I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go call to order the September 18,, 2024 Transportation and Land Use Committee meeting. This room has a hearing loop. If you need hearing assistance, switch your hearing aids to the Telecollo mode. If you need a headset, we have those available as well. Please see the clerk to request one. The proposed consent agenda is as follow. Number item number three, our Colaorders for the enslaved stewardship management plan. That is in the dullest district. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? Adoption of the consent agenda. So moved by Chair Randall, seconded by Vice Chair Tukroni. Consent agenda approved as moved and seconded, is there any discussion on the consent agenda? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion will pass 401. And will now move on to the information items first. Just a little bit of a state of note, we're going to go in order on the items with the exception of the purchase of development rights program, which is an information item. It's going to be fairly involved discussion. Supervisor Kirschner is at trial and has asked that we put that on last on the agenda so that he can be here for that discussion and so that will be last everything else will go in order. So the first item is the unmet housing needs strategic plan if I could have staff come forward. Thank you very much. Good evening. Good evening, Chair Turner and board members. Committee members. So to my left, we have Mr. Bryan Regan to my right. We have Ms. Brandy Collins and Ms. Christine Hillock, who will present to the committee. Thank you very much. Welcome. You are free to begin. Great. Thank you Mr. Govann. Good evening to your turner and members of the committee. As Mr. Govann said, my name is Christine Hillock and I am the Housing Initiatives Project manager with the HCD. Tonight I will provide the fourth quarter and annual fiscal year 24 report on implementation of the county's Unmet Housing and Strategic Plan. The Unmet Housing and Strategic Plan was approved by the board in September of 2021. Tonight's report includes a summary of significant plan related actions achieved in fourth quarter fiscal year 24, fourth quarter and fiscal year 2024 attainable housing results, information about attain attainable housing in the pipeline and a preview of next steps on the horizon. Attachment one to tonight's item includes progress updates for each of the plans 133 key actions and attachment two is an at a glance overview of fiscal year 24 accomplishments related to the plan's five major objectives. The next five slides highlight eight significant plan related actions that were taken during fourth quarter of fiscal year 24. First on April 2nd the board adopted the fiscal year 25 budget which includes on April 2nd, the board adopted the fiscal year 25th budget, which includes the board's dedication of one half penny of the real property tax rate, or approximately $7.4 million towards attainable housing. Board discussion during the budget process also included a commitment to pursue use of year-end fund balance to bring the allocation for attainable housing to a full penny of the real property tax rate. Next on April 2nd, the board directed Department of Planning and Zoning staff to draft a policy creating an expedited review process for legislative affordable housing applications. Item 5 on tonight's T. LaKagenda will present draft policy framework for that process. Also on April 2nd, the board approved an interim policy that the tax rate will absorb the impacts of new attainable housing units on capital facilities, regional roads and transit services. Next on April 10th, the board approved the FY24 annual action plan for federal community development block grant and home funds. The annual action plan includes funding recommendations for $211,000 to support public service activities by nonprofit organizations as well as annual program goals, objectives, and expected outcomes related to the five-year consolidated plan for those programs. Also on April 10th, the Board adopted revisions to the Housing Choice Voucher Administrative Plan and Streamlined Annual Public Housing Agency Annual Plan to comply with Housing Opportunities Through Modernization Act or HOTMA regulations and national standards for the physical inspection of real estate or inspire standards as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Next on April 16th, the board adopted the 2023 capital intensity factors including a buy size differential and a phased implementation over three years. CIFs will now be differentiated based upon Profford Square footage with the goal of incentivizing smaller and more affordable units. On June 4th, the Board approved a project plan for the five year review comprehensive plan amendment of the 2019 general plan as presented by Department of Planning and Zoning staff. The CPAM will integrate on mid-housing needs strategic plan strategies and will consider issues such as criteria for alternative use of suburban compact neighborhood place type, expectations for attainable housing units and proffers, infill land in lieu of 80 use and repurposing of commercial retail and office buildings to residential use. And finally on June 18th, the board approved two loans through the county's affordable multi-family housing loan program to support attainable rental housing developments. Atlantic Boulevard apartments was approved for a loan not to exceed $6.34 million and Cedar Terrace apartments was approved for a loan not to exceed $3.9 million. Together these two developments will offer 132 new attainable rental units. Within unmet housing needs strategic plan, annual attainable goals are defined as any housing for sale or rent entering the marketplace each year affordable to households with incomes at or below 100% of area median income. 100% of AMI for a family of four in Loudoun County as of April 1st, 2024 is $154,700. The plan sets a goal that 20% or approximately 8200 of forecasted new homes by 2040 as projected based on land use policies in the 2019 comprehensive plan will be attainable housing. In addition, the plan sets a goal to preserve or create access to approximately 7800 units for a total of 16,000 attainable units by 2040. This slide shows the number of new construction units added and units added through access or preservation for fourth quarter fiscal year 24 as well as totals for the fiscal year. During fourth quarter 136 new attainable units were added to the supply and 137 access and preservation opportunities were provided. In total for fiscal year 24256 new attainable units were added and 320 access and preservation opportunities were provided. In fiscal year 2024 the county surpassed its goal for access to and preservation of attainable housing units and achieved 73% of its goal for new construction attainable units. This slide provides a summary of housing goals and achievements for the first four years of the Unmet Housing Needs Strategic Plan. You see here that significantly more new attainable housing units were achieved in FY 24 than in any prior years of the plan. During our last presentation to T. Luck and June, we reported that we were hopeful that we would achieve or surpass our goal of 350 new construction units this fiscal year. This was due in large part to the opening of four new attainable rental housing communities this year. The four properties listed on the slide are open and are currently leasing. Four purposes of the UNMEN housing needs strategic plan however, new attainable units are counted when they are leased, not one certificate of occupancy or are issued or any earlier in the development process. As of June 30th, there were still 131 units to be least at these properties. As these units do become least, they will be counted as new attainable units in the next fiscal year in fiscal year 25. This slide provides information about additional new attainable units at developments which have been approved for loans through the Affordable Multifamily Housing Loan program. For new units coming online, there will be a law in