cast. I'm just to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. here. Now I think it's a pretty widespread chance out of it. of the tone that's not much more positive is from the beginning. Can you hear us now? I can hear you. Oh, I can hear you. All right. Go ahead Michelle. OK. OK. So I, as a general, most of the municipalities are taking a position of support with questions or modifications. And most of the testimony that's going in really mirrors a lot of what is in the draft letter that you're reviewing tonight. What aminess palli has been a little less favorable. I'm not sure by the time the testimony is finalized if that might not be moderated somewhat, but as a general approach, the testimony that you are presenting very much supports the areas of concern and the types of modifications that most of the municipalities are also concerned about. So I think that you are largely supportive of sort of the general consensus on these issues. Thank you that's great to hear. And what do you if we could invite Michelle to offer up from your perspective if we weren were to take a position up front that was in opposition and then we wanted to ask for specific things to happen with this legislation like exempting the historic district. Do you feel that that might, those requests might be ignored if we lead without right opposition? I do. You know, the proposal is scaled so far below what the attainable housing initiative was all about. And given the far less limited impact particularly in your jurisdiction, I think it would be difficult to say that you oppose it, but you want modifications. It's a lot easier to go and say you've done a lot of good things. We like a lot of what you've achieved. Here are some specific issues that either we think need to be clarified or we would like you to modify. I just think in these legislative procedures that's a much more productive way to move forward. Thank you. Please, that's helpful. Thank you. Any other questions just from the draft testimony, any uncertainties? These were primarily again questions that I think were a little less important to us than what was right on page one. Well it the first number one and two. So if folks are okay with it we can go on to the other updates. And I know that there is one edit that Sue Allen Crawford earlier that I know she and Michelle have had a conversation about Michelle did you want to weigh in about the one bullet that you all have decided we should probably just omit for now? Yeah, so Ellen raised a good point about the reading of one of those more technical provisions and it's honestly an issue that is going to be addressed, I think, pretty uniformly across the municipalities. It's not such a significant point that I think we need to address it right now, now that we have the luxury of an additional couple of weeks. And I would like to make sure that Suella and Ron Bolton, I all three are crafting that language in the same way so that it's coming in uniformly across the municipalities. I believe I don't want to be concerned about leaving it out tonight if that's your question. I'm so sorry I stepped over you say the last part again. I said I don't have any concerns about leaving it out for tonight if that's your question. Yes okay so this would be on page two under the the ZTA text section, I believe it's bullet seven. Is that correct? I think... Yes, okay, so this would be on page two under the ZTA text section. I believe it's bullet seven. Is that correct? I think emails earlier may have referred to bullet eight, but I think it's seven because that's the reference to County Code Section 25B26. I'm not sure I have the same draft that you're looking at. But I think there's only one issue that Sue Ellen was, and we were sort of conversing back and forth about today. And I do hear Sue Ellen was weighing in now too as well. So on the hat. Thank you. Can you hear me OK? Yes. Great. I think that it's something that should be referenced, but I don't think it's being accurately referenced at the moment. And so we would like some leeway on this and not have to do it necessarily a supplemental testimony, but do it just directly once we confer with other counsel and make sure we have it accurately described. that's all. Got it. Okay. So we can do that offline tomorrow. Yeah. Great. Thank you. Sounds good. So if everybody is good for now on workforce housing, we can then shift gears to the state and there are two state level issues. The one we've talked about most is the technical amendment to section 2509 of the State's Land Use Act. That bill is now referred to as House Bill 1167 and that's the bill that would clarify municipal authority to regulate construction, especially for housing with four or fewer units. The House Environment and Transportation Committee held a hearing on that bill last Thursday. They heard testimony only from District 18's own delegate Solomon who sponsored the legislation and he's helping to shepherd it through the General Assembly. So it was short and sweet as expected and the expectation fingers crossed is that the bill will now go if that's if it's had its first reading and that hearing and there's support from the Montgomery County delegation as there is it should now just go through the reading process two more readings in the house before it goes over to the Senate three readings there before it goes to the governor. So the goal there is that it makes its way through the legislative process is signed by the governor and I believe then it would take effect October 1. So any questions on that before we move on to the second state level issue. So, first, the second state level issue, that's House Bill 503 also referred to as Senate Bill 430. This is the bill. It's described also as the Governor's Housing Act. It would divide the state into regions for the purpose of calculating a jobs to housing