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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 sorry. All right. Good evening. Good evening. So I would like to call to order the March 19, 2025 transportation and land use committee meeting. This room has a hearing loop. If you need hearing assistance, which you're hearing aids, telecoil mode If you need a headset we have those available as well. Please leave the clerk to request one All right, so let's do the pledge of allegiance To flag the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, individual, liberty and justice for all. So we have no items proposed for the consent agenda and because we had such a late night last night, thank you Dan for sticking with it, We're going to make this a short meeting. That's last word. I already said we were going to do, so keep Mark my words. So we'll start with the first information item, the administrative and legislative land use review assessment. And we have Mr. Croboth, we have Mr. Linda, we have Miss Smith,, and then also our consultant. So thank you so much for being here. All right, so do you have a presentation? Yes, thank you, committee chair Tercroni, chair Randall, board members, good evening. This information is the first of many touch points that this work group will be before the committee to provide status reports and receive feedback on the land use review assessment study as we work through the implementation over the next 18 to 24 months. You've taken care of my introductions. I will say that our consultant here is Nancy Zelke. She was the lead on the project, and she will also be the lead assisting us with the implementation and tracking and reporting. So our goal this evening is to provide you with a high-level summary somewhat similar to what was presented to you previously. And then basically requesting any feedback that you may have as a committee that you'd like us to take into consideration, we're going to end the presentation, which is kind of a summary of our schedule. So just a little bit of background. This is redundant information from what you've had before, but in December 2023, the board dealt with fund balance issue and there was a proposal on the fund balance list of projects to provide funding to complete a comprehensive review of the land use approval processes. So that is really the initiation of this project. So the staff engaged our management consultant, Alvarez and Marcile, and again led by Miss Selkie, and I'll just remind the board that Alvarez and Marcila is a very large company. They have offices all throughout the United States and more than 10,000 employees. They initiated the study in June of 2024 and completed their work in November of 2024 and they published the report that was presented to the board. dated November 21st, 2024. That you may recall that period of time is when BND was working through a significant backlog in permits because of a couple reasons, not landmark all related but it was exacerbated by staffing needs and vacancies due to retirements and medical leave. Ultimately, the report presented on December 3rd, 2024 and January 22nd, 2025 was endorsed by the board and directed to proceed with implementation and the Board directed us to come before the committee here in March and then essentially beginning in June and then every six months thereafter to provide updates to the Board on the status. of status. So again, at a very high level, the objective of the study is simply to improve the organizational structure and the operational processes that the departments, which is primarily building in development and planning and zoning, they're supported by many referral agencies like those in the audience here, transportation and capital infrastructure. I think there's in total nearly 40 different referral agencies that are involved in the process. The consultants work, developed many recommendations and they kind of placed each of those recommendations into one of three different strategy areas. The first of those is alignment of communications and operating practices and we label this process. Strategy two is to strengthen the workforce and provide employee professional development and we title that people and the third is is to optimize technology, tools and improve efficiency and operational benefits and that's technology. So essentially they boil down to process people and technology. This is just a breakdown of the various recommendations. Again, we have the Phase I work which which is legislative, on the left side of this slide. And in that category, there are 33 recommendations, and you can see the breakdown between process people and technology. Likewise, administrative, which has 36 recommendations, and again, the breakdown between process people and technology. Now, one of the most significant things that staff has been doing since presenting this to the board is combing through all of the recommendations and seeking basically a department position or on each of the recommendations. So those departments involved include planning and zoning, building and development, county attorney's office, also department of information technology, but also the residential and commercial industry. Both of those sectors have been highly involved and engaged in this process. They're included in our meetings where we work through the recommendations. And again, what we're trying to do in this vertical phase of the flow chart that you see is to look at the recommendation, make a position as an operating department. Do we support the recommendation? Could we support the recommendation by tweaking in a little bit? Or do we have concerns about implementing that recommendation? So once we get through all of those departments as well as the two private sectors, we will then appear before the County Administrator. We're targeting probably May for that to occur where we will present to the County Administrator the positions on all of the, from all the departments. And there may be one, two or more recommendations that the staff recommends that we not proceed into implementation and then we will need to justify that to the County Administrator and then ultimately when we come back to you in June, we'll have that list and seek that endorsement from the committee. So, and that's pretty much what this slide shows coming out of the department's going through the county administrator and then ultimately back to the committee. So we are in what we call period one. We're breaking the project up into four, six-month intervals and the first is from December 2024 through June of 2025. And what we hope to accomplish in this period is, as I mentioned, completing the vetting process for all the recommendations and hone in on the recommendations that will actually be implemented. We will establish a project steering committee. We will establish task groups who actually will discuss the recommendations and that's where the real work will be performed. There will be individuals from all levels of the department, from the director down to planners or engineers who will be the individuals who actually developed the plan to implement the recommendation. Nobody knows better