fiscal year's 25 and 26 when the large majority of these properties expect to open and begin to, excuse me, with the large majority of these properties expected to open and begin to lease in fiscal year 27 and beyond. Attainable housing development, as we all know, including financing and construction takes time, typically takes four to five years. We do expect momentum to continue and increase as the Unmet Housing Neutristic Plan continues to be implemented, and the board continues its investment in housing. And for our final slide tonight, I'm going to turn it over to Brandy Collins, our Housing Policy Administration, who will wrap up our presentation. Thank you, Christine. As we reach the end of our presentation, we like to share a broader view of the plan's implementation status. As you'll see on slide 13, many key actions have been accomplished over the last three years. This includes securing home funding, modifying the home accessibility and repair program, and considering housing when capital facility impact fees are amended. We also have 50 key actions in progress. These include expansion of the down payment and closing costs assistance program, establishing an interdepartmental staff core nation team, and working to identify opportunities and processes for using public land for attainable housing. More progress is to come, including pursuing additional key actions such as partnering with the community land trust, developing a policy that would affirm the location of attainable housing units and transient oriented developments, and expanding opportunities for permanent supportive housing. You will hear about these activities during future quarterly updates, and with that we'll conclude the formal part of our presentation and open the discussion for your questions and comments. Thank you. Thank you very much. That is all good news I think we'll talk about that and any questions for the staff. Chair Renner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, first of all, thank you all so much. And I can say that my favorite slide in here is the very last slide. I think it gave so much information, and I appreciate it a lot. And I know how far we've come in just a short amount of time. And I remember asking Mr. Hall, why we hadn't get some things that he reminded me that it's a very new department that just has been set up. And so we've done so much in a very short amount of time. Having said that, I do have a favor to ask and then just some thoughts. The favor is this, I realized, I think again Mr. Hall taught me this, that we have money for housing in different buckets, right, in different places. If we can, when we do these updates, put down, you know, let us know what amount of money is kind of in what's different bucket. That would be really, really helpful because not every source of income can be used for everything. For instance, I know we collect money on a cigarette tax. I don't remember which bucket that cigarette tax money goes in, and what it can be used for, and what it can't be used for. So just to have that available, so I can know that, would be really, really helpful. I will also say, you say, if I knew then, when we created this strategic housing plan, what I know now, I could have done so much more with it. But I didn't. And we didn't have you all to help us out. And so I was just kind of when we get into it and doing the best I could. One example is, you know, when we talk, I think it's on page seven of what the definition of affordable housing or attainable housing is. It's not on page seven. You might not be on page eight. What was the definition? It might have been on page eight, but whatever page that was in. It defined as a sale or rental unit serving house with income at or below 100% of the area median income. Well the challenge with that is an income at 85% of AMI and an income at 30% of AMI is very, very different. And the housing needs, the requirements, what we can do is also very different. So if we go up to the next page, page 9, in the presentation, what you find is we do have quite a few at 60%, but we have almost nothing but we have zero for purchase at below 30% and not much for purchase at the 30 to 70%. And so, you know, I don't know how we do this now because we have, because we're already well on our way, but what I would like to see as focused on a little bit more is, and I said this many times, one, attainable housing for purchase, and not just rental because purchasing a home and having a home is built generation of wealth. But two, also, even in the rentals, rentals that target a lower AMI when possible, because we are targeting you know that 60% 70% but we're really missing that 30 40 50% AMI level even in the rentals so the target that would be really helpful and Then finally can I say kudos for even having a discussion about permanent supportive housing because it is not a discussion. Most people most counties are having or even understand. And so I'd like to see that more but the fact that you all are even including permanent supportive housing is so encouraging. So thank you so much for that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Vice Chair. Yeah, thank you, Chair Turner. So thank you so much for the presentation. One question I had is Erkola Farms that got approved recently by the Board of Supervisors. They're doing LITECH funding for single family detached cottages. And I'm wondering if we could really focus on a diverse product because I see a lot of multi-family units. That's what's coming to the board in most applications. And it would be really neat to have more cottages, you know, maybe tiny homes or duplexes, triplexes, quads, kind of a different product type, because I think people would really appreciate that. So I don't know if you could answer that question. If we're gonna be looking at that, and it sounds like LITECH, you can get LITECH funding for that product. I think that's all more a question for Virginia housing since the request for funding go through Virginia housing but you are correct Supervisor Crony in that the single family detached product is extremely rare as a unit type funded through the lie tech program. I'm not aware of any projects in the Commonwealth of Virginia that offer a single family detached lie tech unit type so I'm glad that builders are kind of being a little bit more creative than they usually are. But from a department standpoint, we definitely welcome and support any units across the spectrum from multi-family to a single family detached. Yeah, I wonder if we, if there could be like kind of an incentive or something that we could put because it's just, I'm just seeing one multifamily unit after another for the rental. So anyways, just something to think about. And then what community land trust are you thinking of partnering with? That's new to me. So thank you. Thank you for the question. So there are several CLTs in the state, but there happens to be a statewide CLT and the state is called Virginia Statewide CLT and they have the authority to work in any jurisdiction and they've currently completed a couple of projects in Loudoun County partnering with Loudoun Habitat for Humanity. So if we were to partner with the CLT, we haven't discussed this with leadership on this but we've done some research internally, and that seemed to be a good fit, given that they have a statewide focus and statewide authority. Yeah, I love hampatons, so good. All right, thank you. Thank you very much. I have a question based on something that Chair Randall mentioned. Do we have any data? I guess it would scientific research data suggest I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think We believe, certainly in Loudoun County, that would push them over the 30% threshold for housing distress. But I'm guessing. You would think that just based on the income alone, if there was to be a purchase program, there would have to be heavy subsidy involved, whether it be through the use of a down payment, closing cost assistance or lowered interest rates, whatever the case may be. But with the average sales price