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 evening. I would like to call to order the May 21, 2025 Transportation and Land Use Committee meeting. This room has a hearing loop. If you need hearing assistance, switch your hearing aids to telecoil mode. If you need a headset we have those available as well please see the clerk to request one so we're gonna start with the pledge of allegiance allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which is sans one nation under God in the visible with liberty and justice for all. I would like to announce the following changes and additions to the T-Lock meeting schedule on July 16, 2025. The regular T-Lock meeting will start at 3.30pm, and the T-Luck Western Loud and Rule uses in standard CPAM and ZOAM meeting will start at 5 o'clock p.m. And on October 22nd, 2025, the regular T-Luck meeting will start at 3.30pm, and the T-Luck Western Loud and Rule uses in-PAM and ZOMM meeting will start at 5 o'clock PM. Staff will prepare an administrative items report for full board approval of these changes for the June 3, 2025 Board Business Meeting. So tonight we have something on consent. The proposed consent agenda is as follows. Item five, consideration for the inclusion of a public comment period at the Transportation Lane Use Committee. I move adoption of the consent agenda. Is there a second? The consent agenda was moved by me and seconded by Supervisor Glass. Is there any discussion on the consent agenda? Supervisor Kirschner. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, so I'm going to support this going forward to the full board. I'm not sure if I'm actually going to support this once this gets to the full board. I have some ongoing concerns as to if we're only limiting it to 15 minutes for Bob a comment. So it's basically going to be the first people who rush to the microphone to speak. I'm also not sure if we really need it. I am also aware at least it may have changed so I don't want to speak on hand that there were some concerns that the chair had as well. So I'm going to continue to look at this and maybe you can convince me otherwise, but because of tonight's lengthy agenda and also because this was on consent and will ultimately be a full board decision, I just wanted to express my ongoing concerns. Thank you. Thank you, supervisor Kirschner. So advanced signups would be offered, but they're not required. The public could sign up to speak in person at the meeting. The reason why I put this forward is it's been really successful at the joint committee meeting so I sit on the joint school board and board of supervisors committee and we get lots of people coming and speaking to us and I think it's really helpful and we would limit it to what they limit it to 15 minutes. People will get 2.5 minutes to speak about the items on the agenda, only the items on the agenda. And I think it's timely because we did, the Board of Supervisors did remove a 5 o'clock PM time from public input during board business meetings. So since we removed something just to keep our meetings going where they don't go so late and I get that, I think it makes sense to add it here. Just so everyone knows, I would love to start having more items come to the Transportation and the Lee Use Committee from public hearing applications that are perhaps not fully completed that still have outstanding issues. And this would give people a chance to come speak about those as we try and make them better. So I'm always into having more public input and that's why I brought it forward. So hopefully I'll get the support of the full board and hopefully supervisor Kirschner. Okay. All those in favor? Please say aye. Any opposed? The motion passed with three yes and two absent. All right. We will now move to our first information item. This evening we have four information items. Remember when presenting or responding to questions from board members please turn on your microphone. I guess we haven't been doing that. The first one is item one. I'm at housing needs strategic plan. Third quarter FY 2025 update and we have Mr. Govann and Ms. Hillock and some others at the table. Thank you for the update. Thank you so much. Thank you chair to Crony and committee members to my left. Sitting beside me is Mr. Brian Regan, the assistant director for the Department of Housing Community Development to my immediate right is Miss Brandy Collins. She's a program manager over the housing policy office and then to her immediate as you introduce Ms. Chris Hilluck. She works within the housing policy as a project manager. We do have a slide presentation to present to you and then be available for any questions that you may have. Thank you, Mr. Govian. As Mr. Govian said, my name is Christine Hillock and I'm the Housing Initiatives Project Manager. Tonight I will present a report on implementation of Loudoun counties on Med Housing Neustrachy Plan for the third quarter of fiscal year 2025, which covers the period from January 1st through March 31st 2025. Tonight's report contains the following five main sections, a summary of recent plan related significant actions, a summary of attainable housing results for third quarter, information about attainable housing in the pipeline, information about the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government's regional housing goals, and updates on several planned housing policy studies. This slide provides an overview of Loudoun County's current attainable housing goals, as approved by the board with the Unmet Housing Needs Strategic Plan in September of 2021. A attainable housing is defined as the lack of housing options for households with incomes up to 100% of the area median income. 100% of AMI for a family of four in the Washington metro area, effective April 1st, 2025 is $163,900. This is an increase of more than $9,000 from last year. The Ahmed Housing and Strategic Plan set a goal that 20% of forecasted new homes based on land use policies in the 2019 comprehensive plan will be attainable housing. This equates to approximately 8,200 attainable units by 2040. The plan also set a goal to provide access to and or preserve 7,800 units for a total of 16,000 attainable units created, accessed or preserved. There were many significant planrelated board actions during the third quarter of fiscal year 25. For the sake of time, I'm going to highlight just a few tonight. First, on January 7th, 2025, the board approved an allocation of $7.41 million to the housing fund, bringing the total FY25 allocation to the equivalent of one full penny of the real property tax rate. The board continued its commitment to attainable housing by also including the equivalent of one full penny of the real property tax rate in the FY26 budget which was approved on April 1st. Next on February 4th, 2025, the board approved loans totaling $20 million to provide gap financing for the development of two attainable rental communities. Avenue Phase 2 and Dogwood Farm Station. Together these projects will add 209 units to the attainable rental supply. And last on March 12, 2025, the Board approved a development agreement for the county-owned former Ashburn North Park and Ride. This project will provide 132 attainable rental units and eight attainable home ownership units. During the third quarter of FY 25, the county achieved 45 new attainable units and 57 accessed or preservation opportunities. During this quarter, new attainable housing opportunities were provided through 16 homes settled through the Affordable Dwelling Unit Purchase Program, one home settled through the Affordable Market Purchase Program, and 28 new leases at Pull-and-Hill Senior Apartments, a low-income housing tax credit community which received a county loan in 2019. Access to and preservation of attainable housing opportunities was provided through the Housing Choice Voucher Program, affordable dwelling unit rental program, state rental assistance program for individuals with developmental disabilities, home ownership loan programs, and home repair programs. Three quarters of the way through the fiscal year the county has achieved 57% of the annual goal for new attainable units, has exceeded the annual goal for access or preservation opportunities, and has achieved 78% of the overall annual attainable goal. This slide provides a snapshot of the four most recently constructed attainable rental communities in the county. As you can see by the end of third quarter, FY25, all Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San and the expected delivery date and number of attainable units for each community. There are currently 958 attainable units in development at these 10 projects. The next deadline for the Affordable Multifamily Housing Loan Program is June 2nd and the board's continued allocations to the Housing Fund will make many future projects possible. This slide includes a few high-level points about the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government's regional housing goals. In 2019, COG identified a need for 374,000 net new housing units throughout the region, 77% of which would need to be affordable. The Housing Association of Nonprofit Developers or Hand Conducts an Annual Survey, which tracks each jurisdictions progress towards meeting the co-regional goals and gathers data such as the number of affordable units in the pipeline and policies which support affordable housing development. Loud and county like many other jurisdictions did not adopt the co-goals and instead adopted goals as outlined in our Unmet Housing Need Strategic Plan. However, staff deem participation in the annual survey to be beneficial and important for regional collaboration. DHCD staff in coordination with the Department of Planning and Zoning submitted Loudoun's response to the hand survey for calendar year 2024, and regional data is expected to be released at hands annual meeting on June 5th. Staff have included as attachment to tonight's item, frequently asked questions about the COG regional housing goals to provide additional context, and a comparison to the Unmet Housing Need Strategic Plan in advance of the release of the hand regional data. And for the last piece of tonight's presentation, I'm going to turn it over to Brandy Collins, Housing Policy Administrator. Thank you, Christine. As was shared during tonight's presentation, DHCD is working aggressively to implement the Unmet Housing Needs Strategic Plan. Additional efforts, as you see on the screen, are underway to both respond to the directives of some key actions in the plan and also to explore opportunities for new policies and programs that make contribute to the production and preservation of attainable housing units in the county. These efforts include, first, a formal evaluation of the strategic plan. This is a 12 month effort to evaluate housing targets, analyze performance metrics, forecast future housing supply and demand, project county investment needed to accomplish housing goals, and identify and plan mitigation measures for any potential risk. The county is currently in the negotiations with the third party consultant for this project. This work aligns with strategy 1.4 in the plan, which states evaluate, review, and update on met housing needs strategic plan initiatives to maintain relevancy and usability. In February, Loudoun County accepted an invitation to participate in a regional rent stabilization study, being convened by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. This study will conduct an analysis to evaluate the merits, challenges, opportunities, and administrative obligations of establishing a local rent stabilization program. It would include modeling of rents and development impacts of potential constraints. This is a 12 month effort and will be supported by a third party consultant. This work aligns with key action 1.4F, which states initiate additional research and studies of unmet housing needs and regularly report findings and develop recommendations for board consideration. Third, the Transit Oriented Development Policy Study, aligns with key action 5.4 C, which states, adopt a specific policy that identifies the value of and desire for attainable housing to be in transit centers in the urban policy area. This effort will provide the framework for the policy by identifying barriers and opportunities for transit oriented development in Loudon County, forecast allowable housing units within transit locations, and provide an economic sensitivity analysis to identify the levels of attainable housing that are feasible in these locations. That would be an 18 month study, and the county is in a process of soliciting proposals for a third party consultant for that effort. And lastly, at the direction of the board, DACD will conduct a 12 month study to analyze the feasibility of a contracted housing authority versus the feasibility of establishing an in-house housing authority. The results of this study will be considered at a future board meeting. This work also aligns with key action 1.4 F, which states initiate additional research and studies of unmet housing needs and regularly report findings and develop recommendations for board consideration. And with that, we will conclude our formal presentation and open discussion for your feedback and your comments. Thank you, Ms. Collins, right? I got that. That's correct. All right. So, I want to thank you for doing the public housing authority study. I was the one who made that motion, so I appreciate comparing the two. And then also, the transitorian development policy sounds really interesting. We've got to get some more affordable housing around Metro and urban areas. Do you see changing maybe our goal with the evaluation of the plan? Because 16,000 we're not really meeting our new construction goal. So I'm wondering if we're going to maybe change our goal or not to fire it? Well, this effort would not modify or change the goal, but it will evaluate the goals and provide a recommendation for any changes or updates based on the work that we do. So as you know, COCAS there, set up housing targets, they use different baselines, different metrics. So this will allow us an opportunity to evaluate how our goals are established, the baseline we use for our goals and to identify if there are other measures that we want to use for our targets. Again, this will not change any targets. It will just provide the basis for whether or not we want to modify any goals. But if we were to modify goals, we would come back to the board because that would be an amendment to our strategic plan. Okay, excellent. Okay, sorry, I need to go to my colleagues. Questions? All right, supervisor Glass. Thank you, Chair Tecroni. And thank you for the presentation. I'm very excited about the transit-oriented development policy also. And with that, is that more of determining more of determining how far from transit that you would have housing, the type of units that you would have there, all those questions would those be answered, and a little more detail on what would occur there? Sure, thank you for the question and the opportunity to elaborate on that project. So the plan calls for a policy that the board would adopt that would affirm a attainable housing in those locations and also to state the desire and the value of those units in those locations. Units and transit oriented developments provide residents with access to amenities, access to transportation, and it also can lower their overall housing costs because they don't have to pay additional funds for cars, maintenance on their cars and such. So it provides a level of affordability for people who live in those locations regardless of their income. We want to provide affordable housing or obtainable housing in those locations because those households can benefit from those amenities and those benefits. So this exercise will allow us to evaluate in those locations we are identifying TOD or trans-oriented locations within a quarter mile to a half mile of Metro or of a transient location. So that could be a bus stop that has a lot of service. And then we would evaluate the levels of attainable housing that could be provided there based on the development cause and to identify how much we could ask the development community to provide attainable housing in access of the ADU requirement. So any residential development that comes in through Loudoun County, if it's more than 24 units, they have to provide 80 use. This would allow us an opportunity to evaluate if there are other mechanisms that could be provided there to encourage additional attainable housing in those locations. Also the effort would evaluate overall regardless of residential, of rent level, the barriers to providing for transit oriented development around our metro stations. And what are the barriers, what opportunities to provide incentives for more development in those locations? So this effort would answer that question in addition to answering the question of how can we promote more attainable housing in those locations? I have another question but it could possibly be talked about offline. I've had a number of people to contact me regarding having a locally funded and administered housing voucher program. And could you maybe, my few seconds, explain what that possibly, what that is and the pros and cons of having something like that? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Supervisor Glass for what a question. So yes, we've filled it several questions about that from nonprofits, even the board members themselves. Local voucher program, an essence if you compare it to kind of like a housing choice voucher program, is just basically our assistance. way of of the L Island County providing a local volunteer assistance for rental property, low cost rentals to our residents versus going to our federal program. We've worked, we've talked to several nonprofits from the vantage point of advantages or disadvantages. I would say from an advantage standpoint, without going into a study or, you know, for the research, you know, that's just another program to assist with low rent to and condition to what we already have federally provided. Disadvantaged of that is that we have a federal program that's existed for almost 70-some ideas. And so there's risk, at least we've, you know, trying to share the risk in doing that. that there are rules. The housing, urban and development do have regulations that require a look when we provide additional sources like local tax funds to federal programs. And that analysis of assessment would have to be conducted by HUD, coordinated with, say, the department, and then the results provide feedback to, of course, the county admin and the board. We would not know from that now, I would say there are risks that HUD could leverage that local voucher program. As again, just a risk based on our current program and reduce or cut funds. And so that's, again, we've addressed or tried to at least identify those types of risks. Again, without a fool's full up study, but these are things that we see and we've shared. Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Griffin. And I had actually that question as well. Supervisor Kirschner. Yeah just briefly so in your presentation you talked about the co-agregional goes a lot but I just want to make sure I understand this those are just something that Kaga's come up we've not necessarily adopted those that's a metrics that they use that maybe we look at but it's not necessarily something have adopted. And is that correct? That is correct. Okay. So, within their recommendations, I'm assuming, because one of the things I've always questioned is how much should, or because these are regional goals, how much should or should not allow to absorb some of this, you know, they do not break it down by county due do they, in terms of their recommendations or do they, or is it just a whole number? They do, each jurisdiction has a set of goals, but not all jurisdictions have adopted those. Okay, and we have not adopted those, we have our own goals based upon our metrics and the things that we have determined as a board here, is that correct? Which is the, what, 350? So, what our goal is? 16,000. 16,000 for 2040. Last question real quick. Obviously we're doing much better. But obviously better with the access preservation units versus the new construction. Any reason why? Is it just easier because obviously they're there. They exist. We can find them or is there other reasons? I can start and then I'll let my colleagues jump in. Sure. One of the reasons that the access numbers are so high is because we were fortunate to receive extra housing choice vouchers. So once those units, once those households receive those vouchers and find housing, we count them at our access numbers. We also account 80 resells in those, in that in access numbers in terms, yeah. So it's it has been much easier for us to reach the access preservation metrics versus the new construction metrics. And that can be for a number of reasons, but I will first begin by saying that we have the Affordable Moths of Family Housing Loan Program. And that has really been effective over the last couple of years with providing loans to developers to construct attainable housing. And once those loans are provided, there is a gap in terms of timing when those units are delivered. So as we see that this year, we won't have any additional units for four quarter for new construction using that loan program. We do see that in 2027, we'll have hundreds of units delivered. So it just a matter of timing where we from the county perspective What we can control is providing those loans to developers encouraging the development But once we do our part it takes a while for them to actually construct in the lease up And that's when we actually counting units for the purposes of this plan We do track those units units under the long program. They count those units once that loan is made. But for purposes of tracking for the strategic plan, we only count those when they're leased up. So there's a gap in time. Great. Thank you. That's helpful. Vice Chair, Chair. Thank you very much, my apologies to all for being late. I'd like to pursue that point you just made, because my question was going to be, we're now four years into the Unmet Housing Neistratutie Plan, and we consistently see underperforming in new units and overperforming in access, which immediately jumps out at me as change the paradigm, relook at the problem, and let's start thinking way outside the box or some things we can do. But you're saying that the pipeline is delayed. There's a fairly significant gap between starting the process and when they actually lease out loaned new units. It would be helpful and you may be uncomfortable with this if you are, that's fine, we can discuss but it would be helpful if we knew what was in the loan pipeline. So... And you may be uncomfortable with this if you are. That's fine. We can discuss it. But it would be helpful if we knew what was in the loan pipeline. So yeah, I understand we're at 57% right now. But if we're projecting within the next year or two that we will jump up and meet, because the goal keeps going up too. And which is going up faster. So if I can see some kind of a projection of the future goal compared to what we think the future pipeline is and recognizing it non-attribution. So we're not gonna hold you to that because loans can fall through, projects can fall through, we get that. But it has some kind of idea of where we're going. Because four years into the plan now and this phenomenon is repeated in each of these years. And so I'm trying to figure out, do we need to try something new? And I'll just leave it open for comment. Well, part of the answer to that question will be answered with the evaluation. Because we're going to evaluate the performance metrics and identify when the appropriate time to count certain units. So going through that process, we may modify how we're tracking and how we're counting our actual units. We're trying to control for the task that the county has influence over. We zone influence winning units list, but we do influence whenever it receives a CO. So we could start counting units at CO and that would reduce the lag. So we're going to evaluate that so that we can report in a way that more accurately reflects the work that the county is doing. And I would also point out the item we have a little bit later. It's entirely possible when we get the expedited review process in place for affordable units that that could really radically change the timeline too. That's a pretty big incentive for developers to build attainable units and that might really be a game changer. We won't know obviously until we implement that. Thank you. All right, thank you. So my, something I wanted to ask is about deeply affordable housing units. You know, the to 30 AMI Do you think we're meeting The need and that in that area or would that be something we need to evaluate With that study that we're doing So I'll start and I'll add this jump in so the study will the study that will evaluate the plan will conduct a housing supply and demand forecast based on income. And so we'll know during that study, at the results of the study, the demand for housing units at every income band including zero to 30. I would say that the housing choice voucher program is probably the largest program that provides housing assistance for those at that lower income. But I'll turn it over to others to also discuss it. Yes, so with reaching the deeply affordable, typically the zero to 30% AMI requires heavy, heavy subsidy. And the programs that DHCD administers currently that would include the housing choice voucher program, Ms. Collins mentioned We also have a state rental assistance program which acts like a voucher program for those with developmental disabilities And the county receives heavy subsidy so that those households are only allowed to pay 30% of their monthly income And the remainder of the rent is covered by those subsidies So it's very rare that a developer or builder will come in and voluntarily provide or proper those units for 0-30. The county has right now only administers just a handful of those units where developers have actually voluntarily offer those as a proffer. Yeah, and that's why I've been a proponent of land banking and having the county provide affordable housing, you know, through a housing developer. But I thought that HUD, that housing choice voucher program that we have a wait list, I didn't think we were getting any more money for that. And that is correct. I mean, because we're operating off of a CR, a continuing resolution as our appropriation, we're managing within that, we've been advised as part of the group of notifications from HUD to PHAs or housing offices that we need to manage from within since we're in a continuing resolution. That's what I thought. One thing that I would ask that you do during the evaluation is how can we achieve a more diverse housing product for attainable rental units? So I think our objective is an adequate supply of housing that is varied in both type and price. So I see for rental units as mainly multifamily apartments and condos, so I'm wondering how we can provide a more diverse type of housing in the rental category. because I don't think we really have much that's rental outside of multifamily. Am I correct in saying that? Yeah, yeah, and I think people would appreciate that. All right, well thank you so much. I appreciate the update. Thank you. All right, so now we're going to go on to item two, Loudens, trails, and waterways update. And we have Steve Torpy and Mark Novak. And somebody else, I think the manager, right? From Parks and Rock. Thank you, Steve. Now, can you introduce? Yeah. So, good evening, committee chair. Takroni, vice chair, Turner, and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to come this evening. We're excited to share with you some information about the board initiative. Used to be called linear parks and trails and we'll get into the new name in just a second. But before I do that, to my far right is Mark Novak, who is the chief park planner for parks recreation and community services. And Mr. Dan Sullivan is the first time before you all. Dan is the program manager for the countywide trails program. So all the good things that are happening is under his guidance. So without any further ado, I'll jump right in if that's okay. So next slide, Mark. So if just a brief history back in July of 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved the Linear Parks and Trails plan that we had been working on after getting direction from the Board to develop said plan. So that was adopted in July of 2021. Mr. Sullivan was brought on board in September of 22 after the Board gave us funding for three original positions, including the program coordinator and maintenance coordinator and Mr. Sullivan's position. All of those positions were hired within that first year and the work on developing and implementing set aspects of the plan really started right away. of of the things that kicked off from the get-go was, or from the beginning, was the rebranding of the L-PAT. So we went through a process of doing that. A lot of public input was garnered to land on loudens, trails, and waterways. You see the logo there. It's a sticker that we left on the Dias for you to review. And one of the reasons why we wanted to do that logo and rebranding as one of the first things is there is a program that we're putting in place that uses QR codes on our trail signage. And so identification of all of the trails throughout the county that are a part of the loudens, trails, and waterways will be QR coded as a way of being able to show what it is, what trail you're actually on, but also from a safety standpoint, if there is ever anything that happens out on the trails, you're going to be able to identify where you are and especially with working with LCSO and Loudon County Fire and Rescue. That was one of the things that was suggested just from a safety standpoint. the time that the staff came on board, we did do an assessment of all of our existing trails within our county parks. Many of those have been upgraded through volunteer work and staff work and there also has been new trails that have been created. Over 10 miles of brand new trails actually have been created as well as opening of several new passive parks that were specifically geared towards new trails such as the Goose Creek Point Park. Heron Overlook Park, which I know supervisor Glass was down for that unveiling and ribbon cutting and actually hiked the trails with us that evening. And new trails that went were installed out at Bolham Park really in anticipation of some of the future planning of the signature project that I'll talk about in just a little bit. Having connections from Field Bolham Park to that signature project, which is a primary focus of this overall plan is to connect all of these various areas of the county, connect the parks within the counties, the communities within the counties, and so those additional miles out at Bolin were done in anticipation of that signature project coming on board. Next slide. So one of the other things that staff worked on, we were, had staff that was instrumental in working through the Gap study for the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail. That was a partnership with National Park Service and the Northern Virginia Regional Commission. That has been completed and one of the things that will ultimately happen is that new alignment will be incorporated, will update our linear parks and trails plan so that it is a part of that plan so that we can work on