This conference will now be recorded. So we can call the March meeting to order. Welcome everybody. The first thing on the agenda is we need to approve the minutes of two previous board meetings, the regular meeting and the budget work session. Does anybody have any comments or motions? I would approve the minutes of Board of Management's regular monthly meeting. of the February 10 25, 25, and that's quite a six- one-year work session, November 25, 18, 25, and a straight. Second. Okay, all in favor? Aye. Great. That passes unanimously and now it's the Treasurer's report. And I actually have a couple of things because we've decided to do report this time. Okay., I've learned that it was a noir treasure. I was not a talker. I closed another CD last week. We only had three of those. At least I didn't have the drive-out. I could say it was done. I had the drive-out in Frederick. It was about a month, a month farther. But the scene. But also last week I learned that at UBS, which is where we have our, the Treasury's portion of our reserves housed, our primary contract, our primary contact has left the company. And you wouldn't think that this is a big deal because these are all teams and people and so forth. But actually, there's a little more complicated that it might be because none of the other members on that team are of a speed on these specific requirements for dealing with a municipality, which is what this woman focused on. And in fact, that is why she is initially recommended to me. I mean, very critical. So continuing with UBS is remains of possibility. I think I'll have to do some educating and some people there if we do that. But I may, I don't know yet because it's not firmly sent with whether it was Manant or Rick in the same way, but I may want to recommend the council Wells Fargo where we could then continue to work with the person that knows our account inside and out and understands working with the Treasury. So I'm not ready to make a recommendation yet, but it's your only thing we've achieved. we don't have any Treasury bonds, I'm sure in that time. So there's no rush. Great. Thank you for the update. And thank you for driving to Frederick. Well, as far as I was right here. The car did. I'm sorry. So next we have some board updates on the our pending legislative matters and I just want to thank You guys are amazing. We are so lucky We have the best village manager who knows more than anyone at any of these meetings We have terrific support with to Ellen Michelle and Lou has just been lifting like heavy lifting So Lou is gonna take us some updates. I don't know that I've had the heaviest lifting though. I think others have lifted heavier, but thank you. And so of course first update probably deserves to be more housing now and ZTA 25-02, before the county council. And there's been a little bit of activity since we last met. There've been some hearings both before the planning board, both on environmental issues, and then the full board last Thursday, and that's to be followed tomorrow by two hearings with the county council. And this will probably be the last hearing with the county council as required under the requirements to pass a ZTA, a zoning text amendment. So this may be the last opportunity. I think they're keeping the record open. Sorry, can I interrupt you for just one quick're rock stars. Sorry, I want to make sure everyone here is Mr. Moorsburg's update. Are they hearing anything or just not a couple of us speaking? No, they're not hearing anything. Hang on. Anything hanging out? All right. She can hear now. Hello, hello. Mr. Camper, are you able to hear us now? Okay. Okay. I think we're good now. Okay. You might don't mind, I apologize. Would you mind starting from the beginning just so we can make sure that those involved didn't go back? Sure. Well, no, for sure. So starting with ZTA-25-02, which is more housing now with a focus on workforce housing. Tomorrow is likely the final county council hearing on the matter, just in the procedures for a ZTA, that's just kind of how it works. So we're rushing to get written testimony in, which we'll discuss tonight. I think everybody has a copy before them And then I'll also be testifying in person tomorrow evening. There's two hearings one in the afternoon one in the evening Other municipalities will also be submitting written testimony and a few folks will also be testifying in person as well And to keep in context context where we are with housing proposals at the county level is way ahead of where we felt we were in the fall. So for context, the as proposed this ZTA affects at most 10 village properties, eight on Connecticut Avenue and two on Wisconsin. And the sponsors have said that historic properties will be excluded from the program. And if you exclude historic properties, you are down to a total of three properties, one on Connecticut and two on Wisconsin. So the effect of this ZTA is, dare I say,, diminimous, certainly not for everyone. We're affected by it, but. Further reduced, it would only be two properties. Everything on kinetics within the store, did a varying designation. But everything on kinetics within the store, district, and that would leave only the, great. For the one Wisconsin, one of which is that, to that. Good. So of course, we want to influence the outcome of this proposal as much as possible, but just so that everyone, again, keeps that context in mind, the impact on the village is far less than what the AHSI proposals would have included. So with that, we learned that they're going to keep the record open until March 24th, I think. We only learned that in the last few days. So it was unclear if our testimony, if what we were going to say, was actually had to be submitted today before we'd be able to discuss it tonight. So this testimony was initially drafted thinking we wouldn't have an opportunity to discuss it. But fortunately we do have the opportunity to discuss it, make a few changes if the board so desires. And we can submit that updated testimony at any time tomorrow when I give my in-person testimony or even later there too if the board so desired. We have until March 24th but of course we want our testimony going in as early as possible just to have this big of an impact where as much influence over the county council as possible. So if we shift to the draft testimony because I do think that- Can I ask you to please do? I would assume that given the village versus section five, art and tradition, that we're probably really lucky and unique. Or any other municipalities, do they have large quantities of historic properties that they would find themselves in the same situation? We are, that is exempt. Not large quantities, so the town can confirm that they have one property that is designated as an historic resource that is on the Connecticut Avenue corridor. There are none in sections three and five. Martin's additions has now been completely excluded because this is now focused on the corridors and Martin's additions is solely east of Brookville Road. And then I oppose this direct question to the planning staff of just how many homes in the approximate 2,500 that would