how to improve the process than those individuals who do it every day. We also will complete a scope of services and negotiations to issue a perks order to bring continue the consulting support and then we will come back to the committee in June with an update. The steering committee is under development and essentially that will be primarily department heads or higher level individuals. The task groups we're working on developing those. We've identified 10 task groups and we have gone through an exercise to assign each of those recommendations to those task groups. We're We're here today with the initial meeting with T-Luck and I already mentioned the work to get the consultant on board. So this is our final slide and it's essentially a summary of this of the two-year process. Again, we are In the beginning phase, phase one. We'll culminate with coming back to you with a status report in June. We're using this phase to basically get ourselves organized to undertake this project. And so beginning in June is when the task groups will initiate their work and really grind through the information and start producing results. So with that, that's the extent of our presentation. We're happy to hear your thoughts and he guidance that you'd like to share with us. All right, thank you, Mr. Kervus. So we'll go around with questions and we can go multiple times if needed but we'll start with Chair Vicer Turner. Thank you, manager. Can we go to slide six, the flow chart? This one. Where do the task groups and the steering committee fit in this three dimensionally? So they are not shown on this graph. They would be to the right of where it says board directed adjustments. So on the far right of this slide, this is just simply the process to vet the recommendations. And then once we get to the far right side of the slide, then those recommendations will be assigned to task groups for them to do their work. The task groups will report up to the steering committee who essentially reports up to the county administrator. So the steering group, who comprises a steering group? Is it industry representatives and county staff? And so it's a whole, it's a hodgepodge of all stakeholders. It's department leadership as well as an individual from both the residential and the commercial sector. Okay. And then the task groups are actually focused on implementation of the findings that are recommended through this process. Correct. Okay. The concern I have when I look at this, I'm sorry I didn't see it when we talked before. So each of these three groups are to review the consultant's report with an eye towards process people and technology for, I'm concerned that the residential and commercial sector is sort of isolated, that there's not going to be any cross talk between the other two boxes. So maybe I didn't articulate it properly or I didn't understand. The way that we started this vetting process, we created a spreadsheet, we have a share point site where industry and staff can view documents and we prepared a spreadsheet that included all of the recommendations and we asked we asked planning and zoning we asked building a development, DIT, county attorney's office, the residential sector, the commercial sector to go recommendation by recommendation and state their position on that spreadsheet. Do they support it? Could they support it with some minor changes or do they have concerns about implementing it? And so that they kind of did that analysis independently, but then there have been collective meetings where all the groups have been met together and discuss them. Okay. I'd like another round if we can do it. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair Ren. Chair Ren. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for this. So is anywhere in this process, I'm still on slide six also. Do you include the Planning Commission in any of the discussions? We have not. You have not. Okay, I ask that because Joe, you and I have these conversations a couple of times. What seems to happen, not a lot, but I think far too often is that an application will come through the planning commission and get a vote completely one way and then come to the board and it's like seven to a planning commission or seven to one or whatever and come to board and be exact opposite. And that is always a little frustrating to the applicants and even to the board sometimes. So I'm wondering if it would be helpful to have the planning commission, even if you're doing updates to them, I could do into the board. We have not had that in the work plan, but that's a great catch. We absolutely need to add that component. So we have recently started updating the commission on the department's work plan. It would be very easy to update them on this at the same same time. I think that would be really helpful. I think it would be really, really helpful because there's such an intricate part of this whole discussion. My next question is, and again, we could just end this whole slide on page six, I think, so presentation. When we're talking about this process, we're talking about all commercial including data centers. Yes. Yes. Okay. There's in this group that's meeting with us, I think there's three or four representatives from residential and three or four from commercial, which include developers, engineers, planners, lawyers, kind of covering that spectrum. OK. And then finally, I have to go back and look at the recommendations from the consultant. What happens if there's a recommendation? Because early on, when we first started talking about this, Joe was actually doing our election. And I said, Ken, do you, and I said, can we do like a sliding scale rating scale when the staff brings to us recommendations? And a one is like this application is got off on this, never gonna get through. And a nine is this application is pretty good, except we need a 50-foot setback. And so we, so it's versus making the staff have to say yes or no, even if it's even that the thing that we're talking about is a fairly minor thing. I feel like we put the staff in a hard situation to have to say no for something that's, and then they have to play kind of some word games when they give it to us. So are there any times in here that the board can make recommendations of what we think should happen as well? Because I don't remember if that's rating scale within the recommendations that came from the consultant. It absolutely is. We refer to it as a score card or the consultant refers to it as a score card. But yes, it absolutely is there as a recommendation. And we can take the feedback from the board through the committee or we're happy to do briefings with board members if you wish to get into more details. However, what can fit your schedule? I mean, I think what you do when T-Lock is great. I don't know how Mr. Kray would want to work it out for people who are in finance, but that's a good one. No, I think T-Lock is great. I agree. Thank you, Chair Randall. Yeah, the score card is, I know it's in this report. It's an excellent, excellent idea. So, okay, thank you, Chair Randall. And then Supervisor Kirschner. All right, thank you. I'm gonna drill down a little bit more on