taking care of those gaps that are still identified in that. As we said at the outset of this initiative this was not something that was going to be solely staff managed and led. It was going to be heavy with volunteers and you can see that we have had an outpouring of assistance from volunteers with over 1900 hours just on trail maintenance, trail assessments and actual helping with the development of new trails. So we do have a staff member that one of their jobs is to coordinate volunteers for these types to help offset the work that needs to be done. So it's not solely placed upon those positions, the maintenance positions that you all have given to the department for the implementation of this. Next slide, please. So some other things that the team has been working on is, as I mentioned, the QR codes, but that also is going to be a part of the interactive Kennywide trails map that is you're going to be able to go on and select where you're at and the different types of trails and how close you are to a particular trail. The other thing that we've been working with is the story maps with Miss Brown and her department with mapping and GIS. As you are aware, the county is rich and not only cultural resources and natural resource but also historic resources. And so along the trails, there's a lot of things that people can be educated about. And so the story maps are being created, working with Ms. Brown and her department, and the trails team, so that it's not just about health and wellness, but you also are learning about loudness history and some of the great things that are here while you're out on that hiking and enjoying the great outdoors. The feasibility study for those that were at our first ribbon cutting after we adopted the plan, which was down at the Northern Virginia Regional, I always mess the name up. Criminal Justice Academy. I know Vice Chair Turner, you were there and went out that day on that, but if you recall, that trail went all the way down to Route 7, and we had to stop because there wasn't a way to go under Route 7 and get over to the toll house. Staff was able to contract using ARPA funds, and that study is currently going to get a safe passage under Route 7, so that that gap will be closed and be a part of that overall trail system. We also, again, vice-chair Turner, thank you for your leadership in this in bringing the Hennessy property to us. That has already started the master planning process for the Goose Creek Trailhead Park. We've been working with the Hennessy family to try and get some of those things done a little bit early, but that is going to be a very beneficial trailhead because we already have property that goes north along the Goose Creek but we did not have a trail head so that will be something that gets added and open that part of the system for us. And then obviously Mr. Novak is a, he does referrals for our department on all development applications that come through and having the linear parks and trails adopted by the board has really been beneficial in helping to get easements and things like that dedicated specifically for the trails and passive parks since that adoption occurred back in July of 21. Next slide. So just briefly on the signature project and this is a CIP project so I'm not going to go into this a whole lot tonight because that's we wanted to talk about the other aspects. But just as a reminder, the 18 mile loop that is a current CIP project with the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail being the northern boundary, the WNO deed being the southern boundary, and the Goose Creek and the Broadrun being the west and east boundary of that 18 mile loop. That conceptual design has been completed so So that project is moving forward. DTCI has been working very hard on that. And just as a reminder, that does include three major bridge stream crossings, one at the Broadrun toll house, the other one at Keyplow and Beautiful Bridge across the Goose Creek and then one at Horsepen Run down in the countryside neighborhood which is specifically associated with the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail down in that part of the county. Next slide. So this is the exciting thing that we wanted to share with you is that Mr. Sullivan and and his staff have been working very hard to develop the next phase of this large loop trail and the planning has been done on what we're calling the southern loop of that still using the WNOD to the north, it really connects the Broadrun Stream Valley corridor and the Goose Creek Stream Valley corridor. Connects multiple parks along the way. It does connect or at least get close to the various metro stations. One of the things that's exciting is when a signature project is done and this southern project gets completed, you will have roughly a 40-mile loop trail within easy distance of about 150,000 residents within Loudon County, which is one of the major goals of the Loudon Trails and Waterways Plan. The other thing that I would be remiss if I did not bring up is that this planning that has been occurring for the Southern Loop Trail really did exactly what we hoped was going to happen with relationship with the HOAs. There has been great collaboration with Brambleton, so that some of the trails that are shown here are already in existence, and we've worked with Brambleton to be able to include them on this so that we don't have to be the one that always has to build the trails, but through a connection and partnership with a variety of folks throughout the county, we get that interconnected trail system put in place. So this is a very exciting thing that is happening, and one of the things that we're excited about next slide is that 66% of the land and easements we currently either own or already have in place. And over half of the trails are already on the ground. And the way that the team has designed this, utilizing some existing crossings where there is vehicular bridges and things along those lines. The future planning does not require a lot of crossings of the broad run, which as you know from some recent project that we've been working on, those stream crossings can be relatively expensive. So this is a plan that does not have a lot of those crossings and really is going to, as I mentioned earlier, open access up to one of these large-scale loop trails to the overwhelming majority of the population in the central part of the county. Next slide. Before I get into questions, I just wanted to close by saying that we are, it's not just been us. I do want to recognize that the assistance from the Parks Recreation and Open Space Board, particularly the Linear Parks and Trails Subcommittee, which since the inception of that has been Kelly Fultman and Jimmy O'Connor, and all of the stakeholders that come every single month to meetings to help with the development of what we're going to do next, and we talk back and forth on that. They really have been instrumental in getting us to where we are today. I do want to thank you for your continued support of the program, if you in FY 26 the natural resource manager and then some actual maintenance text dedicated to Trail maintenance and construction were a part of the approved budget for PRCS. So we thank you for that. And as you know, this is a long-term plan. It's not something that was a two-year plan. It was a decades-long plan. But I personally am very proud of the team and excited about what has already been done. The miles that have been open to the public. The bridges that are getting ready to be built that are going to open additional trail miles right in the heart of the county. And it's through the hard work of the volunteers and staff and the support of the board that we've been able to get out in front of this a lot quicker than we thought was going to happen. So we're looking forward to that progress continuing in the years to come. And with that, I will open up the floor to questions and let staff correct anything that I was wrong. Thank you, Mr. Torfby and thank you, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Novak. I really like this. It's a great rebranding. It's beautiful. I put this on my computer. I want to thank Elp Hack Committee members and volunteers and everybody who had a part in this. I agree with Mr. Torpe that it's a team effort to get this done. And I want to thank you for prioritizing the southern portion of the signature project, the 22 miles. And I'm glad to hear Brambleton is helping you with the Broadrun Stream Valley trail. That's really exciting and let please reach out if you need help along the way. All right, so we'll go around with questions. We may have two rounds because it's a big project. I'll start with Supervisor Class. Thank you Chair DeCroni and thank you for the presentation. It's wonderful to see all of the work that is going on and the things that have been completed, like you said. I know we talked about the trails and the bridges. Do we, I'm pretty sure we do, but do we have a plan for blue trails and the use of our waterways Such as a plan to get around obstructions in the water so the the blue Way trails there is a plan that's part of the linear parks and trails and I think Where you're going with that question is is how often are we putting canoe kayak launches on? And that is something that we take into account when we're looking at the overall plan. Like for example, Blessed Park, which is currently closed for a renovation, has a canoe kayak launch that we added as a part of that renovation. And the reason why we did that is because you want to provide as many options without overdoing those options for the people to get out on for the residents and visitors to get out on the water and enjoy that. And there was a long stretch from Nova Parks access point up above Leesburg all the way down to Algonquinian. And so that's going to be a central thing where it breaks up those. And that's how we approach that is if there are long sections of the blue ways that need that, we'll put that into what we are looking for as far as a gap or something along those lines. And when those opportunities come along along we'll try to put that there. If that answers your question. Yes. For the Signature Project, we're supposed to be restoring the Broadrun toll house. Has a determination been made about what portions of the building has been removed and you don't have to enter all this if you don't have it? I asked because there are some non-1800s portions that still contain a lot of stonework that may be worth saving. So the analysis on the toll house is still being done. And that decision has not been made in its final state yet. If you recall, we did a stewardship management plan on the toll house years ago, and there was some questions from the committee on could we look at these certain things as well, and I know that we're in the process of doing that analysis and evaluations. Okay. So as noted in the item, the Northern Virginia Regional Commission just finished the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail Gap Study from Leesburg to Harpers Ferry. What are the counties next steps? and does the board need to endorse that study? So since the study has been completed in that study there is a various corridors that they suggested is good routes for this project. Many of those routes already overlap with the corridors that are in our linear parks and trails plan., there are a few that don't quite line up. Our plan currently is to update the park and trails plan with the new corridors. That would obviously come to the board to revise that plan. From there, we could start knocking out pieces of that trail. Thank you, Brenna. We can do another round if you want. I think you have more questions. Vice Chair Turner. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Well, this is an amazing roadmap. It really is a phenomenal roadmap. And I'm extremely pleased that we have it. I don't know. Did anything even remotely like this exist before we put this in print four years ago? So we had a few plant market want to answer of what we had in the past. Sure. So probably 20 years ago there was a original study that was done showing a trail system in the county but it never gained any traction. So this is more detailed of what we have currently done, and it actually adds more realistic value to what we're trying to accomplish than just a conceptual thought. I would make it one of my top priorities to rebrand the four year old plan so that it says the loud and trails and waterways plan. Instead of the linear parks and trails plan, that'll be a part of when we bring back. Kind of a kind of a branding thing. One of the issues that I have in my mind, and I don't want to rain on anybody's parade because this is phenomenal work and long overdue, and I feel the stewardship of your team has been terrific. Same phenomenon that I felt we fell into and I was wrong of the unmet housing needs strategic plan. When I first saw 133 goals I actually reached out to Valmery at the time and said if you got 133 goals you almost have no goals because you don't know where to start. It's incredibly hard to track your progress. And she pushed back and said, we want to try it with 133 goals with an eye towards as we see ones that clearly are not going anywhere we can take them out and ones that are and we can move them forward. And it's matured very nicely. I don't have a corollary construct with this plan. I would like to be able to see a matrix that says this is where we are. So for example, and this is where it gets a little touchy. 208 planned rural miles and 78 planned eastern miles were four years into a 10 year plan and we've constructed 10 miles of neutral. We're all going to be gone and long gone before we get close to doing that. And I don't want to highlight the fact that we've only got 10 miles done, but I would like to be able to see progress against the plan. And I've got 34 seconds. I'll come back around on the second round. But specifically, I think the signature trail and the southern loop are phenomenal. I would be very happy if we took all of our resources and piled them into that, recognizing what this plan does, it says we don't know when we're going to get donations of land and when we're going to get proffers and so we want to have the full plan, I get that. But I'm looking for prioritization and with that I'll shut up. Am I good respond to that chair? So one of the things that, and I understand that, and that's one of the things that we talk about internally, and it is a challenging situation that we are in because the 10 miles of new trails and perhaps this is something we can come back and show at a later time. The number of easements that we already have on the ground that are not open yet. And the reason being is because of some of these gaps and because we don't want to and don't feel that it's right for us to open a trail section if we don't have the ability to go through to the other trail section. But there is a lot of things that we have that are very, very close that when we get this gap or this bridge, it's going to be a huge impact at one time. So I understand what you're saying with regards to only 10 miles that have been open, but there's been a lot of foundational work that has been done to get these easements lined up. And as we start filling those small gaps, I think you're going to see a lot larger impacts moving forward. Thank you. All right. So we're going to do another round, but I have a few questions. So it's a 10 year plan that began in 2021. What projects do you expect to have completed in 10 years? Hopefully the whole signature project loop I'm hoping. But what other projects are you thinking about for the 10 years? So our priority over 10 years would be obviously signature project loop, signature project south. We'd like to see full connectivity for the Potomac Heritage Trail from Harper's Ferry all the way to Fairfax County. And beyond that, one of the advantages we have for our program is we can take advantage of opportunities as they arise. So I think those would be our three central goals. But beyond that, we can keep moving and striking in new areas to connect communities together. Yeah, and I would encourage in rural Loudon, you know we have such a great network of rural roads that we're protecting. And to me those should be our trail network. and we're allowed to see you're not taking personal property because I know on Route 50 people do not want to trail on Route 50 west of Route 15 because it would take personal property. So I do think kind of focusing on our wonderful rural road network is the way to go and rural loud in. I think. I don't know what are your thoughts. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, there's a lot of great opportunities in Western Mountain with the gravel roads Not all of them are necessarily winners just because of sight lines and safety But it is in our plan. It says that we are supposed to take advantage of the gravel roads at West And it is something we are looking at regularly. Okay, excellent. So I had an HOA reach out to me, Red Seater States, and they would like to work with the county on the 181 acre parcel off evergreen mills road where sickling creek elementary schools located to do trails. They would like to partner, and I don't know if the county owns that property or is that still loud in county public schools? It is loud in county public schools, however, we are currently in talks with loud in county public schools to gain access to that so that we can program that. Are they going to build a school there, do you know Mr. Torpe? I do not know that. Okay, I'm meeting with Mr. Lewis soon. So I'll ask that question. Okay so red cedar estates like I love that you're working with Haways and I think if they're offering to help and a partner I think that's a great opportunity. So you do have in the plan trails there? Yes. How many miles do you know? We've done a preliminary trail plan for that area. Okay Our priority was to make sure there was a 5k course for the kids at the school I I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. I believe is around a mile and a half a mile and a half Okay, okay, thank you. So we're gonna do another round. Do you have another question? Superversa? What I I do have another question. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, sorry. Oh, you have not even known. No, you haven't had a chance. Go ahead, supervisor. Krishna, we have to do fairness. Sure, I was. I existed. I don't have too many questions, but I just had a couple follow-up questions with some that were asked and then some of my reading of the materials. all you, first of all, for all the hard work that you're doing. This is pretty cool and pretty incredible. And quite frankly, very ambitious, as Supervisor Turner pointed out. So we're watching. No pressure. No, I don't feel. But so obviously, I've representing Western Loudon as Supervisor now I've lost it, but as Supervisor Tukroni had suggested, And also in your planning in terms of your priority, which would make sense, Western Loudon is not the highest priority because there's fewer people that live there. But obviously we do have a whole network of trails that you have laid out here in your framework plan, which are great. Now I'm assuming are some of these part of our our roads as suggested by Supervisor Decroni, are some of them already existing trails, because the way I'm reading this map is it's potential linear and trail corridors that you've identified. So is Western Lown going to be, especially around the more populated, or like Perseval is Western Lown going to be one of those where when you can close a few gaps, You're going to see a bunch of the stretch that is able to be used so as far as the linear parks and trails plan with western Loudon those quarters were created very wide so they're not a specific alignment through any neighborhood or road Just as a general area that the original contractor found advantageous for us to plan around okay, so So that's kind of where we are with that. Western Loudoun obviously has its own challenges. For sure. We don't have as many referrals coming in for Western Loudoun. But yeah, that's... So I do, I mean, and obviously, and you know this, I don't want to tell you this, but obviously working with, especially the and villages that we have where the more population centers exist is a great way place to start and begin opening up some trails and sections there. Obviously, we have the WNOD trail flowing through and you know that's people connecting in and off from that. It's going to be great. Now, I don't know if I read this. How many of these trails are really multi-use, especially in Western land, the concept multi-use, especially for equestrian use, if any? What are we looking to do there? So the plan calls for any new trail to at least be planned for multi-use from the get-go. We're trying to make sure that- And what you say multi-use is that, obviously bike horse? Yes, okay. just want to make sure that it includes all of. And we say multi uses that. Obviously bike walk horse. Yes. Okay. Just want to make sure that concludes all of that. That's correct. And obviously there are certain areas where certain types of uses would not be appropriate. But that is the intent trying to make any of these new trails that come out available for anybody that wants to use them. Okay. The only other thing I was thinking of in terms of just economic development, Ms. Kerry would appreciate me saying this, but connecting some of our rural wineries and breweries for sports visits and for access, easier access, I think just that's a big the Western, you know, rural uses that we are looking to expand and promote. So that was one of the things that came out of initial conversations when we were talking with stakeholders and actually talking with the mayors when we were putting this plan together. I know Hillsboro was very interested in having some horse trails that connected to the wineries up there. But again, as Mr. Sullivan was saying, out there in certain instances that would require private property. No, I understand. And so that just hasn't. And some that may be difficult if it's not voluntarily being correct, but all right. Thank you Professor class. Thank you So another question for the Blue Trails you would think that I was a kayaker or paddleboard or I'm not What You can become one no What if there's an obstruction in the waterway, a dam, a utility track, I'm sorry, utility duck, a low bridge, et cetera. Do we have those mapped and a plan to install signs and ways for voters to get around? The only place I know that this exists in the county is at the Goose Creek dam on the Goose Creek? Sure, so when I do spend a lot of time on the water and would be happy to take you out if you're interested in doing that, but one of the things that is very common is when you are on a river doing a river trip, if there is an obstruction like that, it's just advertised that you cannot go beyond this point. Some of them have the ability to portage and others are just, that's the end of that trail. And so in the case that you're talking about right now, we have had some conversations with loud and water as well as the quarry, but we don't have the ability to advertise anything that would portage around that dam at this time. But if there was that availability, that would be a part of that online mapping system that people could see how you would go about doing that. Thank you. All right. So how do we facilitate getting public access trail easements in CDPs and proper statements for legislative applications? Because I know that a lot of H.O.A.'s and a lot of legislative applications that come before us, they don't provide that public access easement. And then you have a missing gap, right? So how do we, how do you think we can facilitate that? I'm sorry. I assume you read all my referrals because we're pretty aggressive. We do require an ask for a lot of easements. We always ask first for land education versus an easement. And then we fall back to an easement at the worst case. We do have, in the LPAC plan, the corridor is between 500 feet to 50 feet. We always ask for the 500 because we remember the corridor is not just for the trail system. It's for the wildlife as. So that's why the National Resource Manager, when they come on, they'll be looking at those corridors, not just as a trail system but also as a way for wildlife to navigate and coexist with the trail itself. So again, most of the developers today, when we ask, they don't hesitate to give us what we ask for. There's new language in the zoning oranges that requires data centers to provide in Vesca in steep slope areas, a trail easement. So that's been very beneficial. So we've been working with that and most of the data centers have been pretty agreeable to provide those easements. And the ones that come in with developers, again, most of the developers in the county have been around the block so they speak so they pretty much know when they see my referral coming in we're asking for. So we've been very fortunate but there are times where it's just really difficult. By-right developments are particularly challenging and we try to get ahead of those by finding out where those by right developments are and ask if there's a way. And that's where that H away comes in trying to work that through. So we're looking at every angle we could possibly get. Very much, that's great. And what about, I know Supervisor Lutorno would want me to say the south of Route 50. I know we're looking at maybe coordinating with Fairfax County and Prince William like with the CUB run trail and is that ongoing or is that like way down the road? We haven't had a lot of dialogue to this date on that but we're aware aware of it. And we're obviously open to connecting to Fairfax County. I know years and years ago when they had the park up on the southern end, we were trying to connect to that. But there was no trail system in that part of the county at this time. But as we start to move forward, there are profits coming. There's actually development happening up up in that area So yeah, we'd be Open to working with them Sorry, I think I did not call on vice chair Turner so my fault. Okay, you need a really okay All right. Thank you, mr. Noback. Okay, so vice chair Turner really quickly We have a Broadruns of Tier 1 project and Goose Creek's Tier 2 project. When we have a trail planned along a waterway, do we routinely envision that segment being completed when we have easements on both sides of the waterway or do we look at it and it's okay we got an easement over here and then we got an easement over here and then we got an easement over here that's a completed trail because it really isn't a completed trail. How do you address that? So the way we address that we approach both sides of the waterway and sometimes there's an easy answer when you look at these waterways. There's just no way to build a trail on the east or the west depending on what's happening in that area. Ideally, we have trails on both sides. It creates a lot more opportunity for trail users. You can double back, make loops, all sorts of creativity when you're using the trail. So that would be our gold standard. But once again, we kind of have to approach each project with what opportunities are there. And so if we're looking at, for instance, Broadrun, we might choose to focus on one bank that has a lot more opportunity. Perhaps there's more developments on that side as opposed to an HOA. And we'll go that way. Just a quick follow up then. Would it be helpful if the board passed a standard policy that if you have property along the waterway, you are expected to provide an easement to the county on that waterway. You can go ahead and deploy a few minutes. Just to understand the question, is it whether it's possible for such a policy? Well, would it be helpful? I mean, do we need a motion from the board to say from this point forward and we can go through the trash of a grandfathering date again But from this point forward it is county policy that if you own property on a waterway You are expect you are required to provide a trail easement on that property along that waterway In that context of if you're just simply developing or if you have for example like a proper development or something coming through? Well, I don't know I mean I mean I would think if the problem is by right properties I don't know how we would retroactively go back and require that of a by right property But it would seem to me rather than you to have to individually go piecemeal against individual property owners and beg for an easement if the board made a statement that it is our policy that you own land on a waterway, you are expected to provide a trail easement in this county. I'm just not sure. I think it's one thing to have that set forth in a policy document that you know that's the expectation. I don't know that the mechanism to actually require people to dedicate. Mr. Hemsre. Yes. This is an issue that the T-Luck is interested in. I think it would probably be better if we had planning and zoning come and talk about what is in what is already part of our conference of planned, what's in our kind of transportation plan, for example, because where we do have dedicated or we have plan trails and plan rights of way, we do have some authority to request, least reservations be made, dedication's come at the proper stage, but some of this is already in existing policy. So I think as opposed to having PRCS, answer these questions on the fly, which they're really not, they're really not the right department to answer those. I think if this is an interest, we can have DPC come and talk about how these sets of proffers and guidance work between the legislative process and I think also there's some guidance in the facility standards manual as well. Yeah, that's excellent. I think that would be of interest. I mean, I asked you, Mr. Novak, and you said you prefer land education versus an easement. So I think just that whole discussion of what we can ask for, especially with buy-write. That would be very helpful. Okay. I said, okay, well thank you, Mr. Torpy, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Novak. And really this is phenomenal. So thank you so much for the rebranding and for all of your work to get this done for the community. Thank you. All right, so now we're going to go on to item three, the Federal Aviation Administration Community Process, to mitigate aircraft noise within the area of the airport impact overlay district. I think we might have renamed this, didn't we? Josh, Peters? We might have made this easier. I don't know. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Peters and Mr. Glendo. So we'll do a, you have a presentation. We, we do. And you were you jumped right into one of my updates, which is the project title. Which will shorten the title we all need to use. So let me find this presentation and get it up here. Okay, so there we are. There is the current slash old title, but I'll be talking about the new one in just a second. So, good evening, Chair DeCroni, committee members. Again, I'm Josh Peters. I'm the project manager for this effort. Of course, I'm joined by Dan Gullindo, Department Director for DPC. And so this is an informational item to let you know what staff has been up to during this reporting period. We, the project team, were last before this committee on January 29th. And so this information item really covers the reporting period from the end of January up until today. The presentation that I have prepared for you is just basically these three couple of bullet points that I'll run through in more detail. So I will, because it's been a few months since I've spoken to you, I will remind you of the background, the steps that we've covered, staff checking in with the board periodically through the months to receive a more granular project direction. And then I'll get into the updates, which is really the point of us being here. So by way of background, this committee is probably very familiar. The origin of the project was really in January of 2023 when the board voted to adopt updates to the airport impact overlay district. And at the same time, the board also was keenly aware of noise impacts coming from aviation over flights on communities around Delis Airport. And so the board directed staff to open a dialogue with the Federal Aviation Administration, the FAA, to see what could be done about those noise impacts. And so in the months and in fact, now years that have followed that, staff has pursued this direction while seeking ongoing guidance and feedback from the board to help structure this effort. And so those are the next couple of bullets that I'm gonna just breeze past. Staff has come back and sought direction from the board to structure this effort to open dialogue with FAA. And so to that end, the board has endorsed a study area which becomes the geographic basis for the project. The board also designed, I'm sorry, the board also endorsed a design group and the design group is comprises members from communities that live within that study area and those members are the ones that actively engage with our aviation consultants to do kind of the nuts and bolts work of looking for possible solutions on this airport noise issue. Coming along in May 2024, the board also endorsed a broader community engagement plan. The reason that that's on there is a kind of a milestone is that May 2024 endorsement of the engagement plan. That was based on feedback that we did receive from the FAA as they are outlining for us. The nature of pretty substantial public engagement process that we would need to move through. If in fact some sort of change or alteration of flight pass were going to be recommended, the FAA said to the county via our consultants that if we're going to engage on any sort of conversation around this point, you do need to run through a community engagement process so that it's vetted through the broader public. So the board endorsed that community engagement plan and then July through October of 24, the board held a series of discussions about the composition of our project team and the outcome of those discussions was that the board directed us to bring on a local consulting party that is now working under the direction of our prime contractor. And so the prime and-contractors along with county staff to comprise the project team. And then coming along in December of 2024 with all of those previous milestones having been established, staff restarted the project, excuse me, staff restarted the project. With that expanded community engagement plan and the project team and then as we worked Our way through procurement with the revised contracts we then restarted the project. And so that was kind of the administrative background and process that we were working through all along, all through that time. And in fact, we reported it to you at the January T-Luck meeting. And so that's the background that leads up to these updates. And so here we are. This brings us to the current reporting period, which is February of this year up until now. And so the first one, as you mentioned, SharedCrooney, the revised project title. This staff report that you have, it uses the old one, but it introduces the runway 30 30 Aviation Noise Mitigation Project as the title going forward for all items under this effort. And in fact, that title is already in place on our project website and in all the communications that the project team has been sending out. The project website is update number two and that was launched, I think in late March. And it is really a helpful resource. I know because of the volume of questions that are being forwarded to me that board members are receiving questions from their constituents. The project website is an excellent first resource to point people to. And part of the reason for that is because we are maintaining a frequently asked questions section on the website FAQs. So right now we have probably in the neighborhood of 30 questions that are on there that have come up from the community. So they're not all frequently asked, even some of these are just really good technical questions that we have asked our consultants to help us answer. So those answers are on the website, and again, it's a good kind of first resource for people who are interested in the project. Update number three, the community kickoff meeting which we did hold on April 10th. Even though we've been in discussion between staff and board for a long time now, this was really the introduction of the project to the community, saying this is what we're doing, this is kind of the roadmap for the the project. And we held that on April 10th via WebEx. We had between 80 and 90 attendees, if memory serves, including Senator Strenjevossen from Virginia District 32 who spoke up, he had some supportive comments that we appreciated. So I think the kickoff meeting was a successful one and it showed some ongoing community interest and support. Update number four, outreach to design group representatives and in fact that probably should be updated to say the design group has been convened the first meeting of the design group which As a reminder the design group is comprised of those those Representatives from communities within the study area so the first meeting of the design group was convened on May 15th and so they that meeting was hosted by our consultant, Viannere, and they received a very kind of brief air traffic control 101 training from the aloft group, our subcontractor. and the intent of the design group and the work that's in front of them was kind of introduced, and in fact the next meeting of the design group will be on May 29th. So that group, and that really represents the heart of the project. the design group will develop the final recommendations facilitated by our consultants that become the main tangible deliverable. So that is well underway. They will have had two meetings by the end of May. They'll have a minimum of three meetings. So that will continue on into June, assuming that they can continue finding dates to all get together. And then the recommendations coming out of that series of meetings would be developed in the June, July timeframe. Update number five is outreach to the Regional Project group. Now the regional project group, as the name implies, is that regional oversight body. It comprises a representative from every local jurisdiction within 10 miles of the airport. And the RPG, the regional project group, really is the component of this that responds most immediately to concerns from FAA because it says whatever sort of recommendation comes out of this design group must be vetted through the RPG, the regional project group and receive support and or no objection. So, staff is continuing to work on that list of contacts for the RPG. We've heard back from all but one jurisdiction and we have contacts for all but two jurisdictions nailed down and as soon as we kind of draw that to a completion, we will have our first meeting of the RPG, actually in person, is what we're hoping for, probably in Loudoun County. But that will be a future update in the next reporting period. Update number six, and I'm almost through. I'm almost through with these. So update number six is we have also reached out to state and federal officials through our subcontractor did this for us. The average was in the form of emails. So we've heard back from some mostly acknowledgments saying that they're aware of what we're doing. And then of course also general public general public engagement through established county channels, which would be the website, but also the county's website, blog updates, and press releases. So those seven points of update, that's what staff has been up to in this reporting period. And then the issues slide. This is kind of issues, or maybe just points to be aware of along with some next steps. So process clarification, this is something that probably didn't get a whole lot of discussion back when we asked the boards endorsement on the community engagement plan. But how exactly does, how exactly do the final recommendations get presented to the board along the way before going to the FAA? The sequence will be this. The design group will develop the final recommendations through this summer. And as soon as those are ready and agreed upon by the design group, we'll bring those back to the board. And if the board endorses that document, that will then be distributed to the RPG. It'll then go forward to the regional project group after the board sees it. But as soon as the regional project group signs off on it, it will be vetted also through the airport, and then our consultant will work with us to forward that to the appropriate place within the FAA. So I think that's just a point of clarification we hadn't talked through, but it was worth calling out. And then the second one is the role of the Airports Authority in this whole thing. So the project team will maintain communication with MOA, the Airports Authority, throughout the project, and seek support or at least non-opposition to the final recommendations. And this is an important point here because it is important to the project. And I would even say critically important that the county gain a vote of support or at least non-opposition from the airports authority. We're advised by our consultants that without support or at least non-opposition, the recommendations coming out of the design group really probably don't have a great chance being accepted. So that seemed like important information that the consultant share of a staff and so I'm passing that forward to the board. And after we receive non-opposition from those groups, the RPG and the airports authority, the county will submit the final recommendations to the FAA. So that brings us to the next steps. So we will continue with our meetings of the design group, mentioned to you before, we already had the first meeting. The second meeting is on the calendar for next week and then we expect at least one more going into June and then the RPG will be following that so that they can be ready to receive whatever those recommendations are that come out of the design group. Steps were the really the major talking points that I've already shared with you are shown on this slide as a graphic. And so I don't think I need to walk you through this. This should really just be confirming everything that's already been said. But I can keep this as a helpful graphic if you have questions. And at that point or at this point, I think the presentation is concluded. Thank you, Mr. Peters. And I love the new name. Runway 30 Aviation Noise Mitigation Project. And the website looks great. So the website's amazing. I just want to give a shout out to the consultant because it's really, you know, we just had the kickoff meeting which I attended on April 10th and now we're having two meetings in May with the design groups. So there's real progress being made and I think they're doing some great work moving this forward because it sounds like we'll see the final recommendations potentially in the fall which is I think that's likely. Okay so any questions to Mr. Peters and Mr. Galindo vice chair Turner. Thank you very much. Yeah I'd say it's pretty important that M.Y. has decided not to be the the recommendation to the FAA. And I would say critically important as the proper terminology. I completely agree with your assessment. Sadly, the night we passed the new AID years ago, I fully expected this is where we would end up. And here we are. My recommendation to Vyan Air, my very strong recommendation to Viannair, is I think the best chance we have to get MWOTA support this is if we design a departure procedure with the minimal impact on current airport operations. There's a real danger here of designing an ideal departure for noise abatement in the now thousands of houses that were building based on the map that Emma provided in 1993 of likely flight paths, which we now approved thousands of houses and the flight paths are radically different. The best chance we have is to rather than design the perfect departure procedure, mitigate that noise, we define a departure procedure which improves it with a minimal impact on airport operations. So I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good here. And if you could pass that on divine air, I feel pretty strongly about that. I completely agree with you. We have to have at least nine opposition for M. O.R. or dead in the water. I mean, that's just reality. And I think we can do that. I mean, we're looking at a departure end aligned perfectly with a floodplain and transmission lines where we're never gonna build ounces. I mean, there's a way around that. I flew it in California, And I found out from a 737 pilot who lives in the community. And um... I mean, there's a way around that. I flew it in California, and now I found out from a 737 pilot who lives in the community. And we had a very nice exchange by email. He corrected some technical mistakes that I made. But for the most part, he said there's overlaying air infrastructure over top of the airport. It may make a revised departure procedure really difficult. still maintain that when you're looking for a mile and a half of a floodplain with no houses in it directly aligned with the departure under the runway, we can do something to make it better. So my only caution then is to vineyard. Let's be really careful in trying to be diminimous in a disruption of current flight operations, but still help the homeowners with some kind of relief. And then the last thing I had is, do you need any more money? I saw the money at the end. I mean, seriously, are you are we sufficiently funded or does the board need to allocate some more money? Short answer for right now. We're OK. Yeah. I do want to respond. I think if it's okay, could I respond to one comment? Some of the thoughts and guidance that you're asking that I convey to our consultants, and specifically to Viannere who's running the technical side, I would say your sentiments are also being expressed by our consultants to the design group. So, I will convey it and I also want you to know that what you're saying is very consistent with what our technical leader is telling to the design group. Thank you very much. Would it make sense to get MOA involved earlier rather than later? I mean, I don't know since they're not opposition is very important. Yes, it would make sense and in fact, it's happening. So MOA, there is something of a line of communication between our consultants and MOA that is able to happen on an informal basis because our consultants are, they are active in the industry even in projects outside of ours. So there is communication, but the, when it comes to the formal, when it comes to the formal request for feedback, that does come later in the project, but it doesn't mean that they're not being communicated with along the way. Excellent I think that's wise just because we don't want their opposition in the end. So getting them involved throughout the process I think makes sense. All right well anybody else have comments? I just want to thank you Mr. Peters for hanging in there and then for the consultant doing such an excellent job via an air in the aloft group moving this forward I think you know it's amazing that we have two meetings in May with the design group so that I agree and and I will also say that one of probably one of the most pivotal characters in that is