be eligible under this legislative change are located within established historic districts. They did not know that number off hand, but they were going to be coordinating to get that answer. They indicated that they should have that answer to us within the next couple of days. So we are quite unique. Correct. Yeah,'s only one property. Really? Well, it was to be narrow too. Less time I got an update, there were some things yet unsu, and one of them I thought was what constitutes a quarter. And has that been settled? Yeah, it has. I think under the, you know, 100 feet that Grappin Street could be in the court. Yeah, so thankfully they came, the county released a map. Okay. Which designates the specific properties that this legislation would apply to. So that really helped to clarify and you had raised the observation keenly last month that the legislation appeared to read that your property had to be addressed to the corridor that is master plan to a minimum width of 100 feet, et cetera. And your reading was indeed correct and the math confirmed that. It's only properties addressed to Connecticut. So that's why although there are many more along Connecticut and Wisconsin that directly abut those two corridors, there are only a total of 10 physically addressed to this court. And then the other one that stuck in my mind was the question of whether, for example, the one that's at Oxford. Oxford? Yeah, no, no. Lady Quincy? No, no, I did on Wisconsin. Oh, I love her. Pascal? Oh, I love her. That was an honor. Oh, yes. Yes. The question of, could they, um, switch the, could they, why the next door neighbor and have that be a bigger backyard essentially? Because the house next door, in fact, is being rented at the moment and would be kind of private for that. Yeah, so I don't know if you wanted to address this. And that's one of the key questions. So in the first point under eligible quarters of the testimony that you've gotten in front of you, we talk about urging a prohibition on the chaining or aggregation of adjacent locks. And that goes two ways. Number one is making sure that a lot that fronts on the corridor can't be combined with a lot behind it on the interior. And the sponsors and Councilman Freedson in particular have said that was to be excluded, it was never the intent. So we want to see that explicit in the language, but we're confident that that interior lot combination will be prohibited under the proposal. There's also the question of, can you combine multiple lots that jointly front the corridor? So two consecutive parcels that could be combined and maybe you could get more on the combined parcels than on any one individually. So we're also asking for that in that first point in the testimony. We're probably a little less certain that that will fly versus the interior combination. Does that kind of jot with the rules? We also don't have that situation. We have one property on Wisconsin plus the parking lot, right? Correct. So Wisconsin, yes. Yeah. And so the property that you were referencing, Mr. Crocket, at the corner of Oliver and Wisconsin, is actually not one of the properties because they went through an effort a few years ago to have their property re-addressed to Oliver Street. So, maybe we need to find out what crystal wall they've been looking into that they made that change. And so, it's actually the home at the end of Grafton Street that is the other property in the lower class. Yes. So, yeah. So, and then the second point is on the historic district and to support also what Shainted Described earlier that it can be an outstanding or a contributing property in the historic district and therefore be precluded from this proposal. So that's where we get from, I guess, what was eight properties on Connecticut Avenue down to one. Yeah. And then the last point here on the eligible corridors is just, we requested a more detailed listing of what constitutes the eligible corridors. The next page goes through and makes a couple of suggestions, but I'm not going to walk through each of those individually if folks have had a chance to read it, skim it, and so forth though. We can just kind of go into question mode. To some extent, because we were writing this believing we'd have to submit it today, on some of these issues we were asking questions without taking a position because we now have we now have the option at least as a board to discuss it tonight we could take a firm or stance though of course all of the municipalities I don't know if there's perhaps one exception of all the municipalities were coordinating with only one has had a municipal meeting before us in the time since this was released and since the map and so forth was made available. So all of the municipalities are kind of scrambling to take a position, get feedback from residents, and we're in pretty good shape relative to them. But with that, are there any questions just already outstanding on this? Not only questions that we're very lucky, it seems to me that every county council or planning commission is going to have a hard time opposing exemption and start properties. I mean, at the end of just from a public policy standpoint, it seems like a rational and strong public policy argument. The only thing I would wonder about blue is whether all the other municipalities who are coordinating with, who are going to have a very different approach, they might in fact, because they don't have this start probably, be totally opposed to this legislation, right? They might continue... There are some that have more strenuous objections that we'll be having. Yeah, I'm just wondering whether we can accomplish what this letter says, which I think is well constructed without essentially taking a position that we support the legislation. In other words, just take out that first line in the second paragraph. That way, at least we're a little bit more deferential to our neighboring jurisdictions and I think this is still in our bad mood. Well, but I wouldn't characterize them as not. Do they support it? I mean, is there a position that they're... So I support a more precise approach like this. Right. Everyone is significantly relieved that we have this much more precise approach. And we do have Michelle Rosen fell joining us virtually and because she represents this coalition of municipalities, it might be appropriate to let her weigh in to give us a better read on if she believes anyone's really take. I'm only aware as Mr. Moore's program mentioned of one municipality that is going on record in opposition. But I believe everyone else as Ms. Leonard referenced are taking a more nuanced position. Michelle, are you able to kind of weigh in on that question? Michelle, hang on one sec. We're not hearing you broadcast in the room. Give us just a sec. And if I, Sue Ellen, has joined us on the virtual feed as well, Therady's specific questions that we need her to respond to. All right. Michelle, can you go ahead and try talking again. Let's see if we can hear you now. No, not yet. One sec. Are you able to put it to the TV? That's just a bit of a song you need to sing. You look like a character. We could also try putting a microphone near your volume out. out plenty. You know where it was coming out of? Yeah, if you can bend that down. Michelle, why don't you try that again? No. Sorry, hang on. Bear with us. Yeah, I don't think that's gonna be a wrong cast. I don't think we're gonna get a beat back. I'm gonna go into this and you get the support. All right, Michelle Bar it's just a set. Then it's still showing how it put us the TV only computer. We are still on the legislative update. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the legislative update. We're still talking about that first vote there. Michelle, would you travel one more time please? And you won't be able to make sure we get the touch. Michelle, would you say something funny please? Michelle, you can go ahead. Let's see if we can hear you now. Uh-oh. I don't think she's hearing us now.'s from here. Yeah, this water is a shake. She's not here anything now either. I'm going to go to the bathroom. the and the tone of all the dust and dust in our house is much more positive and stronger. Can you hear us now? I can hear you. Oh, yeah. Now we can hear you. All right, go ahead, Michelle. OK. So I, as a general, most of the municipalities are taking a position of support with questions or modifications. And most of the testimony that's the way really mirrors a lot of what is in the draft letter that you're reviewing tonight. One is, Kelly, been a little less favorable. I'm not sure by the time the testimony is finalized, if that might not be moderated somewhat. But as a general approach, the testimony that you are presenting very much supports the areas of concern and the types of modifications that most mean as valleys are also concerned about. So I think that you are largely supportive of sort of the general consensus on these issues. Thank you. That's great to hear. I wonder too if we could invite Michelle to offer up from your perspective, if we were to take a position up front that was in opposition and then we wanted to ask for specific things To happen with this legislation like exempting the historic district. Do you feel that that might those requests might be ignored if we lead with Outright opposition I do you know the the proposal is scaled so far below what the attainable housing, an issue it was all about and given the far less limited impact, particularly in your jurisdiction, I think it would be difficult to say that you will pose it but you want modifications. It's a lot easier to go in and say you've done a lot of good things. We like a lot of what you've achieved. Here are some specific issues that either we think need to be clarified or we would like you to modify. I just say in these legislative procedures that's a much more productive way to move forward. Thank you. We got to be thoughtful. Thank you. Any other questions just from the draft testimony? Any uncertainties? These were primarily, again, questions that I think were a little less important to us than what was right on page 1, bullet, the first number one and two. So if folks are okay with it, we can go on to the other updates. And I know that there is one edit that Sue Allen, Crawford earlier that I know she and Michelle have had a conversation about Michelle. Did you want to weigh in about the one bullet that you all have decided we should probably just omit for now? Yeah, I said that the race did a good point about the reading of one of us, we're technical provisions, and it's honestly an issue that is going to be addressed. I think pretty uniformly across the municipalities, it's not such a significant point that I think we need to address it right now. Now that we have a luxury of an additional couple of weeks and I would like to make sure that two out of one, both tonight and three are crafting that language in the same way so that it's coming in uniformly across the municipalities. And I believe this is, I don't want to make concerns about leaving it out tonight. I've answered your question. I'm so sorry, I stepped over you. Say the last part again. I said, I don't have any concerns about leaving it out for tonight. If that's your question. Yes. Okay. So this would be on page two under the ZTA text section. I believe it's bullet seven. Is that correct? I think the emails earlier may have referred to bullet eight but I think it's seven because that's the reference to county code section 25B26. I'm not sure I have the same draft that you're looking at. Okay, do hear something. I think there's only one issue that Sue Ellen was, and we were sort of conversing back before it's about today. And I do hear Sue Ellen was weighing in now too as well, so I'll go ahead. Thank you. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Great. I think that in some way that should be referenced, but I don't think it's being accurately reference at the moment. And so we would like some leeway on this and not have to do it necessarily a supplemental testimony, but do it just directly once we control with other counsel and make sure we have it accurately described that well. Got it. Okay. So we can do that offline tomorrow. Yes. Perfect. Thank you. Sounds good. So if everybody is good for now on workforce housing, we can then shift gears to the state and there are two state level issues. The one we've talked about most is the technical amendment to section 2509 of the State's Land Use Act. That bill is now referred to as House Bill 1167 and that's the bill that would clarify municipal authority to regulate construction, especially for housing with four or fewer units. The House Environment and Transportation Committee held a hearing on that bill last Thursday. They heard testimony only from District 18's own delegate Solomon who sponsored the legislation and he's helping to shepherd it through the General Assembly. So it was short and sweet, as expected. And the expectation fingers crossed is that the bill will now go, if that's had its first reading and that hearing, and there's support from the Montgomery County delegation, as there is, It should now just go through the reading process, two more readings in the house before it goes over to the Senate, three readings there before it goes to the governor. So the the goal there is that it makes its way through the legislative process is signed by the governor and I believe then it would take effect October 1. So any questions on that before we move on to the second state level issue. So as far as the second state level issue, that's House Bill 503 also referred to as Senate Bill 430. This is the bill. It's described also as the Governor's Housing Act. It would divide the state into regions for the purpose of calculating a jobs to housing ratio to identify regions with a housing shortfall. And for purposes of those regions, we are combined Montgomery County, that is, is combined with Prince George's County, Frederick County, and then Montgomery County to equal the DC region. And there's a comparable combination of counties outside of Baltimore. And I say comparable because it's the DC region and the Baltimore region that from the existing statistics show a housing shortage. And where the statistics show a housing