some of the recommendations that you guys have made and ask a couple follow up questions. First of all, the one that really intrigued me was the historical comments for this removing those from the staff report. I know it takes a lot of time. I'm just curious why that is recommended to be removed because my staff uses them a lot just to try to figure out what's sometimes what's going on in some of these applications. Can anyone elaborate on that? I don't know if the consultant or anybody. Committee Chair Randal and Committee Supervisor. A couple of reasons. Number one is we looked at the volume and when you take a look at what goes in the actual agenda, some cases. Committee supervisor. A couple of reasons. Number one is we looked at the volume and when you take a look at what goes in the actual agenda Some cases. I know the ones I personally looked at 640 pages and it seemed like a significant amount of information and What we have said is provide in this end the Staff report the last version of of review. The same time provide a link. So if a board member, staff member, or one of the supervisor, want to go back to those earlier reports that that would be available, but from a electronic mechanism versus putting all of that in a report. What, what we found is that the ones we reviewed and assembling that we did comment that somebody made in the first review, the same comment may take a different, have a different response later in the process. That's what we thought the planning commission provide to you, the latest version of the comments. But have them- So you're not necessarily, and I'm sorry if I cut you off, you're not necessarily recommending getting rid of it all together, but stream laying it. Stream laying it. Significantly more. Okay. Well I'll be, I mean, I'm just saying as part of this process, those are historical comments are actually pretty helpful, but if we can't straighten on, I'm all in favor of that. The second, in terms of the steering committee, is someone from economic development going to be on that? And the reason I ask that is because of the role, they are intimately involved in the rural planning process and understanding western loudening issues. And so I think their expertise would be really important as far as that. Yes, I do not have DED listed on that box, but they have attended our meetings. Okay, I participated in the process. So they will be still- Yes, they will be still- Okay, great. I've got 25 seconds left in my remaining time here. Drill down even a little more. I noticed that one of the priorities under the administrative, I have it marked here, was the bond issues that have arisen. Where is it right here? Have we expanded what we're requiring bonds on right now? And in new areas? And I'm kind of asked, go ahead. No, as a matter of fact, what has happened over time is the number of agreement types and bond types has increased, but not what we are actually collecting bonds on. It's actually parsing them into smaller and smaller buckets. And so I think what the report is encouraging is that we take those buckets and start so that applicant and start to combine them and make them fewer and number and more simple for an applicant to know which bucket they should be putting that form and that bond? Okay, that's helpful. Madam Chair, can I have a follow-up question with that since I know them at a time? I guess there's more of a comment. The reason I mention that is, my office are always dealing with the bond issues and sometimes I mean just because of're the small businesses and rural businesses, depending on whatever project they're doing they have to put a bond on. Getting that released even sometimes is extremely burdened something for them. So. And we will look at that whole process. I mean some of that burden unfortunately is outside of the county's control if there's a VLB public road. Very often, some of the challenges fall in the proper bonds because they're a little bit more difficult to ensure compliance with. But we are looking at ways to streamline that whole process and even look for opportunities to significantly reduce those bonds as we get down to the end of the project. That's music to my ears. Thank you. So my question is, I guess there will be 10 task groups, right? Mr. Crowboth, we're playing 10. Do you think having external stakeholders on all 10 task groups make sense or does it make sense to have external stakeholders at the steering committee level? Once they've been through the task groups. So even the private sector representatives have acknowledged that they don't necessarily need to participate in all task groups. So for instance, the task groups that relate to HR issues or recruitment, they won't participate in those. I know you can't see it, but we have a spreadsheet that has X's with each task group. And if one is green color, that means the green shading means that its participants from the private sector are participating. And that's mostly related to process and some technology recommendation. And how are the external stakeholders being chosen? You know, what's the criteria? So we have a list of individuals who have agreed to volunteer their time again from each of those sectors, residential and commercial, and we allow them to self-identify their, who, who they wish to participate. Okay, okay. So I read this report and one question I had is the need for the Development Review Committee. So I just wanna throw that out. And I guess it sits in the Department of Building and Development. So Betsy, do you see that as the future state? I mean, I know that's a long-term five and five impact and effort. Do you see that as the future state? That's a big question of mine, that one. So, again, the intent of the working task forks is to identify whether that is a future state or not. Okay. What we do concur with from the report is that something is needed. That there are changes to how we work through the plan review process and get to plan approval, especially when we get to those Second, third, fourth, eighth, ninth, tenth reviews there needs to be some body That has a role whether it takes the form of the DRC that was recommended By that consultant in the report or whether it takes the form of a more internal or or the form, you know, currently Engineer Surveyor's Institute has a program that we've kind of eased our way out of since COVID and some of the remote work that maybe will provide us a resource to do that. So really, the answer is I don't know if it's the the DRC but we do concur that there is something that is needed to help resolve some of the issues. Okay, so we'll do another round because I'm out of time so let's, you don't need another round. Okay, Vice Chair turn. So let's say for example, still on the slide, residential commercial sector decides that recommendation number 33 is completely bogus and says it's bogus, ABC. And the DPC, DPD and CAO department says 33 is a great recommendation, XYZ. Who reconciles those varying findings? The group will meet and debate its merits. All of those in that vertical boxes, the departments, the residential and commercial sector, and we will present our position to the county administrator