being about 700, 750,000 for a that about $40,000, you're right, that's difficult. That's what I thought. In the item Chair Randall asked two questions at the last T-Lock meeting. Chair Randall, do you see the answers to those in the item? Okay, you okay with that? Should we go over those or you okay with that? Okay, great. I really want to sing your praises. I mean, we're looking at the total units, 2.92 the first year then dropped to 181 and then up to 346 and now up to 576. That's a real success story. I will say that I am cautiously optimistic only because I don't have enough data points to do a straight line extrapolation and go, Yippee the we're on the path here And you mentioned it looks like we're gonna slow down in 25 and 26 did I hear that correctly? That's that's correct just because of the construction timelines and put the Slide back up to sure. Okay, and then any Any prognosis for 26 27 and 28 I guess that depends on what we do here on the board over the next couple of years. Correct. Okay. That's all I have for right now. I think that's good. Supervisor Blas. Thank you, Chair Turner. And thank you for the presentation. And I would like a little more clarification when Supervisor Tachroni was talking about LITECH. My understanding about LITECH is that it's usually multi-family housing because they all have to be in the same area. So could a light tech, it goes to clarification. So could a light tech building be also like two over two's or could there be town homes? Yes, they can. Okay. Oh, okay. So I guess we just have to start asking for those things because my thought was that it was usually multi-family and that was it. So you're saying we could also ask for. Okay, thank you. Yeah, thank you. And the light tech discussion, we know that it doesn't have to all be in one building. We know it's easier to finance when it's in one building versus in different buildings. So this past, a couple of months ago, we all went to Vaco and we had kind of a finger wagging session at us from some of our people at the state level. And they were saying things like, we want to see affordable housing dotted throughout the community and not all in one building. And I caught the delegate outside, actually his senator, who is actually a good friend of mine. And I said, well, a lot of that's because of how light tech is how the light tech funding works. It's a lot easier to fund units when they're all in one place. If you want to change that, you've got to make it a little easier for the light tech funding to work. So since I went out and said that to her, now I need you guys to help me with this because quite frankly, what do you think, and we can all pine on this further later, because we'll have to do it right now. But I would imagine that there's probably some legislation that we can put in our package for the General Assembly that speaks to how like tech, the like tech requirements that push us to putting all or not all, but the majority of homes, rentals in one building. Just because it's so much easier to do that. Is there what might it look like? What regulations would come off? What stipulations would change to allow for easier funding? Or easier financing of homes that are attainable if we did them kind of throughout the development and not all in one place. We do that not because we want to but because developers do not want to go through, understandably, the headache and cost of doing five different light tech applications so they do all of them one in one building. So how do we help the General Assembly help us get to a place where we can disperse our attainable housing through our development and not all put in one place and how do we put that in legislation that will go on our packaging go before the General Assembly. And then the bigger question is then how do you all help get me ready to go down to the General Assembly and then the bigger question is, and how do you all help get me ready to go down to the General Assembly and fight for that? Because what you're going to, you're going to be to say and I'm going to go say that. So to get us ready to go actually advocate for doing that. And we have a little time because, you know, we're only in September. So we have a little time, but I have talked to some General Assembly members about that. And really, now that I've said it, we have, now that I've said we gotta do it in you, and you gotta help me. So let's look to do that for the ledge package, okay? Thanks so much. Other questions? I had one and it jumped right on my brain. Oh, we're going to talk about expedited review. If that program takes off the way I would love to see it take off, we could fairly dramatically and fairly quickly change the 25 and 26 numbers. Correct? I mean, if we're looking at a six month turnaround, six to eight month turnaround on 100% affordable buildings, that could really pretty radically change that formula. Theoretically, but depends on the number of 100% affordable projects that are coming through. But my understanding is that the exemplar that we established with the first project is a pretty big incentive to developers to, I got their attention, I think. Correct. Yeah, okay, great. Once again, congratulations. I think it's all good news and I'm very excited about the project. It's nice to see the numbers really. It's the first year that we've had over our goal, correct? That's great. That's really good. Thank you all. Appreciate it. Next up will be the countywide bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding program. If you could come forward, we'd appreciate it. I think anyone would expect me a big evening everybody just to hear out city how many of you already had this this presentation. Okay, it's curiosity, how many of you already had this presentation? Okay, it's a great presentation. Thank you all very much for going and you have the floor. Thank you, Chair Turner. Good evening. I'm Lou Mozerak, Assistant Director at DTCI, and we are here tonight to present the Countywide Bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding program to the committee. Again, thank you for the opportunity to present. Over the next few months, we're anticipating after we move on from T-Lock, we would present this to the finance committee in October and then to a full board meeting sometime shortly thereafter. Just to introduce the folks here at the table, with me here today is our Director Nancy Boyd, and to my right, Alois A-3ing, our traffic engineering program manager, Laura Goesh, senior traffic engineer, and the project manager for this effort, and our consultant team, Kevin Keely, and Michelle Kavucci from VHB. And on behalf of the team, we'd like again to thank you for your interest in this item, and we'll be happy to address any questions you have at the end of the presentation. And at this point, I'll turn it over to Aloisa to walk us through some more of our topics for today. Thank you, Lou. Can you hear me? There you go. Good evening, Chair Turner and members of the committee. The slide deck shown today will be the same one that will be presented at the Finance Committee meeting in October. Next slide please, Mr. Kavucci. Thank you. The PowerPoint presentation of tonight contained 13 slides, starting with the contacts related to the wayfinding program development study, which will be presented by Ms. Gosh and me. I will briefly highlight some key events that led us to where we are today. Ms. Gosh will further define wayfinding. It's general purpose and its context as it relates to the county shared use paths and sidewalks. Following Mr. Keely will briefly review the proposed signage family and the anticipated approach that would be applied to the proposed program. He'll also highlight the two proposed wayfinding pilot routes and the rationale behind our selection and at the end Laura, Ms. Gowish will wrap it up with staff's recommendations and closing remarks. Next slide please. On this slide it highlights the major milestones that played key roles in the evolution of the way finding program development study. At the November 2017 Transportation