shortage, it would become, there would be a high threshold for a jurisdiction to deny approval of a housing project. There'd be very stringent requirements for a jurisdiction to deny a housing project. Now there's a lot of, a lot carried in the word jurisdiction there in that by jurisdiction do you mean the whole region? Do you mean the county? Do you mean municipalities? Who is responsible for addressing a regional shortfall? And a lot of those mechanics aren't clear from the bill. But the questions, those questions among them, all of the jurisdictions, counties, municipalities, both DC area as well as Baltimore area, we would expect are asking these same questions and seeking clarification. So in that, we're in very good company in terms of larger jurisdictions than ours, asking questions. And for the most part, both jurisdictions and associations, I'm also involved in this Maryland Association of Counties, Maryland Municipal League, Montgomery civic federation. For the most part they're're asking questions. I think there is a hesitance to come out before we know the answers to those questions. There's a hesitance for folks to come out in opposition to the Governor's Bill. So I think the general position is proposing amendments. And for example, the Maryland Association of Counties has proposed very detailed amendments already. There are a few, even as we seek more information and look to influence how the legislation evolves. There are a few things that give us some reassurance that this would not be an extreme abdication of housing authority by the village as a municipality. For example, there is the requirement in the bill that a proposal could only be denied for objectively verifiable standards that were in place prior to the passage of the act. And that probably is the most important of the provisions that give us a little bit of reassurance in that the village has a history at being very rigorous and consistent in the application of the village code and permitting authority. So... at being very rigorous and consistent in the application of the village code and permitting authority. So even if the bill were to carry through as is, we are on somewhat firmer ground probably than a lot of other municipalities or jurisdictions. There are still other things that give pause though. jurisdictionsisdictions can't necessarily appeal when they can't necessarily appeal when their denial is denied. And Shayna helped me out on that. What authority over rules a jurisdiction if they deny a particular housing proposal? So my other thing is I would go to Circuit Court. The Shell can respond to that or Sue Ellen definitively, but I believe it goes to Circuit Court at that point. So that's one concern is that the jurisdictions would have limited rights of appeal. A second concern is that there's a burden of proof placed on jurisdictions denying a housing project to show that the project could not be amended in some fashion to make it financially viable. So suddenly now you have this whole tangled ball of wax or ball of string, take your pick, that is on the shoulders of the jurisdiction to determine well suddenly now a jurisdiction has to prove the prove a negative effectively without any information or data. So with that I think that the Anala and Shayna and the Shell weigh in as to further next But I think at this point, we know that we're in the same boat as a lot of other folks asking questions and raising concerns. Those other folks are far larger and suffer far more adverse consequences than we would if you think about the county's whole planning process could be very unsettled by the adoption of the legislation as currently drafted. So, so we're eager to keep tabs on this and see how it advanced. I know maybe I'm the only one that is disignored about it, but I don't understand what constitutes the housing project. For example, would buying an existing home and tearing it down and doing something else there, but that constitute a housing project. And the second question is, could they, for example, where Kirkside Drive goes past Tesseth, there's a vacant lot there because it, originally, the road might have gone through there. Could they require the road? It's an easement. It's not a lot. Correct. Yeah, but could they? No. No, it's always going to be an easement in perpetuity. Well, so to put to your first question, if somebody were going to do a tear down and just wanted to put multiple units in place of a single tear down, would that be allowed under this proposal? And so that I don't get ahead of myself, I'll look to Shayna and Michelle to weigh in on that, what government is in that care? And I will defer to Michelle. And this a lot we don't know about this yet. The answer would be yes. Under the job's housing bill, is currently drafted. It could be a single unit. It does not need to be multi-family. And it would encompass just about any type of land use reviewer, and prooffully, you can think of for a single unit. It would include a built-in permit application for larger projects. It would include a site plan or a preliminary plan. It also could involve a conditional use or special exception. The definition of housing projects is extremely broad. And so that's one reason why there are so many jurisdictions who are in search because, you know, certainly for larger projects, you often get into more discretionary types of review, you know, compliance with a master plan, for example. And the appeal process also isn't great concern to many jurisdictions. So at this point, MML and MECO were going to meet with legislators. jurisdictions. So at this point, MML and MAKO were going to meet with legislators and discuss potential amendments. And I will be in touch with MML tomorrow to talk to them about what those discussions were like and what kind of progress might have been made. There were some very specific legislator requests, amendments that had been presented by various jurisdictions. So it's sort of, they're making sausage right now. So I need to follow up and find out exactly how that's moving along. Things are at flux at the moment. And is it still true what I understood that they can? That project couldn't violate zoning? Correct. Correct. The project needs to adhere to zoning standards. What's challenging about the bill is that it in effect requires a jurisdiction to defend standards. It kind of flips that burden of proof. Typically, the jurisdiction is presumed to have properly applied its code. And here, the standard has flipped to the jurisdiction has to prove that the project is financially viable in certain circumstances. So it's very, very messy. But in terms of the impact on the village, you do have objective standards. The building standards that you would look at are very, a very objective, very numerical. There's really no subjectivity. So I think you're well ahead of a lot of jurors to being able to defend decisions that you would make. Michelle, is there any sense of the timing of how this bill would move forward? Because today is March 10th, a typical legislative session would go no later than April 15th, right? And so the bill is cross filed so it's in both the