and he will give us guidance and we will show up here with a recommendation if there is a recommendation that the consultant brought forward that we as a group recommend that the board not implement we will appear before you and get your the board. Okay, so there will be a basically committee at a large meeting of those three boxes to reconcile and if there's a dispute, then that will be presented to the county administrator, the county administrator will say, this is the way we're going to go. And that will be the recommendation. Just exactly like the board. And in fact we should get a big thing. So I would, you know, part of passing through the County Administrator on our way to the board is that you have directed the County Administrator to manage county operations. And so he needs to affirm that the recommendation is consistent with the way he wants this service to be provided. I'm good with that. And finally. And then ultimately they'll come before the board. Okay, very good. Thought I had one more thing, but I can't remember. Thank you. This won't follow up. Yes, the professor of cursor. Oh, I know we added the 10 positions in the budget to planning and zoning. Is that right? Okay. Was that in some response to some of these recommendations I would assume? The entire thing was in response to this. Not all directly recommended by this, but in response to this, yes. Okay. I know we added a position for kind of rural things, kind of a customer service, but that was with economic development. Was there anything within Department of Zoning that was addressing rural or non-buddsmen or anything like that specifically. So there's a recommendation in both of the reports for Betsy's department and mine for position like that. And we were not immediately sold with it and we received these about the time we were working on budgetary things. We've talked with DEED and they were already proactively doing that. So we're going to kind of wait and see how that position evolves and work with the ED to see if that position is sufficient to address this issue. Okay. If we think we'll need more to request in the future. Okay. Yep. If you, yeah, I mean, I'm just, this is just ideas and it's not specific to the report, but it kind of surrounding the whole thing. The more you can work with them to see if that works, that'd be great otherwise. I would certainly ask next year maybe we add something within the department that but hopefully well I guess it'll be a, maybe we add something within the department that, but hopefully, well, I guess it will be a while before we hire that person, but I'm not sure. But that could be really, really helpful, just to help things move. I think a little more smoothly with our rural, yes, man. I was just going to add that we think coming out of economic development, even if there has to be support identified in building a development and PNZ is really the place where it belongs kind of like we have our business assistance team that is really sort of executed and they become the glue to ensure that consistency and we become the subject matter experts rather than the glue. Yeah, okay, great, thank you. That was my only last follow up question. Okay, so thank you and I'm gonna go back to the DRC so one thought there is I know you mentioned that you know it could create a bottleneck so that's my only concern is it adding kind of a bottleneck and also So I I do, I really liked in this report, the focus on training and empowering the project managers and the project coordinators. I think the project coordinators, we're gonna focus on the more complex projects. And then the project managers, I think the plan is to have them focus on the smaller applications. My understanding of my correct about that from reading the report. So I think that is referring to the administrative side and more than the legislative side. And a few things with that. We also had inserted into this process House Bill 2660, that shortened some of the timelines for processing plans, including state agencies that we are just sort of the governor has not signed it yet, but it was approved by both the House and the Senate. So we are kind of incorporating into this whole DRC and timelines and streamlining a discussion with what that's going to mean in terms of resources and processing times and fast track projects and the whole thing. How it really affects much of those timelines and I don't have a whole lot more to report other than that's been on our radar since it came out and we actually one of the requirements of the house bill is they're going to put together a committee and we have asked Mr. Freeman if building development can participate. Okay and what was that house bill? So 2660. Okay. Okay. So that will impact the answer to your question about a bottleneck because it's going to reduce our ability, that's not the right word, to bottleneck anything without consequences. Secondly, yes, we actually asked for two positions as well to give a three tiered approach to the project coordinators that are really overseeing the coordination of the whole project that could include plots and plans and permits and off-site easements working directly with the developer. The project managers now may have a piece of a project coordinator or their own smaller project and then the engineer ones that I thank you for allowing me to put in my staffing through the budget process will do the even simpler. So we'll have a three-stage approach to keeping things moving and keeping people accountable. Excellent. That's excellent. One thing I do want to mention before my time runs out is definitely, I think a missing piece was T-Lock too. So I'm going to be advocating that anything that is, and this is more with Mr. Glilindo, any applications that come to us that are not fully baked or need more work, need to be sent to T-Lock. I don't see it as a second planning commission, but more as an opportunity to really work through some outstanding issues and complex applications that I think require more work. So we're not doing it on the day is we're doing it more in committee. So I think that's something that I'd like to add. I don't know what your thoughts are, Dan, with that. No, obviously we respond to the board whenever they have those recommendations. We did it probably more pre-COVID than we have lately, but if that's what you all think is the best path forward.. I mean hopefully there aren't that many of that are that Complex problematic when it gets to the board, but I do understand what you mean You know I could list out a few so I'm not gonna do that now, but I could all right any other questions Yes, I'll go ahead and share two quick things. I want to remind everyone that when we started this process it began into this Year I think dear Mr. Turner is kind of the liaison between this process and the board use him, so especially to give him any information to our colleagues who are on the finance committee who may not hear of anything. I mean, let him be your liaison and things like that. So that was, we decided that early on. Secondly, I think Mr. Crony is correct. I think that T-Luck hasn't been, since probably COVID used to, are the best of