Co-project manager Dusty Smith and PAC. He actually is doing most to all of that initial kind of coordination work. So as we're, yes, appreciating our consultants. Also, our public affairs department is doing an enormous amount of work on that side. Okay. Well, thank you, Dusty. And thank you, Mr. Barber Barbara for all your hard work. I think you're right. It's a team effort. I like the new name. That's very good. We'll go on to our last information item, which is item four. I think Mr. Gullindo stays here. Expodited process for legislative affordable housing applications. Thank you, I do, and I do not have any slides tonight, but as you noted, I laid this out topically, so I assume we could pretty much just walk through it and it wouldn't be that different. So thank you for your time tonight. I wanted to give TeeLuck an update on the status of the work we have been doing to create an expedited process for legislative affordable housing applications. As you were call, we came to T-Lock in September and October of last year. And then we're asked to hold a discussion with industry representatives to discuss some of the details of the process which occurred back in November. And at that meeting we had about 50, 50 I think of staff and industry representatives and we had staff attending from County Attorney's Office, DPC as well as building and development. We did not have housing commute development at that meeting, but I have been in touch with them since and we'll continue to do so. So what I've laid out in the relatively short item here are just some summaries of where we stand on certain topics. Ritter rating some of what was already in previous items, providing updates based on the work we've done over the past few months of where we are proposing to make some changes compared to our initial recommendation to you. And then also highlighting some areas where I think there's a little bit more work that we need to do both internally and Also circling back with industry to review kind of where we end up standing on those before hopefully returning to T.Lok with a Actual formal policy for your action in July so that is the intention. I will also say since You've added the meeting and shortening this meeting that can also be easily moved as needed so we can work about on that in the next couple of months So to start with, and I try to do these These are the ones that that in the next couple of months So to start with and I try to do these roughly chronologically in the issues But I think the biggest change that I'm going to become for proposing to you is dealing with the criteria to qualify as you might recall We had proposed 100% affordable housing That was rental only and that was using one of a couple different funding mechanisms where there was a timeline involved. And we were really focusing that on light tech and the push that we generally received to hit those deadlines in a given year. After talking with the industry, we're comfortable making a few changes that will broaden those that can try to take advantage of this process once we get it in place. So first we will maintain that the requirement be for 100% affordable housing where the current critical infrastructure such as roads, water lines is either already in place or will be done as part of the application itself. I'm going beyond that can complicate things and will usually take some more time to review. The second portion is to remove that restriction that this only be for rental housing. So it can be for housing that would be for purchase units as well. The third is to remove the restriction to anyone seeking funding assistance because as was essentially mentioned if someone's bringing their own money to the table they shouldn't be penalized if they could otherwise take advantage of this. The fourth is and this is sort of a staff's assistance is to establish this initial policy as a pilot program that we will all commit to revaluate or evaluate after that first year. And the biggest thing I'm trying to avoid us doing in setting this up is to overpromise in a way where in talking to very industry representatives, a few of them think that we were likely to get more than two of these a year. But the last thing I want is for three to suddenly coming at once and through all of our schedules not only for these but every other application off. I don't want to have to go back and tell an applicant, sorry, we can't accommodate this even though we've made this commitment. So I'm trying to be very cognizant of that. So after a year's worth of time looking at this, maybe we can broaden who else can, what other kind of applications can come in. Maybe we need to make some tweaks to some of the finer details of this. But that's to me a vital part of this so that we can kind of all make this commitment up front of how this first year will operate and then look at it again And last is as part of that to set a limit on the overall replications that can come through in a given year or in this in this first year I should say I'm looking at potentially just capping it at something like six and I'm from talking to at least a couple of folks in the. Again, I think that's reasonable. They don't think that we will see a large number of these, but I think holistically taking all of that makes industry happier and staff comfortable that this is something that we should be able to take and implement moving forward in that first year. And as I note there again, as if after we take that first year and we learn from it, we can definitely go back and make adjustments to this as needed to try to fine tune it. Once an application comes, it's contemplated, we're still, we're still be requiring a pre-meeting as required by the zoning ordinance. And I highlight that part because the zoning ordinance does allow the department to wave those pre-meaning's under certain circumstances and within the industry there's some disagreement about whether to require them or whether people that come through our process a lot should have to do this. So that flexibility to make that determination is still there on the part of staff but otherwise having those initial pre-meaning is something that really allows for thorough view and discussion that I think is necessary to keep the process moving forward quickly and efficiently. We're going to propose that applications that would take part in this included proper statement that fully and clearly commits to all units being affordable and to submit that on the first submission. This is the first submission of Proffers is not something that we have been requiring by checklist. We usually wait until the second, based on the comments that come through in the first round of review. However, I'll say in the past couple of years, we've been noticing that that has been less and less of an issue as we do tend to work with the same applicants and applicant representatives in many cases. So not only are we more comfortable with that, it was also recommendation of the Alvarez and Marcel study that we're working through separately. So while we're going to propose it here specifically, I think it won't be too much longer before we're actually requiring that of all applications that come through. For the review timeline, we will be working with applicants to set up an individualized review schedule. But that said, and as we put in the previous item, we won't applicants to factor in an eight-month minimum review process. And that's really largely not that we don't hope to beat that timeline, but it's to ensure that there's not undue pressure placed on staff or for all agents and those the process to try to hit some deadlines. It encourage people to apply when they only have four months in a deadline, five months in a funding deadline, and something that's just not feasible. As we've all talked about, it's vital important that staff over time not be the standard mechanism for facilitating an expended review. Not that it won't, at some point, potentially be a part of it, but it should not be the standard mechanism to do so. The industry also suggested that we set up new standing referral review meetings that would be scheduled within a short time after referrals are transmitted to an applicant that has proved very useful in Atlantic Boulevard. And we're supportive of it. We just need to kind of fine-tune how many days within how many days we think that that's feasible to get all parties in the room or on a call to have that discussion. The industry has also noted the importance of meeting with and hearing from board and planning commission members as early as possible. So there's a number of different ways that we could try to ensure that that happens and working through which we ultimately want to recommend I think is one of the biggest discussions I need to have within DPC and others associated with our review process just to determine where everybody's comfortable having that and how we try to allow that meeting to occur so the applicant has the benefit of it in case More member our planning commissioner does want to see particular changes that aren't strictly based on Policy or ordinance, but they have a suggestion about how to organize something how to design something where things should be located The earlier that the applicant can have that considerate and potentially incorporate it the better for the applicant. But also sometimes some of that goes a bit beyond what staff's purview is and so we want to try to ensure both of those kinds of comments are considered equally unfairly. For criteria to remain expedited, generally this is just that once we create that schedule that the expectation is that applicants will adhere to their deadlines that they've committed to as well as that they are meeting minimum standards for completeness and consistency of the materials they're turning in. The last thing we want to do is have staff really working hard to try to meet certain deadlines when an applicant won't. But one thing that I had calls with a couple of industry representatives last week after kind of simultaneously we were putting the packet out and one thing I want to clarify just so they can hear it on the record too is that it's not my or any of the staff's intent to try to penalize an applicant if they are a day late or if they are held up because staff referrals are late or because for some reason there is an issue on which staff is not in complete alignment and it delays certain things. So we're not, we would not be using any of that to penalize an applicant to kick them out of the process. It's really just if in the small chance that there is an applicant who will not on their own is not able to meet with the deadlines that they've agreed to upfront. On the issue of double advertising, industries ask about this frequently and we have certain standards that we have internally that we work with county administration on to determine when something should be double advertised for public hearing at the commission and simultaneously for the board so they can go straight from one to the other. It's not something we highlight a lot in front of the board but the part of the benefit of double advertising is just that it can let applications go through quicker. The downside is that nobody's bound by the fact that we've advertised it so we can spend time and money to put that advertisement out there but then the planning commission feels that it needs to send something to work session. The planning commission is not bound by this choice, the same way that the board is not bound that any way from not allowing an application to go to T-Lock or to a work session. But the industry has asked whether we would consider expediting any application that comes through this process, or if perhaps we could set that up a separate set of criteria from what we have currently More in line with the kinds of applications that would come through here. So we're open to that. We're considering it And that is something that we will work on providing an answer to T-Lock whenever we come back in the next couple months For the impact on staffing part of the reason that I'm I'm seeking the to We're seeking general agreement that we set this up as a pilot process up front is that I'm pretty confident that within a one year period, especially if we cap it at five or six, that we don't need any addition staffing for this and it will really allow everybody including myself who's just a little weary of things that I mentioned earlier about over committing to really see what kind of appetite there is out there, how many applications we might get, what kind of issues we might see when we're trying to move these things through a bit more quickly and efficiently. So if we can all agree to that pilot program aspect of this, I wouldn't be proposing any additional resource requests for this at the moment in talking talking with our referral agencies, at least back in the fall, we didn't receive any indication that any of them thought that implementing a process like this would require any additional staffing as well. So once we do answer these few questions that are highlighted in the report, I'll be checking back with those referral agencies again just to verify just in case some changes have been, somebody has a difference of opinion. But right now for the first year we don't really anticipate that there will need to be any impacts on staffing. That said moving forward, it is something that we will revisit because we again do want to make sure that we have the capacity to move all of our applications through in the appropriate timeline and process. Not just those that are in the expedited process we're discussing right now. And the industry also has suggested the possibility of adding housing on BUDSMAN in DPC. They're currently in such a position in building and development. That's not something that to me is tied directly to this and I would not be asking for that as part of this but it is something that will take under advisement as we're considering what staffing needs we might have in the future. And last but not least for outreach after policy adoption, this is definitely something that we will work with housing and community development on to let developers know that we've implemented this once it's ultimately adopted and we will work with public affairs and communications as well to ensure that we just get the word out there as broadly as we can to make everybody aware of this once it is ultimately adopted by the board. And with that, happy to take any questions. Thank you, Mr. Glilindo. And this is really important. I want everybody to know, but I don't want to overburden staff. I know you have a heavy workload. We see your work plan. And do you think, before we get to, before I go to the questions here, do you think it's two that would be in the pilot or six? So that makes a big difference. So I'm open to a larger number. And don't hold me or anyone that I spoke to to too. It's just that the thinking was that there won't be that many. There won't be a flood of these coming through. So I think a five or six, hopefully if they're spaced out over a year would not really be a big lift. My biggest concern is just a number coming in at once. But again, the likelihood of that hasn't been high after Atlantic Boulevard. We've not really had anybody come in these past few months, so I'm shooting for six and then we'll see what we actually would receive. Okay, thank you. So questions from supervisors of vice chair Turner. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dan, a great work here for the whole team. I mean, I read through this as all is all common sense, straightforward. I think it hits right on the key points of the process that collectively all the stakeholders, I think, agree can probably take some, some, this is where we can make the most headway. And I, impressionally, I get the body language I get from you is that the meetings with all the stakeholders in the development industry were very good meetings. I mean, they were pretty open and pretty productive. And I think that's terrific. Just a quick update. I really don't have any questions. I got a text from Kim Hart with the Atlantic Project, the Atlantic Boulevard Project. They closed the VA housing last week for full funding on May 5th. they will start construction before the end of May, which means the total lapse time from the acceptance of the rezoning application to start of construction was 18 months, which is pretty amazing. So I'm very excited about this process. I think it's going to really bear some fruit. As I mentioned earlier, I think this may actually kickstart some of our new development numbers and attainable housing if we can make this this project a reality so thank you very much Yeah, thank you vice chair Turner. So yeah, thank you for all your hard work What I just want to clarify that that our ideas this is for projects like Atlantic Boulevard not Applications that propose affordable housing as a component of the project correct, right now, what I'm supportive of at least is that they are 100% affordable. So the entirety of the project, whether it is single-family to tax tomes or through one apartment building that every unit is affordable. Now, I know that industry would like that to be loosened, that some of the, I think, I'm forgetting which housing, which of our housing communities it is, but one of the board's appointed housing groups is also potentially recommending that we broaden that a bit, but at least for now I'd recommend we start here and then we broaden it after we have a little bit of experience to see what the effects might be., I mean we really do need a projects like Atlantic Boulevard. I would agree with vice chair Turner You know, I'm looking for a hundred percent affordable it can be on the continuum But that's what we really need Versus like 12.5 percent or 20 percent which is what we usually see in legislative applications. So you're looking at expanding the criteria after the pilot? I am open to the possibility. I'm putting it that way. If anyone thinks this is a little bit over restrictive, I'm doing that for now so that we don't bite off more than we can chew and then we can re-evaluate as we move forward. Okay. What is this housing on Budsmen? What would that do? How would that help the expedited process? It would just be a position that can work with project managers, referral agents and others involved to try to clarify any conflicts, disagreements, if something's getting hung up somewhere. Just another set of eyes to try to ensure these things are moving through quicker. Okay. And with the addition of four purchase units, does that make the pilot more complicated? I don't think so. I think really the number of units or whether it's parental or for sale from a standpoint of like reviewing a legislative application doesn't really complicated in any way. We were just, perhaps, overly focused on the kinds of applications we've had come through where working quickly has been an issue, honestly, just in trying to meet those expectations and goals without really overburdening staff or over complicating the process. But I do hear the issues point that anyone can be organized, anyone can have the funding in any sort of way that can potentially do this. It's just going to be a matter of the application itself, the applicants, the reps that they have involved, and that sort of thing. It's not inherent to whether something is for rent or for purchase. Okay. Well, thank you so much. And we'll see you in July, July right you're going to come back in July with more specific recommendations from the industry and from staff. Yes, so in July I will return with a drafted policy for hopefully for all's actual action recommendation that we will then move on to the board for the board's action. Okay. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. So before we go to our action item, I'm wondering if you guys would be willing to do a five-minute break, ten-minute break? Yes, thank you. Okay, ten. Somebody said ten. You're the chair. Five is fine with me. We're going to do break. Thank you. Come back at Come back at seven ten. 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 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 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. 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 restart and we're going to go on to our one action item. Reminder to staff when presenting or responding to questions. Please turn on your microphone and speak directly into it. So it's item six. It's the trails assessment for question use at use at Banshee reeks nature preserve and we have Mr. Torpy and Mr. Payne, right? Okay, and then I don't know you can introduce. Thank you, Mr. Torpy. Thank you, committee chair. As you all are aware back in May of last year, the board directed us to do an assessment of the trails out at Banji Reeks for appropriateness of equestrian and come back with the recommendations. That's what we're here to provide to the committee for consideration this evening. With me at the table is Deputy Director Jeremy Payne and Assistant Director Tommy Curitan. Mr. Curitan was the lead for our department on this project and so I am going to turn the presentation over to him and then when we were done with that we'll go to questions and discussions. So Mr. Curitan. Thank you, Mr. Torpy. Good evening, I'm Tommy Curitan, Assistant Director for Maintenance Parks, Sports and Events. And tonight we'll be reviewing the trail assessment for equestrian use at Vanshae Reakes Nature Preserve, which is a 699 acre property that includes 15 miles of trails and is currently under Virginia Outdoors Foundation easement. I'll begin by providing background on this item. On March 21, 2024, the park's recreation and open space board requested direction from the board of supervisors through this committee to initiate a contract with a qualified firm to perform an assessment of all trails within Baincher Eaks Nature Preserve for a question use, and that these trails should be assessed by said contractor with qualified experts to determine appropriateness of this use. The pros board also recommended that the contractor conduct a baseline inventory of any designated trails found to be appropriate for a question use. that the April 27 27th or excuse me, on April 17th, 2024, this committee voted for 01. Direct them in the board, direct staff to hire an independent contractor to assess the total trail system for question use within Baynti-Riggs-NH preserve. And that a contract term be included directing the contractor to conduct a baseline inventory of any designated trails found to be appropriate for the question use. On May 7th, 2024, the Board of Supervisors approved 702, the motion sent forward by this committee. June 2024, PRCS created a committee to develop a statement of work as part of a request for quotation to analyze all trails within Bancher Eaks Nature Preserve for Equestrian Access. The committee composition was intentional in determining stakeholders and included the Bancher Eaks Nature Preserve Manager, the Loudoun Trails and Waterways Program Manager, myself, one representative of the Friends of Bantie Reeks, and one representative of the Loudoun County Equine Alliance. That committee developed a scope for analysis, excuse me, and identified five categories that would be required of a qualified vendor. These included project management, existing conditions and document review, preserve conditions assessment that included natural resources, trails, and preserve infrastructure, potential environmental impacts of selected trails and in submission of a final report to PRCS. Four vendors provided quotes with the Committee unanimously selecting Grouse Trailworks as a qualified vendor to conduct the analysis and provide a recommendation for requestery and access. Grouse Trailworks began their analysis in November of 2024 and concluded their work with the submission of the final report in March of 2025. Their analysis followed standards provided by the United States Forest Service Equestrian Design Guidebook for Trails, Trailheads, and Campgrounds, and information provided within the Bantryics Nature Preserve easement. The report provides four alternatives related to a question-renews at Bantryheaks, along with rough estimates associated with each alternative. The report did not provide suggestions related to modification of current trails, for example. If a slope of a trail is outside of the recommended grade for a question in use, the report does not provide a suggestion to modify the trail to create a switchback to less than the grade of the trail. Additionally, the report does not provide a recommendation for the addition of trails within Bancher Ekes nature preserve, as neither of these were included as a part of the board of direct, excuse me, Board of Supervisors directive that guided scope development for the project. At the April 10th, 2025, Pro's Board meeting, we provided an overview of the report that included the information I just presented related to the Statement of Work Committee, contract award, process of analysis, and Grouse Trail Works recommended alternatives. Pro's Board was asked to review the report and return to the May meeting to put forward a recommendation for tonight's meeting. On May 8th 2025, the pros board voted 901 to recommend that this committee forward a recommendation to the board of supervisors to approve alternative four. With modification to include that PRCS conduct further assessment to obtain additional equestrian trail mileage within Bantereaks Nature Preserve, in accordance with prevailing guidance and existing restrictions, including without limitation the VOF easement, with such further assessment to occur within a requested period of 12 months. The issues we've identified are as follows. Excuse me. If the Board approves alternative four, an update to the banter Ex-Nature Preserve master plan will be required because this Alternative is beyond the restriction currently allowed within The plan. The original master plan was created in 1999 and last updated in 2001 and included a question use along certain designated trails of the preserve. Funding for alternative four has not been identified. And lastly, V.O.F. will need to provide a V.O.F. review will be required as there are potential concerns related to environmentally sensitive areas identified within the easement. This slide provides detailed, provides detailed related to the four alternatives identified within the port as it relates to fiscal impact. The fiscal impact of alternative four, as recommended by the prose board, is estimated to be between $596,570 in $794,620. It should be noted these are high-end rough estimates. During their May 8 meeting, the Pro's Board stated they felt the equestrian community would be willing to volunteer their time to assist with the development and maintenance of trails in an effort to increase the question and access at Major Ekes Nature Preserve. The fiscal impact presented tonight does not include this offer or any offer of volunteer manpower associated with potential trail projects at the preserve. Here you will see alternative one that was proposed as a part of the report. This is a no action alternative. It identifies as you can see in the top center to the right portion of the map in yellow. That is a current 3.8 mile trail associated with Evergreen Mills. So that's the Evergreen Mills trail. If this alternative were to be chosen by the board, we would recommend that the board consider adding a section to the Evergreen Mills trail that would complete the loop, which you can see in the dotted green line. But that would require crossing the main entrance to the landfill. Alternative 2 is identified in purple on your screen. It requires the least deviation from current preserved conditions and management. It includes two miles of equestrian trails within Banche Erics. Alternatives 3A and 3B are highlighted in blue for alternative B and then there's a dotted section on the map that represents alternative A. Both of these alternatives maintain upland area use for most of the rail, minimizing stream crossings and provide additional access closer to the visitor center. 3A utilizes an abandoned roadway that's not currently utilized. These alternatives would include 2.3 miles for alternative A or 2.4 miles for alternative 3A or 2.4 miles for alternative 3B of a question trail and expand equine access to the upland portions of the preserve. Finally, I'll turn it to four, which is rather difficult to see because of the yellow coloration. I'll turn it to four includes all trails, totaling 4.5 miles that could support a question and access within Banturex Nature Preserve. This alternative provides a more meaningful equestrian experience while remaining in upland areas of the preserve and adhering to the equestrian trail standards without the creation of additional trails. It mostly utilizes old road width trails that have significant hardening interspersed throughout the current system. This alternate includes all trails that could reasonably accommodate to questions. This alternative combined with alternative one would provide a total of 8.3 miles of a question trail access between Bainter Eats and Nature Preserve and Evergreen Mills Trail. In conclusion, tonight we are asking this committee to recommend alternative four to the Board of Supervisors and direct staff to conduct further analysis of the trail system to determine if potential modifications to the trail can support additional mileage of a question in use. All right. Thank you, Mr. Curtin. Right? Do I have that right? Yes, ma'am. All right. So I just want to quickly ask something that just ask a quick question before we go round. You indicated that the V.O.F. would have to give a formal review. Although I saw in the report that Erica Richardson from the V.O.F. said approval was likely if the finaling criteria were met, use existing trails without significant modification, like removal of existing trees, and only trails that do not go through environmentally sensitive areas. So do they still need to do a formal review or can we be confident that we already have their permission? No, we would still ask them for a formal review and particularly if we got the direction that we're asking the committee through the board or the board through the committee to take, we would be looking at possibly adjusting the location and putting switchbacks and things like that. And that would be some changes which would have to be approved by B-O-F. What is a switchback? So if you're on a trail and yeah, where you're going like this, going left and right and then right. And it's, they're doing that. So it's more of of a gradual change in elevation as opposed to going straight up the hill. So it's like a zigzag, right? Yes. Because the zigzag zig. Oh yeah, I said that. Yeah, it's a very common trail amenity or way to build trails to avoid going straight up for straight down. All right, well thank you and thank you for that presentation and for the study. So we'll go around, does anybody have any questions, supervisor Kirschner? Questions, comments, thank you. Everybody for engaging in this, this is exciting. I'm going to say off the bat, I don't think this recommendation goes far enough. I like the recommendation of 4 and 1 together, plus. And I've talked to the supervisor to Croni. I think hopefully our motion will reveal that. And maybe we can ask some more about that in a minute. But the first thing I would like to just kind of follow up on is just a couple of comments? I know that motion for restricts the upland, but you also mentioned in your comments as well as in the report that if you included