House and the Senate, but can it move that quickly for this session? Or is that a stretch and we might be talking about this again next year in some form? I think it's a pattern whether or not there's going to be meaningful difference to concerns that are raised by the jurisdictions. or if there's going to be more deference to the wishes of the government. And I honestly don't have a clear sense of that right now because I haven't been able to talk to someone from NNL since the public hearing. I don't know if Sue Ellen might have some insight that I'm not aware of, and So, Sue Ellen, please join in. But at this moment, I'm going to have to update you in a day or two, one, and I don't have a sense that right now. No, sure thing. Thanks. Michelle. I don't have anything to add to that. All right. Michelle, can you, what is the position of the Maryland Building Industry Association on the Governor's bill? Have they been behind this initiative? I think they've been very supportive of it as have a number of housing groups. So, you know, their view is I think that this will make the development review process easier or straight lines. I shift the burden essentially off their shoulders just to a certain degree. So they have been in favor of it. And I did watch both the House and Senate committee hearings on this bill and they did speak in support of it because another component of this bill is requiring that a jurisdiction review and act on a building application within a certain time frame. I believe it's one year is that correct? We showed and so one of the things that they're really in favor of is that they can have projects in the county's permitting pipeline for years. And so this would force that unless the jurisdiction has taken affirmative action, they essentially get a de facto building permit. And so they're sort of, they spoke in support of the overall objectives of the jail. And as the governor's director of the Department of Housing and I think it's community affairs, D-H-C-A stated, they have premise this bill as an effort at getting to yes. They want the building permit processes in the Maryland jurisdictions to get to yes. And unless you can make a compelling argument in reason for why you can't approve a building project, it should go forward. That's the overall objective of this as presented by the governor and the director of his housing department. You've read it in issue. I think so we should wrap this. Oh, we need a motion, don't we, on the testimony. We will ask discuss this. So we can do this in substantially the form and then. I was just going to try to insert that language now since we've talked about some amendments that are still forthcoming from our attorneys. So, whver is comfortable making the motion, if you could just insert after written testimony, the phrase, in substantially the form provided. Anybody want to make that motion? We're looking for a motion. I move to authorized board chair, new force new board, vice chair, new board, just to submit written testimony in substantially the form provided to the City County Council regarding ZG82502 as drafted and to provide in person testimony at the County Council's public here. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. And thank you, Lou, for providing in-hersed testimony at the county council's public hearing. Appreciate that. So we can move on to the next thing, which is our public hearing on the draft budget for the fiscal year, beginning July 2025. Open for public comment. Do we have members of the public that wish to comment could you come to the microphone? Hello, I'm a member of public hello I installed a good man on the chair of the public safety committee I don't have a lot to say but I am here to support the public safety component of the budget. We've achieved, reviewed it with the public safety committee. The changes over last year, apart from cost of living adjustments, which we certainly support, due to us make good sense. They are largely designed to improve the ability of the police force to retain its staff and to enhance the chiefs ability and the lieutenant's ability to recruit new people. It would be great if we could get to full staffing. And we've been a little short-apt for quite a while. So we complement the chief, I'm pretty mistaken, Capon, on how to improve things. I hope this is enough to get us over the top that we can go back to full employment. Thank you. That's my whole- Thanks for your comments. Thank you, I appreciate that. Thank you. Any other comments from the public? I made this room. Yeah. Could you have a question about the zoning? I think I'm going to have to vote for you. We'll talk about the zoning. Okay. Got it. Just wanted to make sure. Oh, okay. Thank you. All right. So hearing no more public comments. I think we can move on to the next Matter for or discussion which are we have some contract authorizations Okay So I've come before you with two contract authorization requests one would be for the consulting arbor services and the other is for landscape maintenance services. So I'm going to talk about the consulting arbor services first. We publicly advertised for the consulting arbor services on the e-mail and marketplace and we receive four complete bids. Of those bids, the lowest qualified bidder was feather and associates who we've been working with for the last 10 years. I did reach out to his references and they were very favorable of their working with them. We've worked with them so we have a detailed knowledge and experience with him. I reached out to the Tree Committee and the Public Parks and Green Spaces Committees and both were in support of continuing our relationship with rather than associates. So I put before you all a contractor quest for three years with two extensions. Anybody have any questions about this? Going with the- I'm going to authorize the Village Manager to enter into a contract and substantially the form provided and subject to review by Village Council with feather and associates for the performance of consolidant, arborist services for an initial term of three years with the option to extend the contract for up to the additional one year terms. Second. All in favor? Okay. Great. That passes. Okay. And then the next one was our landscape services contract. And this one was also advertised on the E. Maryland Marketplace. And beginning in July of this year, Montgomery County will begin enforcing its county wide ban of gas power leafflowers. And as a result of this, we had more landscaping companies submitting bids. We received nine complete bid packages for this services contract. The lowest qualified bidder was Davy tree experts and they are named us because they also provide us with our tree maintenance contract. But they do have two distinctly separate services. So they have the landscape services and then they have the tree. And I reached out to the references they provided and everyone gave us a, gave us good references for them. We've worked with Davy Tree for the last two years now and there have always been very responsive to our request. They came out in emergency situations such like that. So I come before you