how it could be used to work through issues. I did want to ask you though, how do you see that just to have clarity? You are still saying that whatever we work through has to have come out of the planning commission, correct? And then goes to the board, then the board refers it back to T-Luck as in the normal process. But it would be something that's already out of planning commission. Correct? Okay. Absolutely. I mean, I tried to do that with one the other day. You did. And I told you a while ago when you first came to me right after the election, in fact, asked me about that. I told you, I thought that you first came to me right after the election, in fact, asked me about that. I told you I thought that was a good to do that because it does. And of course, again, any finance members can come if they want to. We can use Mr. Turner for some of these things as it relates to this item. But I agree with you that things could be worked out into luck. And so then all the thrashing during the business meeting doesn't have to happen. I told they agree with that. Yeah, I told they agree with that. That would make the business meeting shorter. I don't think so. Make the business meeting shorter as well. I'm just going to say that too but that would make the business meeting shorter. I think so. Yes. All right. Thank you, Chair Riddle. Okay. Vice Chair Turner. We ended by right data center development last night. Is that going to have an impact on any of the findings by Alvarez and Marcel? I wouldn't think it would. Administrative process is still administrative process. So I would think it would be pretty transparent. I'm just curious. tectoniconic shift last night if you've had any initial thoughts of what might have changed in this process. I don't think there would be for anything a lot of sliders thought of them, we'll see more applications. Okay. The only thing I could see that it might impact and I'm not sure I could tell you why I think that is the fast track process. Right, right. Yep. And then just the last thing is, Ms. Selke, is it? Yeah, thank you for this work. This is really valuable work. And I think this is going to be a real gold mine for us going forward. And all of you, I know we've talked about this. Use me where you need me. If you want me to sit on a meeting, just let me know. I'm happy to sit on a meeting. I know we have a supervisor in the meeting, often changes the chemistry in the meeting. I don't want to do that. But if you think there's value, just let me know. And I'm happy to plug it into my schedule. Top priority. Thank you. Thank you. Chair Tercroni, if I get help for just two comments. Yeah, absolutely. First, just so we don't leave the committee with the wrong impression, as the study was being developed, the Planning Commission was consulted and was able to contribute to the study. So that they were included there. They just haven't been included in these recommendations. So we will set up a work session with them. The last thing I want to mention was House Bill 2660, those reductions in review times, not only impact localities, but also impacts state agencies. And so that does work to our benefit because many of the state agencies lag our comments and then that creates conflicting comments between the county departments and then 30 days later that we get a comment from V. Let's say. So it will put a strain on the staff to move things through quicker but it will help in that regard. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Cervus. And do you think in June that we'll have an update on that and on how that will impact your department, especially in B&D? I believe we should. Okay, great. And I want to thank you, Mrs. Zelke, right? Yes. Okay, I think we both got it. I love your escalation process. I love that idea of escalating after a third review, you know, and getting it to the Planning Commission. Yeah, I think that's great. Yeah. So, and I really liked also that you were looking at improving communication, communication across departments, and potentially adding a procedure where the board can become involved a little bit earlier, just to meet expectations. And I thought that was an excellent, excellent idea. So I look forward to seeing what you come up with, and how I can help. And like I said, T-Lux here for you, so we'll be seeing you in June, right, Joe, for another update. Okay, thank you very much. I can open and like I said T-Lux here for you so we'll be senior and June right right Joe for another Okay, thank you very much All right, we're gonna go to the next item Which is Eastern Loud and Transportation study update. All right, thank you. Mr. Jones and Lou Mosserick and Kelly on the Eastern Lawden Transportation Study. And particularly the revisions we've made to the item since we were here last month. We do have a presentation if you would like. And I would just point out off the, to start off that attachment one of your item is the comments that we received from supervisor Turner last month with our responses point by point. Great. Yeah, if you could do the presentation. Okay, we'll go through it. Again, our presentation is a high level overview of the Eastern Loudoun Transportation Study Status illustrating the progress that the county has made over the past 12 or so years in this area. I'll turn it over to Kelly Griffin to run through the remainder of the presentation. Sure, thanks, Lou. Just as a reminder, we'll start off with a little background. Prior to 2012, most roadways in the county were being developed and constructed by private developers or by Vita which resulted in a complete network in the county. Also around 2012 there are new funding sources that were becoming available for local jurisdictions to help complete these missing links in the network. So the county initiated a study called the Eastern Non-Transportation Study which was was the goal was to develop a capital improvement program to account for these funds that were coming to the county. And that, the CIP at the time, was based on the CTP, and they used that as a basis. The Eastern Non-Transportation Study analyzed 102 segments that are identified as missing links or bottlenecks in the eastern part of the county from Belmont Ridge Road east to the county line north and the northern county line and the southern county line. So basically Belmont Ridge Road east. It was conducted by staff in zoning, which at the time was in the Department of Building Development. It included a very detailed parcel by parcel specific analysis for the proffers and took approximately two years to complete. The results of the study were presented to the board and three phases. And then these results were used to identify transportation projects to be funded in the CIP. And all the results from the original study can be found on the county's website on the link shown on your screen. Okay, so I'll start now with a process update from our last meeting. Just as a reminder, there was one update that was presented to T-Luck on October 14, 2016, and then we were back at T-Lock in February of 2020. And at this meeting we got some questions and comments from the committee and we was forwarded to tonight's meeting to