one and four together that could be up to eight, I'd like to see that happen and some more. Do you do mention, one thing I did notice that the felt like the engineering might be a little over the top maybe that's some of the costs have you I would assume that There hasn't been a lot of has there been a lot much consultation in terms of the engineering of the of the trails and what that's going to look like or not with our Question and organizations here in the county. No, that has not occurred Okay,. I think that could be some cost savings potentially as well. Because I know you said it was on the high side and it's great to hear that they may want to provide some volunteerism there. Obviously we're all busy but it's important. The other thing I was a little troubled by was the stream buffer thought process here that we don't want to put allow any equestrian in that. in that, but I think if we start taking that position as a hard and fast, we're going to exclude a lot of our trails that we have in the county, especially our multi-use trails, because I think you're going to find a lot of them are in these buffer. So that could be something we could look at, honestly. Just my thought process in terms of my review and I think the, not in County Equine Alliance, I had mentioned that in a letter that they had provided to me and the other board members up here. And then you talked about the switchbacks. Was it your position that some of the switchbacks, some of these trails could maybe be opened up if switchbacks were allowed or part of the process. Is that what I'm hearing you say? Well, it would require further analysis to make that determination because the analysis that was conducted didn't perform at that level to make that determination to say, hey, this one has a slope of 12 to 15% for example. We think we can install a switchback or we think we can move this trail rather left along with a switchback to accommodate that standard. Okay, because I know they kind of restricted it to the 20% grade. And I think there are some standards that would say that you don't have to restrict yourself to that, especially if you put in switchbacks. One specifically, I look, the USDA question trail guide says that you could go greater than 20% if you use switchbacks. So maybe that's something else that could help expand access to this. I would assume, and I don't, I'm out of time, but can I ask the last question? And I'll have more potential. I would assume and I don't, I'm out of time but can I ask the last question? And I'll have more potential. I would assume as part of this that it doesn't seem to me that they really took in the limited parking. So it seemed like they were suggesting that this would be more heavily used than it really is and that they didn't really take into account when they studied this. How many people could actually come and park a trailer there or was that part of the analysis as far as you know? Parking was not a part of the analysis associated with this. Because I do think that may limit the number of folks that can even come so that probably is something to anyway. I'll, I'll, I have more comments probably, but I'll, my time's up. Okay, so again, thank you. We'll probably have more questions. But I'm wondering why the scope of work didn't include modification of existing trails or the addition of trails. Because I saw that the V.O.F. and D.C.R. were saying, can you get rid of some redundant trails? Maybe some trails are wetter than other trails? And I'm wondering if we could look at that, the modifying and adding some new trails. Well, that would be the discussion with B-O-F. I mean, the direction that we got was current conditions under the current easement. And so there was not that discussion with B-O.F. Because any change to that, whether eliminating or adding new trails, which would be defined in certain circumstances as those switchbacks, would have to have that conversation with V.O.F. So that's why we're asking for the- But it could be a possibility. So what you're saying? It could be a possibility I want to speak for V V.O.F. That's why we would want to have those for their conversation. I thought it was really interesting the master plan and the addendum. It seemed like the addendum didn't really have public input back in 2000. It was changed. I thought that was very interesting. The history of Banshee Reaks. I want to make everybody aware, at one point, we were looking at active ball fields in Banshee Reaks when they first brought that property. So it was not considered for an each of preserve until public input said in nature preserve. And when you read the board's motion it was alternative four which included equestrian and pedestrian trails. So my question is the original master plan alternative four and our alternative four that the consultant came up with. What is the difference between the two? the original plan and I don't have the picture of the original plan, but the equestrian trails were not in the low-lying areas in the original master plan. It was in the upland areas. So there is some overlap of what was originally spelled out. It was limited trails, it was not throughout the preserve. And that is similar to what alternative for right now that's being recommended mirrors. OK, was it a little more miles or pretty similar? I don't believe that there was ever a mileage that was associated with that original master plan. It was a conceptual design. Actually had an equestrian area and parking area on the preserve. What we would propose if this were to go forward was where we currently park equestrian over on what we call the Markham track. That's where it would be currently. Okay. All right. Well I'm out of time. We'll go through one more time. Supervisor Kirchner. Did you have a question? So I think supervisor Troney because it's in her district. I think it's technically in her district, right? Yeah, so yes it is. You took over it. I think there may be a motion that. But if part of motion for tonight, this is just a question. Would it change your analysis on how you do things? My plan or my thought process was to keep the draft motion as you have it with With the concept of broadening a little bit, and then the second paragraph, you have further move that the Board of Superiors is direct step to conduct further assessment to obtain additional question and mileage within the Banshee Reeds Nature Preserve. I would want to, I mean obviously you guys are going to be really careful about this, but I would want to cut out in accordance with prevailing guidance and existing restrictions because I do think this study has the restrictions are little more than they need to be given my previous comments. And so with such assessment to occur within a restricted period of 12 months and there's any reason that we can't do that within 12 months or less. from a timeline, I do not believe we would have any issue with that. I would caution about the broad language of taking that out because there we could not remove the VOLF language, the restrictive language that's in there. I think what you're referring to is the US Forest Service language and look at things a little differently that way. Is that the question? Yeah. I don't think that we should have heard. Is that all you mean by that? Is that all staff meant by that? Is that specific restrictive languages? To me, I took that to mean a lot of the recommendations that were made by the report which I think are a little overbroad. Does that make sense? So, well, the second part of the motion is to do further analysis. Right. And part of that analysis is going to be those conversations with VOF on whether or not we have the ability to be flexible on some things. Trade this trail out for this trail perhaps, switchbacks, because right now, what, go ahead. What do you mean by prevailing guidance? I guess that is the big thing. Well, there is a restrictive easement on all of the property there. Okay. And P.O.A. of course, you're not going to go beyond that. So that really goes without saying, correct? We felt that it was necessary after some of the discussion at the pros board that we make it very clear that we need to do. So when you say prevailing guidance that is to stay within the COVID and surveillance restrictions of the easement. Unless they say that we can do something else, yes. Because that seems to make common sense. And I get, and nothing else beyond that as far as you're aware. Correct. Okay. All right, I'm out of time. Yeah, and I think I can put it together here because we'll just make sure we include the VOF, easement, part in our motion. But to 12 months, you think 12 months is feasible? That's fine. I do. Okay. And I just want to let people know, you know, in the consultant report, it said that Equestrian's Express desire for longer distance trails for endurance riding and equestrian trail systems should provide sufficient mileage to provide at least a two hour ride. Eight miles is a reasonable minimum, but the potential for longer experiences is preferred. And that was actually in the consultant report. So that's something that I'll be looking for as far as the additional equestrian trail mileage within Banshee Reeks. I know you did the Evergreen Mills Trail, but I think that's around the landfill, am I correct? That is correct. Yeah, and I don't know how much of a positive experience that'll be. I also worry with the fire station going in near there. The noise might be disturbing to equate the horses. And then as far as crossing Evergreen Mills Road, I't think that's safe at all so I don't think you're proposing that right because it's eventually going to be four lanes. Not with this report now. Okay. Okay so I think I can make a motion unless my colleagues have. Okay comments with them okay so I'm going to make my motion. Okay I I move that the Transportation and Lian use committee recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve option 4 as shown in attachment to the May 21st, 2025 Transportation and Lian use committee meeting staff report and direct staff to update the language of the Banshee Reaks nature preserve master plan to include these specific questioner in trails. I further move that the Board of Supervisors direct staff to conduct further assessment to attain additional equestrian trail mileage within Banshee Reaks without limitation, without limitation of the Virginia Outdoors Foundation easement with such further assessment to occur within a requested period of 12 months. Second. Okay, so this has been a long process. I know there was a lot of input that went in to this process with the scope of work and with the community and with the pros board and with you Mr. Torpey and all your staff. I do think having the pros board vote unanimously on this sends a strong message and I think this is a starting point. I believe there could be additional mileage and banshee reeks that would provide a rewarding experience to equestrians. Equestrians have been waiting for multi-use trails that are meaningful and I'm very committed to the community to make sure that we can provide those and b Banshee Reeks has 15 miles of trails just so everybody knows. And it's 700 acres. So it's a huge nature preserve that we can all enjoy. I do want to protect nature. I do want to preserve our environmental resources. I'm a big environmentalist, so I want to make sure we do that as well. And I think we can achieve that balance. I know that there will be monitoring and maintenance, and we'll be looking out to see if any invasives come onto the property that we will have to mitigate. But I know we can all enjoy the park. And it is a beautiful park and I think it would be nice to have it for pedestrians and for equestrians so I want to thank everybody for coming out tonight I see you and I hear you and like I said it's a balance and I know that Mr. Torpina staff are committed to making sure that we're taking care of the park because it is a special place. So I thank you and hopefully I'll get support from my colleagues. Thank you. Thank you chair. Thank you chair. Yeah you certainly have support from. And part of my thought process in this motion is we would come back with at least the minimum that was suggested that if we had one-in-four together, but obviously we've got this motion, and that's my expectation at a minimum and what else we can do. The reason I'm really stressing this and this is such an important aspect is the equestrian industry is so critical to Western Loudon and one of our big economic drivers quite frankly of the ag economy. I think the last study we had was back in 2014. We had over $180 million a year coming to the economy as a result of our equestrian. That's very stale numbers. That's, you know, we're blowing that out of the water at this point. And so there is a very high demand. And one of the reasons I asked about the multi-use trails are we making sure that these are going to be for equestrian as well? People love to come and enjoy our horses. They love our owners. Everything from Trasage to Trail Riding to across the board. professionals, competitors, jumpers, Fox Hunters, you name it, it's a wide variety of things. And this, just like we did at our state park, out west, and that has been opened up to orspack riding, this is one that of course is a little closer to the east and more accessible in this park, and the Invent-Riggs here. So I think it's a really good step in the right direction I really appreciate the work that you did on it and know when you have this study the studies that are done It's a little tedious, but I think it's very helpful. It's very instructive and I'm excited to see what the final product is now with this Will this be coming back to us or will it go straight to the board? Eventually. Do we know what's the? We'll go to the board at this point. Okay. All right, so with the final, okay, fair enough. I just didn't know if this was just the motion was coming back or going straight to the board. So I guess my final question is, when it goes to the board, This motion and this instruction that we'll go to the board and then we'll have something further come back and we'll come straight to the board or we'll go to the board And then we'll have something further come back and we'll come straight to the board. We'll come back to finance at that point. Do we know? So this will come out of this committee. This will go to June 17th Right board meeting. I believe assuming it passes out of there. Where it would go from then we would go through the process and then and like we bring the recommendation back to this committee and as to the full board. Excellent. Looking forward to it. Thank you. Appreciate it. You guys can handle this though. That's what I want to understand. Okay, Mr. Krogos. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to confer with you for the record. When you were reading the eye further move, most part of the motion, you omitted words in accordance with prevailing guidance and existing restrictions. Did you purposely intend to do that? Okay, just wanted to clarify, thank you. We kept the Virginia Outdoors Foundation easement. We did, yeah. Okay, so yes, I think this goes to the full board. Mr. Torpy, I just want to ask when the estimate is looked at, I do question the tread surfacing. We got a lot of roads, road beds that may not need tread surfacing. So I do question that. And then also the number of culverts. It seems like a lot, 20 and five. Anyway, I would just take a look at the estimate. Just to see it seems high even on the low end when it comes to the board. Just to revisit that. All right. So, all those in favor of the motion. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passed for yes and one absent. So with that, we are adjourned with no other business. I call the May 21st 2025 Transportation and Land Use Committee, a George. Thank you. Thank you