ratio to identify regions with a housing shortfall. And for purposes of those regions, we are combined Montgomery County, that is, is combined with Prince George Georgia County, Frederick County and then Montgomery County to equal the DC region. And there's a comparable combination of counties outside of Baltimore. And I say comparable because it's the DC region and the Baltimore region that from the existing statistics show a housing shortage. And where the statistics show a housing shortage, it would become, there would be a high threshold for a jurisdiction to deny approval of a housing project. There'd be very stringent requirements for a jurisdiction to deny a housing project. Now, there's a lot of, a lot, carried in the word jurisdiction there in that by jurisdiction, do you mean the whole region? Do you mean the county? Do you mean municipalities? Who is responsible for addressing a regional shortfall? And a lot of those mechanics aren't clear from the bill. But the questions, those questions among them, all of the jurisdictions, counties, municipalities, both DC area as well as Baltimore area we would expect are asking these same questions and seeking clarification. So in that, we're in very good company in terms of larger jurisdictions than ours, asking questions. And for the most part, both jurisdictions and associations, I'm also involved in this Maryland Association of Counties, Maryland Municipal Leagues Montgomery Civic Federation. For the most part, they're asking questions. I think there is a hesitance to come out before we know the answers to those questions. There's a hesitance for folks to come out in opposition to the governor's bill. So I think the general position is proposing amendments. And for example, the Maryland Association of Counties has proposed very detailed amendments already. There are a few, even as we seek more information and look to influence how the legislation evolves, there are a few things that give us some reassurance that this would not be an extreme abdication of housing authority by the village as a municipality. For example, there is the requirement in the bill that a proposal could only be denied for objectively verifiable standards that were in place prior to the passage of the act. And that probably is the most important of the provisions that give us a little bit of reassurance in that the billage has a history at being very rigorous and consistent in the application of the village code and permitting authority. So, even if the bill were to carry through as is, we are on somewhat firmer ground probably than a lot of other municipalities or jurisdictions. There are still other things that give pause though. Jurisdictions can't necessarily appeal when they can't necessarily appeal when their denial is denied. And Shayna helped me out on that. What authority over rules a jurisdiction if they deny a particular housing proposal? So my other thing is they would go to Circuit Court. The Shelton respond to that or Sue Ellen definitively, but I believe it goes to Circuit Court at that point. So that's one concern is that the jurisdictions would have limited rights of appeal. second concern is that there's a burden of proof placed on jurisdictions denying a housing project to show that the project could not be amended in some fashion to make it financially viable. So suddenly now you have this whole tangled ball of wax, or ball of string, take your pick, that is on the shoulders of the jurisdiction to determine, well, suddenly now, a jurisdiction has to prove a negative effectively without any information or data. So with that, I think that the, and I'll let and Michelle weigh in as to further next steps, but I think at this point, we know that we're in the same vote as a lot of other folks asking questions and raising concerns. Those other folks are far larger and suffer far more adverse consequences than we would if you think about the county's whole planning process could be very unsettled by the adoption of the legislation as currently drafted. So we're eager to keep tabs on this and see how it advances. I know maybe I'm the only one that is this ignorant about it, but I don't understand what constitutes the housing project. For example, would buying an existing home and tearing it down and doing something else there, but that constitute a housing project. And the second question is, could they, for example, where Kirkside Drive goes past Tesseth, there's a vacant lot there, because it originally the road might have gone through there. Could they it's not why could they require the village? It's an easement. It's not a lot correct. Yeah, but could they know they No, it's always gonna be an easement in perpetuity well So to so to your first question if somebody were gonna do a tear down and just wanted to put multiple units in place of a single tear down, would that be allowed under this proposal? And so that I don't get ahead of myself, I'll look to Shayna and Michelle to weigh in on that. What government is in that case? And I will defer to Michelle. And I just want to let you know about this yet. The answer would be yes. Under the Jobs Housing Bill, as it's currently drafted, it could be a single unit. It does not need to be multifamily. And it would encompass just about any type of land use review and approval that you can think of for a single unit. It would include a building permit application for larger projects. It would include a site plan or a preliminary plan. It also could involve a conditional use or special exception. The definition of a housing project is extremely broad. And so that's one reason why there are so many jurisdictions who are concerned because you know certainly for larger projects you often get into more discretionary types review you know compliance with a master plan for example. And the appeal process also is of great concern to