provide responses to those comments and questions. And as Lou mentioned, those bullet by bullet responses can be found in attachment one. In response to these comments, we what we did to reformat the study was we basically created one master list and it was the original 102 segments from the 2012 ELTS plus the new segments that came out of the 2019 CTP update. And then that master list was sorted by segment status, which was built in progress, meaning any phase of design or construction. Segment setter needed one route 50 is converted to limited access. Seignants needed when route 606 is converted to limited access. No longer applicable because the classification in the CTP changed. Not funded. Reassessed during the CTP review CPM requires regional coordination or coordination with other county projects. And subject to an existing or anticipated future land development application. The next step was the segments that were classified as built in progress or no longer applicable were removed from the prioritization process. And then from there, to do the prioritization process, we used a data driven analysis and a qualitative analysis. The data analysis, data driven analysis used traffic volumes and crash volumes for the analysis to analyze them. And the qualitative analysis considered items such as surrounding land use changes. If the segment was associated with a proper development, feasibility of constructing the segment. If the segment should be reassessed during the CTP review CPM, and if the segment requires regional coordination or coordination with other county projects. And then from there we prioritized the segments as high, medium, or low priority. The high priority segments were then ranked for future use and budget deliberations. That list can be found on attachment four of the item. The medium priority segments were not ranked because they are anticipated to be re-reviewed during the CTP review CPM and that's specific list can be found found as attachment five and then ranking of the low priority segments is dependent on the outcome of the regional coordination or other coordination with county projects and that list can be found on attachment six. And here I just want to highlight between the years of 2012 and 2024 the county has constructed 49 out of the original 102 segments, which is a huge accomplishment and I just put it highlighted again and we do have a map on the next line that shows the location of the segments that were completed. Most of them were north of Route 50. And this slide shows the results of the high priority segments which were those, which were ranked for future CIP budget deliberations. Again, the high priorities are on attachment four. And our issues and next steps, the kickoff for the CTP review CPM is anticipated to occur in mid 2025. We anticipate beginning regional coordination, coordination with adjacent jurisdictions and other county projects. Continue our partnerships with V. and the development community. And with that, staff recommends that the T-Luck forward this item and the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to endorse the 2025 ELTS high priority segments that were presented in Table 2 of the item for consideration in future capital improvement program budget deliberations. It's great that you completed so many segments. That's amazing. I'm 102. All right. So we'll go around to ask for questions. Supervisor Blas. Yes. Thank you, Chair. To Crony and thank you, staff, for the presentation. I'm looking at the high priority segment and I see that priority number eight is Waxpool Road. I see that it says in the status it says the surrounding land use is predominantly data centers along the segment intersection improvements are underway along the segment at the intersection. Blacks Polaroid and Pacific Boulevard brought a grub in Elton County Parkway. The recommendation is to re-evaluate the segment once this intersection improvement is complete. So since it's to be re-evaluated, should it mean it should be on the medium priority list to be examined during the CTP review? is when I was looking at the medium priorities, most of them said CTP review. So this one, when I'm looking at the other ones it doesn't say that. I think I can, I'll take that question to a rather glass. This was right on the cusp of a high or a medium review on our review, but because of the volumes and the crash statistics that we did review on it, we just, we, again, maybe just to highlight the issue, it's on the high priority list. Okay. It certainly could also have been on a medium list and it is something we can look at as we move forward. So it was right on that cusp. Okay, so it you're saying it's okay, all right, that makes sense. My second question is, so for the the Pacific Boulevard segment on the low priority list, the status says that water side may resubmit for rezoning under new ownership and that we could ask for that segment then. So I don't know if, I'm not sure if, you know, it's appropriate to rank a segment on the low list because something may happen in the future. So could we move this segment to another list or at least change the justification? Is something that's not dependent on what the landowner might do? Sure, and I think on this one it's again, it's a lot going on in that area. And our view and recommendation was based on just waiting until we had a better understanding of what might be built on that property with the water side application. It's just some unknowns as to what may happen there. That network is planned to develop quite more robustly from what is on the ground today. But it is something we plan to monitor as we go forward. Okay, okay, all right, thank you. It's Chair Turner. Thank you very much. The top priority one is Stone Springs, World War II, Ladden County Parkway. It's currently in the list of future fiscal year projects in 2025, CIP. But in the 2023 CIP, there was a note on this project, it said project was deferred in 2023 because of completion. Because the completion of North Star Boulevard projects in Delos, West Boulevard, North Star, or Arcola are expected to divert traffic from the Arcola Mills corridor thereby reducing the benefit of this project. And that hasn't been updated. That would say to indicate at least circumstantially that that should not be top priority. It'll move down to medium priority. Any comments on that one? You're referring to priority one. Right. Slide 10. Right. It's currently listed in future year projects, but the 2023 CIP said wait until North Star is finished and dollars west is finished, because it might relieve the pressure on this and lower the priority. And based on that, we would think it would have shown up in the medium priority list. Not the top priority list still. Again, I think it deals with the volumes in some of the crash statistics that we had seen on that. the current crash statistics. Okay. So I'm on the analysis here. And again, that's it. Again. with the volumes and some of the crash statistics that we had seen on that. The current crash statistics in the United States. So I'm with the analysis here and again, like in my previous responses, the dynamic area is a lot changing