Land Use Committee meeting, the Department of Transportation and Capital Infrastructure, DTCI, as most of you know, received direction to work with Bike Loudon on identifying a bike loop on the western side of the county. Bike Loudon is an advocacy group that promotes a comfortable and safe bicycling and walking experience on a county shared use pass and sidewalks, including on county roadways, for the avid and experience cyclist. In May 2019, a conversation took place between DTCI, the Virginia Department of Transportation and by cloud in. During that conversation, by cloud in expressed their desire to use way-finding to inform bicyclists of an alternate route over the dollar screenway at Belmont Ridge Road, which is located in the Ashburn District. When the bridge over dollar screenway was built approximately 25 to 30 years ago, the bridge cross-section consisted of two lanes. I'm one in each direction with very wide shoulders on both sides, and no sidewalks and shared use paths. To increase vehicle capacity on the bridge in 2020 the shoulders were repurposed to provide a four lane cross section making it two lanes in each direction. The four lane cross section is consistent with the Belmont Ridge road cross section to the north and south of the bridge. However, given the limited space on the bridge installation of sidewalk or shared use path could not be accommodated. So today traversing the bridge by foot and bicycle is not encouraged as it is considered unsafe. At the February 2, 2021 Board of Supervisors Business meeting, the Board approved the budget adjustment into the sidewalk and trail wayfinding study, giving DTCI formal direction to complete the program development initiative. At this point, I'm going to pass it on to Ms. Gosh. Okay. So to set the stage for what we're talking about today, wayfinding itself is a term used to describe the tools people use to identify where they are in their environments and how to get to where they want to go. In the past, wayfinding consisted mostly of visual landmarks, a big rock, a tree, and an intersection. And root markings. Okay. Currently, modern forms of Wafinding consist mainly of signs and digital platforms. Some initial research and benchmarking discussions that we held with six municipal agencies throughout the United States indicated that modern forms of W-finding signs are destination-based, as opposed to being based on numbered routes. During today's discussion, we'll interchangeably refer to bicycle and pedestrian way-finding and active transportation way-finding, and that's true also in the item. This way-finding is geared towards users of sidewalks, shared-use paths paths and bicycle lanes. These signs are not intended to guide vehicular traffic, to destinations, nor is it intended to replace the wayfinding effort that the county undertook a couple of years ago that resulted in the welcome two signs and other signs for her vehicular traffic. Okay. Bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding has numerous benefits for both residents and visitors. It improves safety by reducing confusion and encouraging people to follow safe and comfortable routes. So for example, wayfinding can be used to direct people to cross at a signalized intersection as opposed to crossing mid- block further along the corridor. And the way finding, bicycle and pedestrian, way finding, in particular promotes active transportation, and then it brings awareness of destinations that can be safely and comfortably accessed by foot or by wheel. So you're awareness of being able to walk to the local library might be heightened by having way finding in your neighborhood. Okay, we started with developing the proposed prioritization process and proposed wayfinding sign family that Mr. Keeley will review in a moment. West Outreach effort. Between summer of 2021 and winter of 2022, the project held four focus group meetings, one of which was in person. To prepare for these focus group meetings, DTCI staff hosted and or attended several virtual meetings with members of organizations who may have been interested in attending and participating in the focus groups. This effort ensured that participants were well prepared for the focus group discussions and ultimately representatives of over 20 organizations and advocacy groups attended the focus group meetings and we had reached out to an additional 21 organizations to participate as well. These participants spanned a variety of ages, languages, ethnic backgrounds and abilities. From these focus group meetings, we garnered several insights. The main insights we found were that there was broad support for using the standard green bicycle signs, which are presented on the next slide. And specifically because these signs ensure consistency and simplicity in sign design, with the hope of stretching county dollars for the program. And there was also interested in the signs including distances to destinations. We also learned that focus group members favored safety and comfort in prioritizing wayfinding routes. And we learned that there's a desire to connect both public and private destinations to the WNRD trail and that'll metro, loud in metro rail stations. Okay, at this point point I'd like to turn presentation over to Mr. Keely, our consultant on this project to walk us through the study findings and what is being proposed. Thank you. Thank you, Laura. So in developing the proposed wayinding program and the components there. And we really focused on two key questions, which were, what should the proposed signs look like? And where should they go? So the next few slides will review the wayfinding sign family and the issue of what the sign should look like. So on this slide, we see three signs. We'll have three on the next slide. Altogether, they comprise a way-finding sign family that with each sign intended to serve a specific purpose at a particular point in user's journey. For instance, here we see standard decision sign, which is intended to provide the user with information that they need to make a decision in an upcoming junction, about whether they need to continue straight or turn in order to reach a particular destination. A confirmation sign, meanwhile, would be placed after a junction. And it really provides reassurance to a user that they are on the appropriate path to reach a particular destination. So that's typically placed after a junction or regular intervals along a route to provide that reassurance. As Laura mentioned, we heard pretty clearly from the focus group members that they were interested in the standard green signs and the interest of simplicity and cost effectiveness. So the bulk of the system would be comprised of the standard green signs that you see here. That said, the system might also feature some custom elements that would be deployed on is a larger element. It contains more information than fits on a typical, wayfinding information to help direct folks to those destinations to see pedestrian traffic and as such they're designed more in line with pedestrian needs I will note that an additional design process would be required to revise and refine the concepts considering that input we received from the focus group members, and this idea of low-stress routes. Some examples of low stress routes include, So this deliberate approach to selecting wayfinding locations, parking, biking, rolling. We then layer in the low stress facilities on top of that, and that allows us to identify the viable routes to reach those priority destinations. Here you see in the schematic, you see the core way finding routes and dark blue really form the spine of the system and would be expected to carry the largest number of users over the longest distances. The supporting wayfinding routes in light blue provide the connection from those core routes to the priority destination themselves. And then there may also be pedestrian zones where we would see particularly high volumes of pedestrian activity and we might have pedestrian specific wayfinding routes to supplement the rest of the network. So rather than rolling out bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding on a county-wide basis, DTCI is proposing to implement wayfinding on a more limited basis using two pilot routes. These pilot routes provide an opportunity to demonstrate the utility and the benefits of waifining with targeted investments in relatively high priority locations in the county. These locations just want to emphasize that these locations would feature continuous low-stress facilities with no gaps in the routes and therefore it could be implemented in the short term. This first route connects two of the highest priority destinations in the county that would be the Ashburn Metro station and the WNOD trail and this pilot pilot really builds on the momentum around the opening of the Silver Line stations in Lland County. It also leverages substantial investments that are being made in enhancing the Active Transportation Network in this part of the county through V. Odds Lland County Metro Rail, Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project. That project is filling gaps in the Active Transportation Network and will, as a result, really enhance connectivity in this part of the county. Wayfinding would not be implemented until those gaps are filled and these projects are complete. We could expect a variety of users to benefit from this way finding a route in particular commuters, recreational users, families and young children looking to reach schools or other activity centers in the area. This pilot route is four miles in length with an estimated 54 signs at a cost of $270,000. The second pilot route is in the western part of the county with a decidedly different character than the first pilot route. This is actually broken across multiple slides given its length. And this route follows the western loud and bike route that connects a series of towns and villages in the western part of the county including Perseville, Round Hill, Hillsboro, Levittsville, and Waterford. And this route is actually associated with the genesis of this project as Ms. Thring mentioned in that it aligns with the direction to DTCI from the T-Lock to verify the viability of wayfinding on the western loud and bike route. This route likely would serve a large proportion. I'm going to verify and this would be said out. Oh, short, the viability of way finding on the western loud and by group, sorry, I'm leaning back a little too much. This likely would serve a large proportion of recreational users, as well as bike tourism users as it would connect not only to the villages and towns in this part of the county but also to the many wineries, breweries and distilleries in the area. This pilot route would encompass a variety of low stress facilities including portions of the WNOD trail and the Franklin Park trail as well as on-road segments on low-volume rural roads. The route is approximately 43 and a half miles in length with an estimated 205 signs and a cost of $990,000. And then I just wanted to bring things back to revisit the wayfinding benefits that Ms. Gosh had mentioned previously. And this is really the benefits of wayfinding broadly and also of a formal countywide program. First and foremost, it helps or would help orient people, or help people orient themselves within the broader act of transportation network. And this really is a robust network and it's growing in Lowne County. And as the network continues to grow and gaps are filled in in the network, it will help direct people to those comfortable direct routes to key destinations in the county. We're finding also aligns with the county's vision to provide safe and efficient travel to and from home, work, school, shopping, and other civic destinations like parks, libraries, and community centers. It also supports economic vitality and viability in the county by promoting retail centers, farms, vineyards, breweries, distilleries, and other commercial locations. And then finally, it compliments the county's substantial investments in the sidewalk and trail program. And in doing so, it really signals and celebrates the county's clear commitment to providing a first class active transportation network. With that, I'll turn it back to Ms. Gosh. So given the numerous benefits of bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding, staff recommends that T-Lock endorse the prioritization methodologies presented in the item and discussed here today and recommend and the recommended wayfinding apologies, so that signed family. And then also endorsed the two pilot routes. Staff would also like to acknowledge that upon finalization of the scope of the project by T-Lec, the scope of work will proceed to the Finance Committee for consideration for funding. Current recommendations of the scope of the project include applying the proposed methodologies and developing the customized sign design, which is estimated to cost $470,000 and implementing the two pilot routes which combined is estimated to cost $1.2 million and those costs are outlined in table one on page 14 of the item. And the total cost for advancing the program is 1.73 million. And that is the end of our presentation. Thank you. Thank you very much. I was going to caution against putting North, South, East or West on any of these signs, because that means nothing to Chair Randall. But then I thought, she's never going to be on a bike and see these signs anyway. So it's not a big deal. I have a question on the W0D to Ashburn station route. You pick Smith switch road rather than Ashburn village Boulevard. I'd be curious as to what the factors were that determined that. So we're aware of the V.Metro-Rail bike head project which will complete segments on Smith switch road that will bring people up to the WNOD. So that was anticipated to be completed faster and then implemented. Was there any consideration? And I was pretty sure I knew the answer because I've ridden aspirin bill as bulldoard down to the metro station and they alternate between sidewalks and shared these paths on alternate sides of the road and it's really tough riding a bike on that. But that leads me in my next question because I used to live in Waterford and I drove loyalty road There's no implication and I know we talked about safe and efficient travel But there's no implication here from the wayfinding program that there are dedicated bike lands lanes on these routes Correct because you get out west and it's too lame road no shoulder and you're in the lane So we took the facilities that were identified in the 2019 Canoea Transportation Plan and used those as the basis for the network that was, that we tested them prioritization methodologies against and also for developing the pilot routes. And so in the west, it's primarily shared lanes with the exception of the new shared use paths that are going to go into Franklin Park and along for the Ashburn Metro to WNOT, it's shared use path with the exception of a short segment along Ashburn Metro Drive. Mr. Rosan, do you have something you want to say? No, I'm just going to reinforce what Ms. Ghost just said about the CTP. It's essentially shared the road essentially along several of the collectors in the rural area. There are some of the primary roads that have higher traffic, have regional trails on them, but that's not where this route is. Is there any anticipated project that would add sharrows to these routes if we're going to share lanes to have sharrows you know what I mean by sharrows right yes is there any implication that I mean should we be thinking along lines when the way finder routes are established that we may be fun that sharrows on those routes so implementation of sharrows along routes have to follow V dot guidelines. And I would have to review those guidelines in order to determine where they could be placed. It's just piling this guy. Not ubiquitous. Okay. I just dove right in there. Requestions have policies. Any other questions? I've got nothing. I have a question. Light, sir. Thank you. So the one in the west, we're talking about some gravel roads too. Because it would be safer I would think. There are primarily