many jurisdictions. So at this point, MML and MAKO were going to meet with legislators and discuss potential amendments. And I will be in touch with MML tomorrow to talk to them about what those discussions were like and what kind of progress might have been made. There were some very specific legislative requests, amendments that had been presented by various jurisdictions. So it's sort of, they're making sausage right now. So we, I need to follow up and find out exactly how that's moving along. Things are in flux at the moment. And is it still true what I understood that they can't, that the project couldn't violate zoning? That this? Correct, correct. I mean, the project needs to adhere to zoning standards. What's challenging about the bill is that it in effect requires a jurisdiction to defend its standards. It kind of flips that burden of proof. Typically, a jurisdiction is presumed to have properly applied its code. And here, the standard has flipped to the jurisdiction has to prove that the project is financially viable in certain circumstances. So it's very, very messy. But in terms of the impact on the village, you do have objective standards. You know, the building standards that you would look at are very objective, very numerical. There's really no subjectivity. So I think you're well ahead of a lot of jurist of being able to defend decisions that you would make. Michelle, is there any sense of the timing of how this bill would move forward? Because today is March 10th, a typical legislative session would go no later than April 15th, right? Right. Right. Right. And so the bill is cross-filed, so and some for the next year and some for the Cross-Filed, so it's in both the House and the Senate, but can it move that quickly for this session? Or is that a stretch and we might be talking about this again next year and some for? I think it depends on whether or not there's going to be meaningful deference to the concerns that are raised by the jurisdictions, or if there's going to be more deference to the wishes of the governor. And I honestly don't have a clear sense of that right now because I haven't been able to talk to someone from MML since the public hearing. I don't know if Sue Ellen might have some insight that I'm not aware of if so, Sue Ellen, please join in. But I'm at this moment, I'm going to have to update you in a day or two on that. I don't have a sense of that right now. No, sure thing. Thanks. Michelle. I don't have anything to add to that. Michelle, what is the position of the Maryland Building Industry Association on the Governor's bill? Have they been behind this initiative? I think they've been very supportive of it as have a number of housing groups. So, you know, their view is, I think that this will make the development review process easier or streamlined shifts the burden essentially off their shoulders to a certain degree. So they have been in favor of it. And I did watch both the House and Senate Committee hearings on this bill and they did speak in support of it because another component of this bill is requiring that a jurisdiction review and act on a building application within a certain time frame. I believe it's one year is that correct. Correct. And one of the things that they're really in favor of is that they can have projects in the county's permitting pipeline for years. And so this would force that unless the jurisdiction has taken affirmative action, they essentially get a de facto building permit. And so they're sort of, they spoke in support of the overall objectives of the Jill. And as the governor's director of the Department of Housing and I think it's community affairs, DHCA stated, they have promised this bill as an effort at getting to yes. They want the building permit processes in the Maryland jurisdictions to get to yes. And unless you can make a compelling argument in reason for why you can't approve a building project, it should go forward. That's the overall objective of this as presented by the governor and the director of his housing department. The great initiative. I think we should wrap this. Oh, we need a motion, don't we? On the test of the moment. We will discuss this. So we can do this in substantially the form and then we get. We should insert that language out since we've talked about some of the amendments still forthcoming from our attorneys. So whomever is comfortable making the motion if you could just insert after written testimony, the phrase, and substantially the form provided. Anybody want to make that motion? We're looking for a motion. I move to the authorite, the board chair, new board, vice chair, new board, participant, written testimony, and substantially, the form provided to the city, county council regarding CT8, 25, 0, 2, as drafted. And to provide in-person testimony at the Kennedy Council's public hearing. Second. All in favor? Hi. And thank you, Lou, for providing in-person testimony at the county council's public hearing. Appreciate that. So we can move on to the next thing, which is our public hearing on the draft budget for the fiscal year beginning July 2025. Open for public comment. Do we have members of the public that wish to comment? Could you come to the microphone? Hello. I have a member of the public. I know. I installed a good man on the chair of the public safety committee. I don't have a lot sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. They are largely designed to improve the ability of the police force to retain its staff and to enhance the chief's ability and the lieutenant's ability to recruit new people. It would be great if we could get to full staffing. we've been a little short now for quite a while. So we complement the chief. I'm putting this thinking cap on on how to improve things. I hope this is enough to get us over the top that we can go back to full employment. Thank