there but again something to use this as a guideline and just call attention to that area as we move into future year CIP. Okay, so let me see if I can rephrase what you just said. So the current CIP has listed as a future year project. The 2023 said look at it when those boulevards are finished. Based on current existing empirical data for this road segment, you're comfortable that this should be listed as a top priority based on current data. So based on the analysis, yes. But we were recently notified by V.Dot that this segment is sport of the pipeline studies. So they are going to initiate a study for this segment. I don't know, in the next couple of months, they are doing, or they're trying to schedule us kick off meeting. We have been invited. We are providing input in terms of locations for data collection and all of that. So we will keep you up against. Okay, but the critical point that I think is really the right, the answer, the best answer to this is. ranking on this priority list was based on current empirical data of traffic volumes and accidents. And crosses, okay. Because that takes priority to me over any CIP recommendations, certainly from 2023. I want to make an emphasis on the crosses that we utilize where the highest fatalities, severe areas and years. Okay, so that's good. On the priority number seven, root 50 to Southwriting Boulevard. It's listed on two project lists. It's ranked number 42 in the intersection improvement program. Should it and we're thinking it should just be on one list. Now, I don't know where Supervisor Luterno wants to rank this, so I haven't talked to him yet. But the very next question I had was, this is one study. How does this fit in with the other studies and the other lists and the other priorities? It seems to cry out for a master list that has all of these priorities listed so we can have some sort of estimate of what's the real overarching priority on these projects. Thoughts? The media question was root 50 South Riding Boulevard priority number seven is listed on two project lists. But again, your first answer probably is a valid one. If you're using current empirical crash data and volume data to come up with your priorities, that would explain, that means that's what's on this list the way it is, but now it's on two lists, which one has priority? Again, there's based on that data and I'll just put also note at that particular location, there are some improvements that we're currently analyzing under the intersection improvement program, and that'll be in the next batch of recommendations that come back forward to the board this year. Okay, that's good for the immediate question. The following question, the larger theoretical question is we got multiple lists on transportation. Is there any move of foot to consolidate those order to somehow interleave those so we know which one, if it shows up as a number three part of one list or number one priority on a second list and a number five part and a third list which one takes priority. I think it's just the number if I can take that. I'm sorry. Chair, to Chrony, may I take that? Yeah. So we talked about this a little bit during the CIP discussion of finance and that is something that we intend to do to take up with the finance committee because of everything you just said. And so we have probably north of a billion dollars of projects that are identified and to your point, vice chair, Turner, we have a series of different priorities from the board based off of different programs. And so what we're trying to hear with respect to the missing links is to just get a sense from T-Lock how you would prioritize these. and so we can take this list, the intersection improvements list, the sidewalk and trails list, the facilities list, projects coming out of CNA, projects that have sent by the board to the future fiscal years list as priorities to try to work out of framework that kind of puts all these together and creates a priority matrix if you will, that we can then talk with finance and the board about how to fund these. In a way, these projects are typically larger in scale than, say, the intersection improvement projects or the sidewalk and trails projects. So the price value on many of these are a are in kind of a different cost classification from a lot of the intersection improvements and and those smaller projects. So these would tend to be larger in scale and so That's just another aspect to how we look at the CIP. Okay, that's good answer. Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Vice Chair Turner. So I would add to the safety and operational studies that we do, I know I brought up Hogback Mountain and it would have been nice to have an idea of where that ranked with all the intersections. See what I'm saying versus just that study on Route 15 South. Because that's really what I was asking for is, is it, you know, how many crashes has it had at that intersection versus all the other intersections that we have? So we can really prioritize our funding. And maybe think, hey, is it roundabout needed? Or can we do turn lanes here? Because it's not as great as some of the other intersections. So I don't know if that's gonna be part of it too, as far as consolidating. I definitely can say that the hogback in Route 15 intersection is something certainly gonna be looked at in the next round of the IAP that is coming forward. Again, just looking at that. But again, we had that Route 15, you know, there was the looking at all the rural primary corridors. I'm just talking about the south. The southern area doesn't have as much traffic. The south, southern. What do you think about it? Yeah. We have to go. Yeah, okay. one of the hotspots in the Route 15 Safety and Operational Studies that did come forward back in 2022. Right, but it was in a vacuum of all the other intersections. So you see what I'm saying? Like it was done in a vacuum. It was done for that. So that corridor is nothing like the northern corridor, which is in the supervisor Kirchner's district. I mean, Roof 15 South doesn't have anywhere near the traffic volume. And so what I would like to see is kind of a ranking of that intersection versus all the other, like the ones I have in Brambleton, that are much more, are much more need of improvement, you know, based on the crashes and just the traffic volume. Go ahead, go ahead. So everything that you're saying is correct. And that is part of what we're trying to consolidate within finance. So, since I would say, and I'll defer to Mr. Cromath here, because his memory may be better than mine. But I would say since probably 2013 or 2014, the different boards have had a number of different efforts to prioritize transportation projects and capital projects for the CIP. And so what you're seeing here in 2025 is a series of different efforts. So we still have, for example, individual board member initiatives around different projects that are still out there. And we've had a couple come back to the board, you'll recall, I think, from like the Algonquin district and others that were board member initiatives from years ago that were coming back with responses. In that time frame, we also have the