paved roads. There is one small segment of gravel road going down to stump down. Okay. Okay. And I love this program. By the way, I did get a question from a resident. And I think Chair Randall might appreciate this. E-bikes, e-bikes, you could do that. You could do an e-bike. Um, so the question is, the question is, there's a trend out there, and you know, there's a growing concern related to the hazard of speed, weight, and use of these e-bikes and sometimes they're not conducive to trail ride to trail users and so that was kind of the question does this take into account the popularity of e-bikes? I like e-bikes. What do you know? No, I'm just asking. Yeah. I'm just asking. They have to answer my question. I'm sorry. Not specifically. Okay. The shared use path, the definition in the CDP, indicates that the design speed for those paths is 18 miles an hour. That's the speed that we expect bicyclist to go. E-bikes tend to go a little bit faster than that and would need to accommodate speed reductions for turns in the path for approaching intersections, et cetera. The way finding program itself doesn't provide guidance about how fast people should be traveling along the paths that they have identified. We do make an effort to ensure that those are low stress routes. The stakeholders that were part of the conversation specifically called out the challenge that they sometimes have with people traveling at speed past elderly residents, past families with small children, dog walkers, etc. And sometimes there's maybe not enough space on a path or there's conflicts. And so the identification of low stress facilities attempts to accommodate that to some extent. And I would just add to that that I think e-bikes are an emerging technology and something that it's been five years since we've looked at the CTP. So I think it's something that is certainly appropriate for the review and just looking at that in the context of our policy documents going forward. Yeah, maybe when we review the countywide transportation line, maybe we include ebikes. That's a great idea, Lou. Thank you. Yeah. Suarez-Glas. Thank you, Chair Turner. And thank you for the presentation. I have a question. So I'm thinking about the eastern part of Laudgley, you're talking about. Will all of the shared use P.A.Pats be paved? Or would there be gravel or some other surface? When I was thinking about it, you were saying it was low stress pathway, I think. So low stress doesn't just include paved paths, right? It also includes bike lanes. It could include shared roads on low speed low volume roadways. Those may or may not be paved. Generally in the eastern part of Loudon County, they are paved. The CTP indicates that shared use paths should be 10 feet wide, paved paths. And so that's the definition that we were using as part of this program development. Okay. And I also want to say that I didn't realize that my dad was using way finding when we would go to North Carolina and he would say, look for the big oak tree on the top of the hill and make a right and that's where the church is. So that's very interesting. Thank you. I'm sure. I feel like it's defend my honor up here. I work out off of time. I'm just not going outside to do it. That's the only difference. The every day I'm in the lobby. It's actually happening. A lady comes in and she was asking for, she was asking for where it made sense was located in the, what's the name of that building? Mr. Hempstreet, the Shenandoah building. It was happened to be like three men out in the lobby and they're saying, go here and then you go north and you go here and you go south and she just looked completely confused by it. I'm listening to them telling her to go north-south east or west to get to the Chandoah building. And finally I just stepped in and I said, do you know where the Sheets gas station is? And she goes, yeah, I said by the McDonald's. And she goes, yeah, I said, it's the brick building right across the street. And she goes, oh, OK. And then she left. And she went, so I personally like the old way by the men that's really well, but I think this is a fantastic item that you guys have done clearly a lot of work on that will benefit quite a few people, even but just not me. But no kidding, thank you for this. I did look at the item and so much for it went to the item, so thank you all for doing it. Any other questions? I move the Transportation Langies Committee recommend that the Board of Supervisors endorse the proposed countywide bicycle and pedestrian wavefinding program, prioritization methodologies, recommended wavefinding sign typologies, and proposed pilot bicycle wavefinding roots as described in the September 18th, 2024 transportation and land use committee action item Seconded by supervisor glass all those in favor say aye aye any opposed that motion will pass 401 Thank you all very much great work. We really appreciate it and I'm really excited about this program. That concludes that item and can we have the exp of comments as the team sets up here. In the item and in the discussion, we will refer by name to the Lanning Boulevard application. And there are a number of items and aspects of that application that we're going to talk about which will sound critical. They're not intended as any kind of a personal slight, nor they intended to be, to single out Atlantic Boulevard, but specifically in any way to shine light specifically on them. We have a sample size of exactly one, Atlantic Boulevard. And so if we're going to talk candidly about pros and the cons of what our experience has been thus far. We kind of have to do that by name and it's not intended at all to be any kind of a slight against Atlantic Boulevard. The application went from initial submission to approval in six months through a hard work and dedication of the applicant and the county staff and we really appreciate that. So please take that in mind as we go through these discussions. Good evening. Welcome. Good evening. Thank you. Jackie March with the Department of Planning and Zoning with me. I have our director, Dan Galindo and I also have support from the Department of Housing so I would like to thank them. Brian Regan and his team are always very helpful with us when we have these items. So I want to give them a special shout out for tonight with their help with this. The board directed staff to prepare this policy framework, if you will, in April. So we are here tonight to discuss some of staff's ideas for how to expedite affordable housing applications. And what I don't have a presentation but I can get right into it. The item talks about criteria to qualify for expediting an affordable housing application. And what I want to start with is why the department is requested to expedite these applications is because applicants are seeking to meet deadlines for funding to fund their their developments Those deadlines can be county deadlines for the gap financing that the county has with our affordable housing loan program and Also state deadlines. So we have county deadlines that applicants must meet and then state deadlines and those state deadlines are dependent upon the types of financing that the applicants are seeking, whether they are for the 4% or the 9% or the hybrid. So that is why we are here tonight to talk about why we are expediting these applications and again it's because an applicant would that I had to do with the application. I would like to meet a certain deadline. We would propose that the criteria to qualify is that the applicant must propose 100% affordable units. What that means is the units should be made available to household incomes that are below the Washington area median income. The county's housing loan program is for households that earn below 60%. And so we think that these types of applications can propose a mix of what types of households would be available to qualify for these units. So it wouldn't have to be strictly 100% of these units would be dedicated to between 0 and 30, for example. We've had applications where applicants are proposing like a certain percentage of units