you. That's my help. Thanks for your comments. We appreciate that. Thank you. That's my thanks for your comments. I appreciate that. Any other comments from the public? I'm Ratesh from I'm Ratesh. Could you have a question about the zoning? I think I've put it up for two minutes. We'll talk about four minutes. Okay, got it. Just wanted to make sure. Oh, okay. Thank you. All right. So hearing no more public comments. I think we can move on to the next. Matter for discussion, which are we have some contract authorizations. Okay, so I've come before you with two contract authorization requests when we be for the consulting arbor services and the other is for landscape maintenance services. So I'm going to talk about the consulting arbor services first. We publicly advertised for the consulting arbor services on the email and marketplace and we receive four complete bids. those those bids, the lowest qualified bidder was feather and associates who we've been working with for the last 10 years. I did reach out to his references and they were very favorable of their working with them. We've worked with them we have a detailed knowledge and experience with him. I reached out to the tree committee and the public parks and green spaces committees and both were in support of continuing our relationship with rather associates. So I put before you all a contractor quest for three years with two extensions. Anybody have any questions about this going with? I'm going to authorize the village manager to enter into a contract and substantially the form provided and subject to review by village council with feather and associates for the performance of consulting, Arborist Services were initial term of three years with the option to extend the contract for up to the additional one-year terms. Second. All in favor? Great, that passes. Okay, and then the next one was our landscape services contract and this one was also advertised on the email and marketplace and Beginning in July of this year Montgomery County will begin enforcing its county wide ban of guest power leaf flowers and as a result of this We had more landscaping companies submitting bids We received nine complete bid packages for this services contract. The lowest qualified bidder was Davy tree experts and they are named us because they also provide us with our tree maintenance contract, but they do have two distinctly separate services. So they have the landscape services and then they have the tree. And I reached out to the references they provided and everyone gave us a, gave us good, good references for them. We've worked with Davy Tree for the last two years now and there have always been very responsive to our request. Came out in emergency situations such like that. So I come before you to request offering the three year with two one year extensions to Davy Tree Expert Company for our Landscape maintenance services. No, I have questions. So we're here. Sure. Well, here's the panel. I'm Hello, East Morgan. I'm from Center Street. What I want to know is, do these surfaces involved cutting back the IV that's choking various trees in the village? So that is actually done under our tree maintenance contract and if you're areas where you are seeing that please bring those to our attention and we will have our tree. So this is a bit confusing because as proposed we would have have one larger parent company name that would have two major contracts, one, but they do distinctly different things for us. And so under this contract, this is landscape maintenance, and this is mowing and mulching and weaving. I be renewable because that is a form of tree maintenance, falls under the tree maintenance contractor. So certainly do bring that to our attentionate location three or seeing that and we will certainly. So is that Talbath's father at this point? So Dr. Feathers is under a separate contract for our worth services. Davy Treex for a company holds the current contract for tree maintenance. Okay, and did they have that before? They had it before, right? We've had David tree number two years, just for some reason. Okay, so just as an example, there's a wonderful oak tree on Grafton Street, and it was being strangled by Ivy, and it's been going on for a while, and I was watching it and watching it, and I said the hell with it, nobody's doing anything. So I have weed warrior, I know how to take get rid of Ivy. So I spend a couple of days here and again cutting it and interestingly anybody who walked by me said, oh I'm glad someone's doing that and, maybe you could do that, because I didn't know how that came about. Yeah, just give us, give this staff a call, because we'll take care of things. I'm sure that. Because I didn't know, and nothing was happening, and whoever was doing the tree maintenance wasn't doing anything. So, okay. Well, there's really welcome that guy. Thank you. Thank you. So does anyone have a motion about David tree being the landscape? I move to authorize the village manager to a contract and substantially informed providing the subject to review by village council with a tree expert company for the performance of landscape maintenance services for initial term of three years with the option to to extend the contract for up to two additional one year terms. Second. All in favor. I. this is for initial term of three years with the option to extend the contract for up to two additional one year terms. Okay. All in favor. Hi. Great. Thank you. So the next thing on the agenda is the police report? You have. Yes, we had a couple of those from auto for your then recurrent and sex with Avenue. I'm gonna be kind of pleased to follow up on that one because they were involved in other thefts throughout the county with the involvement of the stolen vehicle they had. And then we had a theft from the building where officer Timmerman and a detective from Montgomery