to request offering the three year with two one year extensions to Davy Trey expert company for our landscape maintenance services. I know I had a question. So we are here? Sure. Well? Yes. Here's the panel. I'm Helloes Morgan. I'm from Center Street. What I want to know is, do these services involved cutting back the ivy that's choking various trees in the village? So that is actually done under our tree maintenance contract. And if there are areas where you are seeing that, please bring those to our attention. And we will have our tree. So this is a bit confusing because as proposed, we would have one larger parent company name that we would have two major contracts one, but they do distinctly different things. Of course. And so under this contract, this is landscape maintenance, and this is mowing and mulching and weeding, IV removal because that is a form of tree maintenance falls under the tree maintenance contractor. So certainly do bring that to our attentionate locations where you're seeing that, and we will certainly. So is that Talbot Feather at this point? So Dr. Feather is under a separate contract for our various services. David TreeExport Company holds the current contract for tree maintenance services. OK, and did they have that before? They had it before, right? We've had Navy tree number two years. Two years, for some reason. Okay, so just as an example, there's a wonderful oak tree on Grafton Street and it was being strangled by Ivy and has been going on for a while and I was watching it and watching and I said the hell with it. Nobody's doing anything. So I have weed warrior, I know how to take get rid of ivy. So I spend a couple of days here and again, cutting it, and interestingly, anybody who walked by me said, oh, I'm glad someone's doing that. And I thought, you know, maybe you could do that, because I didn't know how that came about. Yeah, just give us, give this staff a call because we'll take care of things. Or make sure that. Because I didn't know and nothing was happening and whoever was doing the tree maintenance wasn't doing anything. Okay, thank you. No, we're certainly welcome that. That's right. Thank you. Thank you. So does anyone have a motion about Davey tree being the landscape? I move to authorize the Village Manager and do a contract and substantially inform provide a subject reviewed by Village Council with a Davey Tree expert company through the performance and landscape maintenance services for initial term of three years with the option to send a contract for up to two additional one year terms second all in favor. I Great. Thank you So the next thing on the agenda is the police report Yes, we had a couple thefts from auto Three of them occurred in sex with Avenue Montgomery County police is following up on that one because they were involved in other thefts throughout the county with a the Bob and their Stone View that they had. And then we got a set from the building where officer turned. the police is following up on that one because they were involved in other thefts throughout the county, with the involvement of the stolen vehicle they had. And then we had a theft from the building where officer Timmerman and a detective from Montgomery County worked together and then filed a suspect and recovered the property that was taken and there was charges that were pressed against the person at this time. And then I'm far the administrative side. There is an update on that. We just got an application today from somebody that was interested in it and ready to get it right along. And we're currently setting up the interview with that person to proceed forward. And that's it. Thank you. Thanks for the report. And the Managers report. I'm going to fit this equipment as imminent. That's what I think happened. Yeah. Yeah. So as a segue to that and this, excuse me, any board members or approach, we have been responding to the issue of security trailers in the SACS with Avenue parking lot. This was brought to our attention. Jacqueline Parker went out there to assess exactly what was happening. It was giving off an audible message that was so loud it could be heard as far away as Kirkside Drive and was being heard inside of people's homes. And it was, it is motion activated and it would sound an alarm. It would sound a voice that said this property is under surveillance, et cetera, et cetera. So, Jackie has been in communication with the security company that Sachs with Avenue has contracted with and was successful in getting them to turn the audible voice portion of this trailer understand that the blue light that it blinks is also visible from some properties, but it looks like that is also somewhat then managed, but we're continuing to manage and deal with that. Yeah, I mean, you can see it if you look at it, it's not like you see the light in your house or anything. One of the residents on Belmont Avenue, it-centered he could. Yeah, I don't doubt that. I don't doubt that. Yeah, yeah. So I've also asked an anticipation of what is likely forthcoming changes on the SACs with Avenue property in the next 10 years or so. I've also asked our Arborist to do a really concerted effort looking looking at opportunities to create additional screening along the Elmont Avenue and Oliver Street along the exterior of the Sacks Fifth Avenue property. As you all are familiar in the buffer itself we have a pretty high fence between the buffer and the shopping center. Along Sacks Fifth Avenue there's actually a pretty low stone wall, but a lot of evergreens on the village side of that wall. But we want to try to deepen that screening as much as we can. Anticipating that trees are lost from time to time, we want there to be sufficient enough screenings. And even if a tree has to come out, there's enough other screening in there to protect those residents from whatever in the future may hold on the sats for that property. So we'll be working with Dr. Feather and the tree committee to get that done here in our upcoming planting cycles. So also I just wanted to take a minute to update the board on an interesting meeting that Sue Ellen, Jackie, Mr. Crocket, and I had with Pepco on Friday regarding the street light network along state right of ways. So we were informed by Pepco a couple of weeks ago, actually it's probably been about a month and a half ago now, that when they were required as a result of Alcar's legislation a couple of years ago to do a defined inventory of their streetlight network, they identified the finally have a map in a database now that reflects all the street lights, including those along state highways. And they went to state highway and said, we've identified that these lights are yours, but we don't know who has been paying for these lights for all of these years. And so they state highway set them this directive that basically says that they don't pay for street lights that illuminate their right of way unless it's at an intersection. And so the meeting that we had on Friday was to discuss kind of next steps in a path forward. So, Ellen, do you want to go ahead and pick up from there? Yes. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Okay. As usual, Kato did not show up with the, did not provide reports ahead of time. We've asked them to do that numerous times and they don't. So they go over what they produce that day and then you see it later that day. They can promise the musicalities because of course you're not doing on that this has happened to. They have promised the musicalities that they would set up a three-way meeting with a highway, that pole, and musicalities, Oh, so Ellen, you're starting to break up. Okay, am I back? Yeah. Okay. We asked about that. We were told they instead, they have kept guys been talking to state highway and they will be sending a letter to these counties staying in their position, which we already have heard about. We also understand that there are some among us with local jurisdictions that they will honor, where they have been made in civil rights. And they've accepted that responsibility. You haven't seen any of that. Those we've asked to see them. So right now, stay high-weight is about to send out a letter. I'm really expect it will say that the maintenance of the lights and paint for the electricity will be on and ask penalties. They, that code does not know who is repainting for these lights up shall now. Gloria Lee was at the meeting. They had totally unsubstantiated statement that it seemed to be evening out. So all of them lights back. They thought they were overcharging the municipalities for our probably state highway lights. When I asked one of the folks who can actually speak for PEPCO to confirm that at the meeting, Andrew Sendell, he said, no, they actually can't say that but they need certainty. So, their renter keeping is terrible. We need that. And this is just another example of it. So, once you get the letter, then we're're going to make a decision about who to talk to about it and then we'll be at the state level and get it out of the state highway. Because they're obviously taking a position. At other waters, they have to find money to pay for streetlights which they didn't want to do. And just to give the board an order of magnitude, the PEPCO has estimated 52 additional streetlights. We're currently only billed for, I believe it's 206 streetlights. So they're asserting that we would be responsible for another 52. So that is adding a 25% increase to our streetlight inventory. Now, I pointed out to them in our call, however, that a map that they showed of street lights showed street lights that were on the west side of Wisconsin Avenue, which isn't even within Army Discible Boundary. So clearly, they're still even more scrubbing of their lists that needs to be done. But just as a reminder, this would include the, if we agreed to it, the east side of Wisconsin Avenue, all of Connecticut Avenue and Brookville Road. And so that's why we're talking about such a large number because, as we talked earlier about our, how distinct we are from some of our neighboring municipalities, we technically have three state roads that either come through our municipality or are along its edge. So that is why the number is so high. Suelland did ask Peppco in this meeting on Friday if we are unable to reach a resolution and the state does not claim responsibility for the lights and we refuse to allow the lights to be added to our bill what Pepco would do and eventually they confirm that they will de-energize the street lights along Connecticut Avenue. That is their end position, that either the state where we would have to pay for them or they will be. But somebody has been paying for them. They just don't know who. They just don't know who. Well, we probably have been paying. We've been paying and other, we're probably triple paying with all the little municipalities. Well, the state does pay for street lights. They don't even know what they've been paying for. Because again, Peffko has provided over the years no inventories to anyone. So the state doesn't even know what they're truly paying for. So it could be some combination of things. The town could be paying for them. I mean, we really don't. Thank you so much for attending that meeting. Your guys are heroes. Yeah, I like it. I think it of was where's Elon when you need him? It wasn't infuriating me. Just tell the snake we've been waiting for our receipts for the long time. And just so that we're clear, the two blatantly contradictory statements that Sue Ellen said were made were by two pepco individuals the jewels or the same call. So they don't even have their ducks in the row coming into a meeting to get their story straight. So very infuriating and that is an aside from what is still an ongoing effort to nail down what the true cost would be for us to purchase the street lights that we know are indeed in our public rights. So that is an effort that Sue Allen is also still working. Sue Allen, do you want to provide an update on that effort? Yes. It's been a lot of time on this NHA issue, recent three, because it was a shock everybody. And your experience of a 25% increase is not unusual. There's a number of other folks that are having this rather the same increase in numbers, which they weren't planning on. So they want, they want to file, and so forth. And I think everything is focusing on getting to the end of this quarter and being ready to do that. And so, there's supposed to be providing information to the municipalities that they promised in December. And I think reminding them of this, I think we're going to see it about a day before they followed our terrorists. have been following them on with the tariff, what they're supposed to do. And we know, I think, at this point, where the problems are in them, such as not dealing with jammers and requiring fees that really are just not reasonable and not needed for safety. So we'll have an argument about the SD. So we're still waiting for the answers on some items. I think we're coming to a conclusion on the two agreements that are needed to buy the sales agreement and the third party attachment agreement. We still have to run the guidelines and have that. as remind me because some of the street lights are on Verizon poles. Verizon owned not Pepco poles. And then I, to go back to the budget, we discussed at the budget work session, the reason that we are moving the funds that we were sending aside for the purchase in conversion of street lights to FY 26. It is because of these ongoing conversations dragging on. And in the interim, even though we are still waiting for confirmed answers from Pepco, that would allow us to come to the board and present to you the costs and options for either allowing PEPCO to maintain the street light network and allowing them to convert it to LED under their proposed tariff versus us purchasing, owning and operating the street light network. While all of this has been going on, PEPCO reached out to me and at other municipal representatives to ask that we make a decision and tell them now which way we want to proceed. And so I did reach out to Mr. Crocket and I said, you know, I've gotten this request to make a firm position on behalf of the village. We're not there yet and I plan to respond that we are not there yet because we're