will go between 0 and 30, another certain percentage will go up to 60 or up to 80 or 30 and 70. it can be a combination of any of those. So we would encourage that this type of process be available for again 100% affordable housing applications only. We would not encourage this process for larger applications that contemplate a component of the larger application would be a land bay that had an affordable housing building. So we're really just hoping that this process could be geared towards it's a stand-alone building proposing 100% affordable units. is when an applicant approaches staff to target a deadline that they are hoping to meet, I feel like we should back the timeline out from there. So for example, an applicant wants to apply for funding and the deadline is in July. We would expect the board to approve that application in June. So maybe even backing it out from June. So the applicant has enough time to complete their application that they have to turn into the state. And so we would back it out from that date. So if we were expecting final action from the board in June, we would want to schedule the planning commission meeting maybe three months before that So that that was that was what we were thinking as far as as timelines How do we ensure that the applicants are providing affordable housing that is That's a result of what they have in their proper statement. So what we would be looking for in their proper statement is the applicant will provide all of these units as affordable. And again, they can be a mix of ranges that the units would qualify for as far as AMI. We do have applicants in their proper statements that say things like the applicant may apply for funding. The applicant may develop these as affordable housing. And I know that it's not intuitive, but that word may implies that they might do this. They may do this. We're looking for assurances in the proper statement that say things like this, the property will will be developed as affordable housing. If that applicant wouldn't receive approval for their their tax credit application then unfortunately they would have to come back and and propose something new or they could apply for the funding the next year. So that is, that was what we are thinking as far as our criteria to qualify. As a part of this process, we would be looking at shortened reduced review timelines and maybe even for going a review if we don't have any outstanding issues. Other incentives that we can provide are double advertising and application. If an application doesn't have any outstanding issues, staff could support taking it to the very next board meeting after the Planning Commission recommendation. There are some things that we do want to caution. While we can impose our own short and timelines for review, we don't actually have control over outside agencies such as V. loud and water typically doesn't hold up rezoning applications, but we can control what we can do in-house. We can't control if the planning commission would send an item to a work session. We have seen that happen with affordable housing applications. Something that I do think is very critical to this process is open communication with the applicants. We are looking for clean applications, consistency amongst the application materials. We can meet with applicants once a week. We can meet with them as many times as we have to. Mr. Turner brought up the Atlantic Boulevard application that was processed in six months. That was very challenging for staff. We had staff working on the weekends. We had staff reacting to a number of last minute changes from the applicants. That was an effort. That was a very strong effort and it wasn't just put forward by DPC. It was for every person in the county that reviewed the application, the county attorney's office, DTCI, all of our referral agencies. Something we need to keep in mind is when an applicant makes a change to their proffers or their concept development plan, it does have to be sent out for another review based on the types of changes that they're making. Some of the more common last minute changes we see from applicants, a lot of them have to do with transportation proffers. So we have to send the proffers statement to DTCI, get their feedback and consultation with the county attorney's office. So there are a number of factors that go into expediting an affordable housing application, but we do have guidance in our 2019 general plan, the unmet housing needs strategic plan, and county staff is, we are proud to be a part of an effort like this. We are proud to be a part of the endeavor to bring more affordable housing to Loud and County. We're proud and happy and can expedite these applications, but it requires cooperation. We would be looking for the development community to approach us a lot earlier than they do. Sometimes I read about these applications in the newspaper, and I think I'm glad that you're looking for an expedited process. Why don't you talk to us about that first? And we're always happy to sit down with applicants and talk to them about their goals and what we're all looking for. So I believe that are all the points I needed to make. That was really good. Have any answer any questions? Thank you very much, Ms. Marsha. I appreciate it. Questions? Chair Rindle. That was excellent. Excellent. He said, excellent delivered and I could completely agree and thank you all so much. I have a couple of questions. Some of the applicants, you see the same player some time over and over and some of them do a really good job and some of them not as much. For the players that them do a really good job. And some of them not as much. For the players that are doing a really good job, and I don't know how to ask us any other way, is it any way to help others be educated on what they need to do? Because I mean, everyone has the opportunity to do the same things, but not everyone does. I mean, we can point to the ones that do it well. And it was seeing that the others that watch it would look at that and go, OK, that's how it's done. So do you think that the ones that maybe are not doing it as well just don't know or don't have the education? They're not, I mean, what's going on? Because the effort, the goal is to get as many of them there as possible. So do you have any ideas on maybe why the ones that are not there are just not hitting that mark yet? You don't have to. OK. What I will offer is that we are happy to sit down and talk to our applicants. You absolutely are. As much as often as they want. And I do think educating applicant representatives is an important part of the process. Maybe this is a discussion that the people who sit up on this day, it needs to have with MBAIA to literally have a session in one of their meetings and say anyone who wants to come and get this education because there are members of NBIA who do it very well. And then there are others who don't as much. So maybe it's kind of up to some degree of the development community to educate one another. And that would do this. And idea is popping into my head. Is it good? I think I learned this while I was reviewing the counties program. As I believe, we issue something once a year to notify developers. Am I saying this right? I think that we have the Department of Housing has we either hold a session to talk to developers about how to apply for our program perhaps we could partner up in that way to talk about if you are seeking to apply for this program. The first step is receiving legislative approval. Yeah. Yeah. But yeah, I'm just I'm just thinking there's got to be a way to do that. And before, Brian, before you answer, my only second question is, what is the rationale for art? Because I think it feels to me like our dates are far apart. The county states for the, for versus the state states are pretty far apart. What is our rationale for those dates being so far apart? I will defer to Brian. Okay. Hi, Brian. Good evening. So as to your question, we do have a how to apply session for the multifamily home loan program every August to lay out what the specific requirements