County worked together then filed a suspect and recovered the property that was taken and those charges that were crossed against the person at this time. And then on far administrative side. There is an update on that. We just got an application today from somebody that was interested and rated it right along. And we're currently setting up a interview with that person to proceed forward. And that's it. Thank you. Thanks for the report. And the manager's report. I think this equipment is imminent. That's what I think. Yeah. Yeah. So as a segue to that, and this, excuse me, any board members are approached. We have been responding to the issue of security trailers in the SACs with Avenue parking lot. This was brought to our attention. Jacqueline Parker went out there to assess exactly what was happening. It was giving. Yes, yes. And it was giving off an audible message that was so loud it could be heard as far away as Kirk's on drive and was being heard inside of people's homes. And it was, it is motion activated and it would sound an alarm. It would sound a voice that said this property is under surveillance, et cetera, et cetera. So Jackie has been in communication with the security company that Sats with Avenue has contracted with and was successful in getting them to turn the audible voice portion of this trailer off. We understand blue light that it blinks is also visible from some properties but it looks like that is also somewhat then-managed but we're continuing to manage and deal with that. I mean you can see it if you look at it it's not like it in your house or something. One of the residents of Belmont Avenue originally said that he could see it. I don't feel that one. Yeah, yeah. So I've also asked an anticipation of what is likely forthcoming changes from the SACs for the Avenue property in the next 10 years or so. I've also asked our Arborist to do a really concerted effort at looking at opportunities to create additional screening along Belmont Avenue and Olam Street along the exterior of the Sacks with Avenue property. As you all are familiar in the buffer itself, we have a pre-high fence between the buffer and the shopping center. Along Saxford Avenue there's actually a pretty low stone wall, but a lot of never-greens on the village side of that wall, but we want to try to deepen that that screening as much as we can. Anticipating that trees are lost from time to time, we want there to be sufficient enough screenings. And even if a tree has to come out, there's enough other screening in there to protect those residents from whatever in the future may hold on the sats of that main property. So we'll be working with Dr. Tether and the tree committee to get that done here in our upcoming planting cycles. So, also just wanted to take a minute to update the board on an interesting meeting that Sue Ellen, Jackie, Mr. Crocket, and I had with Pepco on Friday regarding the streetlight network along statewide of ways. So we were informed by PEPCO a couple of weeks ago, actually probably been about a month and a half ago now, that when they were required as a result of Alcar's legislation a couple of years ago to do a defined inventory of their street light network, they identified the, finally, have a map in a database now that reflects all of the street lights, including those along state highways. And they went to state highway and said, we've identified that these lights are yours, but we don't know who has been paying for these lights for all of these years. And so they state highway, said them this directive that basically says that they don't pay for street lights that illuminate their right of way unless it's at an interception. And so the meaning that we had on Friday was to discuss kind of next steps in a path forward. So Alan, do you want to go ahead and pick up from there? Yes. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Good. As usual, Toco did not show up with the, did not provide reports ahead of time. We've asked them to do that numerous times and they don't. So they go over what they produced that day and then you see it later that day. They had promised the municipalities, because of course you're not the only one that this has happened to. They had promised the municipalities that they would set up a three-way meeting with state highway, Capco and the Minnesota Pallys just got. So Alan, you're starting to write that. We're doing with that. And I think that's okay. Yeah. Am I back? Okay. We had asked about that. And we were told that instead, the PEPC has been talking to State Highway and they will be sending a letter to the municipalities stating their position, which we already have heard about. We also understand that there are some MOUs with local jurisdictions that they will honor where they have the maintenance of the lights and they accepted that responsibility. We haven't seen any of that, those we've asked to see them. So right now, State Highway is about to send out a letter and we expect that it will say that the maintenance of the lights and paying for the electricity will be on the municipalities. Peppco does not know who's been paying for these lights up till now. Gloria Lee, who was at the meeting, made a totally unsubstantiated statement that it seems to be evening out. So all of the lights that they thought they were overcharging the municipalities for are probably state highway lights. When I asked one of the folks who can actually speak for PEPCO to confirm that at the meeting, Andrew Sindel, he said no, they actually can't say that within certainty. So their record keeping is terrible. We knew that. And this is just another example of it. So once we get the letter, then we're going to have to make a decision about who to talk to about it, and that would be at the state level and get it out of state highway because they're obviously taking a