still waiting for information. And so Mr. Crocket was copied on that response to let them know that we couldn't possibly bring to you a recommendation because we don't have the information to put before you to try to decide how we want to move forward. But as Suella noted, PEPCO seems to be very eager to move forward with this proposed LED tariff. And we are essentially letting them know that until we get the information that is needed so that you all can make an informed decision, we will not be presenting, and we will not be in a position to make a formal position. Got it. Thank you. And Shaina, I am about some of the questions. If I could follow up with that a little bit, there's no requirement anywhere that you have to tell them when you want to find how many rights you want to buy. And they can't require this, we answer that. But that makes you look like you're unclblocked and that's what they try to do. So every time anyone is asked for this information, we respond by saying, we don't have enough information for you to make that decision. We need that information, please provide it. So it's, they're just all over the place. And then the club started the other day with one of the main participants being late and saying he's having a very busy day. This woman did you have a question? Yeah, this is 10 Gen. So if you could just come up to the microphone in case it's something that Sue Ellen needs to play in. I don't think so. This is going to be a person with preference. So I'm very concerned about the natural environment. I've lived here over 30 years and I've watched as the insect population has gone down, down, down. This is not good for any of us. And I think as people who are educated, we should know about these things. You need to have native plants to support the insects that we have that are native. And the caterpillars that feed baby birds, they can eat seed, they have to have protein. And each caterpillar has its own trees that it can feed on. And for example, a clutch of chickadees and their little birds need about 9,000 caterpillars to be fed. So you know, Robin would need more. And so there's a couple of things I've got in mind. I'm sorry, but I don't know where else to say this. Lights are very important. If you have, you know, monochrome lights out there, especially if they're bright and they're not at a more yellow amber, some people even have red frequencies, you're going to sort of scare away all the night insects like the moths and the fireflies, by the way. Before the park was constructed, there were thousands of them in there and bats and all kinds of things. I've been studying fireflies and I'm working with DNR to try and figure out if we can save areas because of fireflies, kind of an indicator species, it's easy to see. But it also means there are other things flying around. So I'm very concerned about the wavelength of the light. Yeah, that's what, it's been one of our concerns as well. We're going to keep them. Keep them as yellow and yellow. Yeah, and I don't, I mean the early evening fireflies get this, have, have, have, uh, pink filters over their eyes so they can filter out a lot of light from the sunset. And they can fly in those lights because I've seen them. But there are many late night fireflies which you probably haven't noticed because who thinks of it, who just think of the ones who go with it garden. But they can't. And I'm saying I've done studies at Patuxent Refuge. I've done them in our neighborhood. I've done them in some of the state parks. It's so important to have these insects. So that's what I'm saying. Thank you. Thanks for your comments. Which is a great rationale for us owning and controlling the street like that work, because then we would have a localized control of the lighting and one of the technologies that Sue Ellen mentioned is dimming technology that would give us the ability to dim the street light network in zones in particular locations to again, kind of maximize the use of the street lights to the best needs of our community. So we just wanted to update the board on that. That would include the park, because that's where they would live, and that's where they did live, because I was in there studying those too, until a random stuff got off things. And they just started ending there, and then they're okay. So that'd be nice if they're pretty keen to be on, you know, you walk by the light goes on, I'm just going to have to go an American guy. So that'd be nice if there could be a beyond, you walk by the light goes on, it's not. So I think we're at that point in the meeting that. I moved to adjourn. So I have one. Okay. Oh. I want this is not street light, but one thing I talked to Shane about this morning just wanted for to be wear up during the session after COVID when DC was studying the bike lane on Connecticut Avenue. I got fairly involved because I was very concerned that if they did take out another lane for the eliminated, the counterflown aid it would cause a lot of cut through in the village. And I got to, in that regard, and we won on that one, they didn't put bike lanes in, which would a further reduce, and I could have anyone cause more backup. I got called by Sharon Kirschbaum, who's the head of DC DOT, and she said, you ought to be aware of this. The park service for the last years has been studying Rock Creek in Potomac Parkways to improve certain intersections, big ones like that in Virginia Avenue that go into the interpensemin. But one of the options that they've been looking at is eliminating the one-way traffic in the AMP and evening peak coming down in the morning and back in the evening. And it would have for a racquake parkway. Exactly. And it would have substantial impact on us because those poor cars would have nowhere else to go, but up Connecticut I have a new and through the village and cutting through. So sometime this month they're gonna announce that they're about 30 days, get public opinion. And then look at it for another year with that public input and then make a decision. It's something that we ought to be on, when it all comes out, we get engaged. We ought to be on record about it, because it would be a disaster. Yeah, no. I think that's right. And it's aimed at reducing the cost of the current processes the current process is that police officers, yeah, I think it's at least for the labor intensive have to go to each end to close the road down and so the question is rather than eliminating the one way traffic configuration, maybe there are automated solutions that could be implemented instead of having officers. Park I never lived your experience, but they're worried that they're safety. There are other ways to control it. Well, thanks. We're going to have to keep tabs on that. Yes. All right. So imagine my excitement of being able to move to a adjourn twice. I'm so moved. Second all in favor. I'm sorry. Thank you all. excitement and being able to move to a journey twice. I'm so moved. Second all in favor. I'm trying. Thank you all. We're going to have to do that more often for you. That's right. I don't know if my heart can stand. It's very exciting. Hi, this is my power here.