board directing us to create the intersection improvement program, which has been funded. We then have the board directing us to create the sidewalk and trails project, which then we put together and rated. Then we still have other offshoots of projects where the board came with, hey, there's accidents on this quarter. So, Route 15 South is an example of that. Route 659 from where Briarwood's high school is south down to our Colomills Road is an example of that. Evergreen Mills Road from Heritage High School down through Ryan Road is an example of that. So we then also have a series of these safety studies that the board has also directed us to do. And then we have individual board priorities where board members have come and said, I want this project to be a priority. And so then, or come to the board the board and said I think this project is important I want you to add it to the future fiscal year section of the CIP and so now what we have is North of a billion dollars of projects that are all prioritized in one or more of these different Programs and so or buckets. That's a good word and so we're trying trying to Get all of this together and then work with the finance committee to Decide how does the committee want to recommend to the board that all of these things be prioritized Because they're all different and in as you're pointing out in some ways they're competing and so that's part of the effort that we're going through and I don't know if you would add anything to that Mr. Crowley. But I think he characterized it very well. I would say and probably two brothers of Charno I guess is the longest tenured board member. But in the 2012 through 2014 or 15 period, except for the large road projects like you see on the screen that you're dealing with tonight, projects came to DTCI as board member initiatives, and it was almost every board meeting DTCI would be tasked with 10 to 15 projects. And they were very random. They could be a sidewalk, they could be a trail, they could be a traffic signal, they could be, they could be, and so that was very difficult to manage staffing and program the projects. So gradually over time, we started to do just what he said, to take projects and put them in a program. And then we created using a consultant, we developed an algorithm to create priorities within that program and try to fund the program and fund the priorities. Because essentially the projects that we're getting done, we didn't know if there happened to be a crash last weekend and a board member was getting ten phone calls about that. That became the the board's priority. Despite the fact that that probably was intersection number 700 on you know in priority and that there were many many other projects that were better use of your funds. Now, when we created the program, we also maintained a bucket of funds that if that happened, if there was a horrendous crash and the board said we have to do something and we have to do it right now, you have the ability to direct the staff to do that. But this is really helped with maintaining the staff and the workload and leveling that instead of up and down spikes. Okay, excellent. Yeah, that was a good explanation. Can I add, so I support the motion tonight, absolutely. Yeah, the motion on the table. But, and it's not on the table just yet. Yeah, there's no motion, but I do support it. But can I add things to be reassessed during the CTP review CPM? Because there are medium priorities, like tall cedars, extension of tall cedars, and apprentice drive that we talked about last night. Can I add things? I mean, is that? If that's the committee's desire, we are, again, kicking off that CTP process, and as part of that, we'll intend to talk to individual board members as well at that point, but there are specifics to be included here now. I think we can certainly incorporate that. Yeah, and it's not part of the motion, right? Could I? I'm sorry, could for interreading. Thank you, Mr. Krupp. But the comprehensive plan, the comprehensive plan, a component of that is the countywide transportation plan. So I would suggest that you bring that list to the meeting, which I think is the second business meeting in April, when DPC will be bringing back the work plan and give that guidance to them. Because again, the CTP, this team that's before you tonight is those who manage the technical aspects of the traffic analysis and the modeling, that type of work. But the planning and zoning really is the lead agency for the comp plan and the scope. And they work hand in hand with the TCICI but I think that would be the more appropriate time to bring that list. Now if the committee wants to talk about it that's your prerogative. No I think that makes sense because I just have a whole bunch of other things to add and I don't think it makes sense to do it here because it's not part of the motion but I will make note number 95 on the master list. That one does require regional coordination. So I just want to make note of that that might need to be put on the regional coordination list. Because that's a big one. That's the Route 50 North Collector that's 50% in Fairfax. Yes. Yes, so just make sure that one. That's not on here because that coordination is already ongoing, but that's a very- 95, yes, 95, yes, just in progress. It's in progress and that just doesn't aside that coordination is ongoing with fair facts, but certainly a major- That's a big one. Major undertaking, yes. Okay, great. So with that any other comments or questions?? Okay so I'm going to make the motion. I move that the Transportation and Lane Use Committee recommend that the Board of Supervisors endorse the 2025 Eastern Loud and Transportation Study high priority segments that are presented in table two of the March 19, 2025 Transportation and the in-use committee action item for consideration in future capital improvement program budget deliberations Okay, I made the motion seconded by chair Randall. I don't have any comments. I think we discussed it. So any other comments? Thank you, Chair, to Crony. I just want to thank staff for all the hard work that you've been doing and all the work has been done since 2012. This is great. Seeing it come to completion and the list and the map. I think it really helps us. So thank you. All right. That all in favor? I'm sorry. Okay. And that motion passes five to zero. So thank you very much, staff. I appreciate your hard work too. and I look forward to this CTP update. That's coming up in April. Thank you very much. And then with that, let me just close it out. All right, I would like to announce. No, I'm doing close out. I'm making an announcement. Okay. I would like to announce that the next Transportation and Lainews Committee meeting will be held at 3.30 PM on April 24, 2025 prior to the next special Transportation and Lainews Committee meeting on the western loan rule uses and standards to see PM and zone that will start at 5 p.m. on April 24th, 2025. April 24th, yeah, put that in your calendar. Okay. Thursday. With no other meeting, I call. Oh, you're looking? Okay. All right. Not going to be here. March 19, 2025 Transportation and Land Use Committee. A joint. Thank you. Okay.