position. Otherwise, they have to find money to pay for streetlights, which they don't want to do. And just to give a board an order of magnitude, the PEPCO has estimated 52 additional streetlights were currently only built for I believe it's 206 streetlights. So they're asserting that we would be responsible for another 52. So that is adding a 25% increase to our street light inventory. Now, I pointed out to them in our call, however, that a map that they showed of street lights showed street lights that were on the west side of Wisconsin Avenue, which isn't even within our municipal boundary. So clearly, they're still even more scrubbing of their place that needs to be done. But just as a reminder, this would include the, if we agree to, at the east side of Wisconsin Avenue, all of Connecticut Avenue and Brookville Road. And so that's why we're talking about such a large number because as we talked earlier about our, how distinct we are from some of our neighboring municipalities, we technically have three state roads that either come through our municipality or our long- it's edge. So that is why the number is so high. Suelland did ask Peppco in this meeting on Friday if we are unable to reach a resolution and the state does not claim responsibility for the lights and we refuse to allow the lights to be added to our bill, what Pep Cohen do, and eventually they confirm that they will de-energize the street lights on well in Connecticut Avenue. That is their end position. Either the state where we would pay for them, or they will need it. But somebody has been paying for them. They just don't know who. They don't know who. Well, we probably have been paying. We've been paying, and other, we're probably triple paying with all the little municipalities. Well, the state does pay for streetlights. They don't even know what they've been paying. because again, Pefko has provided over the years no inventory to anyone. So... for streetlights, they don't even know what they've been paying because again, Peffko is provided over the years no inventories to anyone. So the state doesn't even know what they're truly paying for. So it could be some combination of things. The town could be paying for them. I mean, we really don't. I thank you so much for attending that meeting. Your guys are heroes. Yeah. All I could think was, first, he loved me. It wasn't inferior to me. That is for sure. I felt the state we've been waiting for, or receipts for the long time. It's a guy. And just so that we're clear, the two blatantly contradictory statements that Sue Ellen said were made were by two pep going the visuals on the same call. So they don't even have their ducks in the row coming into a meeting to get their story straight. So very infuriating. And that is an aside from what is still an ongoing effort to nail down what the true cost would be for us to purchase the street lights that we know are indeed in our public right heart. So that is an effort that Suella is also still working. Suella, do you wanna provide an update on that effort? Yes. And the same, they've been spending a lot of time on this SHA issue recently, because it was a shock to everybody. And your experience of a 25% increase is not unusual. There's a number of other folks that are having this about the same increase in numbers which they weren't planning on. So they want, and Pemka wants to file a tariff. And I think everything is focusing on getting to the end of this quarter and being ready to do that. And so, they're supposed to be providing information to the municipalities that they promised in December. And I keep reminding them of this. I think we're gonna see it about a day before they filed their tariff. We have been following along with the tariff, what they proposed to do. And we know, I think at this point, where the problems are in them, such as not dealing with jimmers and requiring fees that really are just not reasonable and not needed for safety. So we'll have an argument about that at the PSC. So we're still waiting for the answers on some items. I think we're coming to a conclusion on the two agreements that are needed to buy the lights, the sales agreement, and the third party attachment agreement. We still have to corral Verizon about that. And that does our reminder because some of the street lights are on Verizon and then old nut pet cocos. And then I to go back to the budget we discussed at the budget work session, the reason that we are moving the funds that we were sending aside for the purchase and conversion of street lights to FY26, it is because of these ongoing conversations, dragging on. interim even though we are still waiting for confirmed answers from Pepco that would allow us to come to the board and present to you the costs and options for either allowing PEPCO to maintain the street light network and allowing them to convert it to LED under their proposed tariff versus us purchasing, owning and operating the street light network. While all of this has been going on, PEPCO reached out to me and other municipal representatives to ask that we make a decision and tell them now, which way we want to proceed. And so I did reach out to Mr. Crocket, and I said, I've gotten this request to make a firm position on behalf of the village. We're not there yet, and I plan to respond that we're not there yet because we're still waiting for information. And so Mr. Prakki was convened on that response to let them know that we couldn't possibly ring to you a recommendation because we don't have the information to put before you to try to decide how we want to move forward. But as Suella noted, Pepco seems to be very eager to move forward with this proposed LED tariff. And we are essentially letting them know that until we get the information that's needed so that you all can make an informed decision, we will not be presenting, and we will not be in a position to make a position. And Shayna, I am back. So any questions, if I could follow up with that one a little bit. There's no requirement anywhere that you have to tell them when you want and how many lights you want to buy. and they can't require that you answer that. But then it makes you look like you're uncooperative. And that's what they try to do. So every time anyone is asked for this information, we respond by saying, we don't have enough information from you to make that decision. We need that information, please provide it. So it's, they're just all over the place. And the call started the other day with one of the main participants being late and saying he's having a very busy day. This is 10 Gen. So I think you just come up to the microphone in case it's only in the two other needs to play in. I don't think so. This is going to be personal preference. So I'm very concerned about the natural environment. I've lived here over 30 years, and I've watched as the insect population has gone down, down, down. This is not good for any of us. And I think as people who are educated, we should know about these things. You need to have native plants to support the insects that we have that are native. And the caterpillars that feed baby birds, they can eat seed, they have to have protein. And each caterpillar has its own, you know, trees that it can feed on. And for example, a clutch of chickadees and their little birds need about 9,000 caterpillars to be fed. So, you know, Robin would need more. And so, there's a couple of things I've got in mind. I'm sorry, but I don't know where else to say this. Lights are very important. If you have, you know, monochrome lights out there, especially if they're bright and they're not at a more yellow amber, some people even have red frequencies, you're going to sort of scare away all the night insects like a moths and the fireflies, by the way. Before the park was constructed, there were thousands of them in there and bats and all kinds of things. I've been studying fireflies and I'm working with DNR to try and figure out if we can save areas because a firefly is kind of an indicator species. It's easy to see but it also means there are other things flying around. So I'm very concerned about the wavelength of the light. Yeah, that's, it's been one of our concerns as well. We're going to keep them as yellow and yellow. Yeah, and I don't, I mean, the early evening fireflies have pink filters over their eyes, so they can filter out a lot of light from the sunset, and they can fly in those lights because I've seen them, but there are many late night fireflies which you probably haven't noticed because you know who thinks of it, you just think of the ones who go with it garden, but they can't. And I'm saying I've done studies at the TuXANT refuge. I've done them in our neighborhood. I've done them in some of the state parks. It's so important to have these insects. So that's- Thank you. Thanks for your comments. Which is a great rationale for us owning and controlling the street like that, because then we would have a personalized control of the lighting and one of the technologies that Su Ellen mentioned is dimming technology that would give us the ability to dim the street light network in zones in particular locations to again maximize the use of the street lights to the best needs of our community. So, we just wanted to update the board on that. That would have been good to park, because that's where they lived, and that's when they did live. So, I was in there studying those two until I almost took off that. I mean, just, just sort of, I Oh, this is not street light. One thing I talked to Shane about this point, just wanted to be aware of during the session after COVID, when DC was studying the bike lane on Connecticut Avenue. I got barely involved because I was very concerned that if they did take out another lane for the eliminated, the counterflown aid would cause a lot of cut-through in the village. And I got to, in that regard, and we won on that one, they didn't put bike lanes in, which would further reduce Connecticut Avenue and cause more backup. I got cold by Sharon Kirschbaum, who's the head of DCDOT, and she said, you want to be aware of this. The park service for the last years has been studying Rock Creek and Potomac Parkways to improve certain intersections, big ones like down at Virginia Avenue, and Pennsylvania. But one of the options that they've been looking at is eliminating the one-way traffic one way traffic in the A and P and evening peak, coming down in the morning and back in the evening. And it would have for a racquake parkway. Exactly. And it would have substantial impact on us because those poor cars would have nowhere else to go, but Connecticut, I have a new, through the village, and cutting through. So sometime this month, they're going to announce that they're going to for about 30 days get public opinion and then look at it for another year with that public input and then make a decision. It's something that we ought to be on when it all comes out we get engaged with, we ought to be on record about because it would be a disaster. Yeah, no. kind of trying to register. And it's aimed at reducing the cost of the current processes that police officers. Right. Yeah, I think it's at least it's already labor intensive. Right. You have to go to each end to close the road down and so the question is rather than eliminating the one way traffic configuration, maybe there are automated solutions that could be implemented on sub-aim officers. Park Service police, not only do you experience it, but they worry that they're safety. There are other ways to control it. Yeah. Well, thanks. We're going to have to keep tabs on that. Yes. All right so imagine my excitement being able to move to a turn twice. Second all in favor. Thank you all.