are, what the deadlines are, what we were looking for in an application. The rationale for the spread out deadlines is we try to more or less align them with Virginia housing light tech program. So light tech is part of- But is that my tech do in March for the state? For the 9% yes, it is March one time of every year. For the 4% there are three, well now there are three. There had been two deadlines, January one and I believe it's July one. And what are the, but what are deadlines November right? October and there is also January and June, two off cycles. But the, typically with that 9% March, most developers try to make that October deadline. So they try to make it in October and then the state stat line is March. Correct. And you don't believe that's a pretty big span of time between those two dates. By the time all of the review and the application prep more for the live text side, we haven't heard any arguments from the developer side. Okay, all right, all right. But we do think that perhaps some kind of, I don't know, combined training program could be helpful. I don't see why not. Okay, all right. Thank you. If I could add one thing to that. That's part of the reason that we require the pre-review meeting for legislative applications. I know a lot of our frequent fires don't like to attend those and to your point some of them may not need it. But that's a meeting that allows us to bring in staff from many departments to have these kind of conversations and potentially to help show them some of the good things that they could do to try to speed their things along. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Survivor. Last. Thank you, Chair. Turner. Do we first thank you for the presentation? Do we have an estimate known how many additional DPC staff may be needed? A minimum of one. Okay. Preferably two. Okay. And do we know if we need additional staff any other referral department? I'm sure that all referral agents, like of course we want more staffing, but I do think that could have the potential because something, we're asking all of these other referral agencies to prioritize these items as well. So it's saying to them, whatever you were working on, you need to put that aside so you can help us meet these deadlines. Thank you. Part of the issue with this is going to be unique compared to most other conversations we have about our development process is that in order to facilitate having the capacity to do these things quicker, that means we need to maintain a vacant capacity that we're not otherwise using. Because if we have staff in the DPC or other departments that is already at 100% of their making capacity that we're not otherwise using. is fully maximized so that there's the capacity there when one or more of these comes in to be able to accommodate that. Thank you. Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Chair Turner. So it sounds like it could be really stressful to process these applications. I'm just hearing from you guys. Will you have a way where you know you can just say it's no longer expedited the application you've missed a bunch of deadlines you've made last minute changes we can't do it so I mean I'm wondering if that could be something that we could put in place absolutely just to help because I think you guys aren't superman and if they're coming up with so many changes it really isn't fair. I think what we would like to do is come up with a very defined yet flexible, I know that that's kind of an oxymoron but schedule at the outset of the conversation. We can certainly be flexible. We have deadlines now that things should be turned in by the close of business on Friday. I've often said to the applicants, if you need the weekend to work on it, as long as I have something in my inbox on Monday, you're good. So it's like we are usually flexible. But yeah, maybe there is some sort of threshold we can look at as if they're weak late or they are adding in un-solicited changes that we didn't ask for. Yeah, I think that there should be a mechanism for which staff could say, okay, how you agree? Because it sounds stressful, in my opinion. It's just hearing from you guys. So what are the fees associated? Did they have the fees waived for this 100%. That isn't something we were proposing. Okay, I'm just curious. This has more to do with how fast we would track the application. But something to keep in mind is when an applicant is proposing this type of development, they're not paying capital facilities fees, they're not paying regional road or transit contributions, that's quite the incentive. But if T. Lucker, the board would like us to do so. I was just curious. And then lastly, it sounds like there might be a standalone separate land bay that's part of a larger application. So I'm wondering would both these applications still be processed and voted on? I think it might be a challenge. They would have to be their own separate standalone application. I actually had a discussion with our proper management team manager today. She expressed concerns about that. She said we don't think these should be one application but processed separately. Yes, she's exactly right. These should just be their own standalone application that is not dependent on what is happening in other land based. Like for instance, if the other ones denied, and that was like the clubhouse, that's too bad. You get your standalone, but the other one maybe didn't get approved, but they're not together. So that needs to be, I think, explained up front, because I think it could be part of a larger application and we're separating out. I think one of the things that would need to be probably codified in the policy we put in place here is that we've had discussions with developers in the past that have wanted to delay their affordable units until later. So it is two separate applications. The first one is give me everything else other than the affordable housing and trust is that we'll come in after the fact and we've always said no to that. So presumably I would think that the board would not really want us to pursue that either. So if we are keeping these separate, we need to make sure that the affordable housing is coming in at the same time if not earlier than the other larger applications so that we have some guarantee of what's actually been approved from the affordable housing side so that we can give credits to another different or larger application that's related to it. But they need to do all the road improvements and everything separately. So not be dependent on the other. that's related to it. But they need to do all their road improvements and everything separately. So not be dependent on the other. So that's going to be a challenge, but I'm just to run that out there. Yeah. Yes. Okay, thank you. I'm only got a couple of things. The smarts you mentioned that it's, and we talked about it a little bit, we want 100% of the building to be affordable. Correct. But it's not just a building as one of the permutations. It could also be, the land bay is 100% affordable. I mean, is the criteria geographic or is the criteria, and suppose you had 25 light tick single family dwellings mixed in with other single family dwellings, but it was a single light to application. Could that process as a separate expedited review? Or more simple cases where you've got land bays c, which has a multifamily attached building, and then five single family attached, eight use. But it's all within land base C. If it's all in the same development. What about land base AMD? Yeah, as long as it's all together. Physically or by financing. It could be one building or it could be a geography. As long as the application contains the entirety of whatever the affordable house and proposal is there's no reason that 60 buildings versus one should make a difference from our stand. Okay. So if the application and i don't know if they can apply this way but if the application is for all the light tech buildings 20 separate dwellings interspersed with a larger development but they're all subject to the light tech buildings, 20 separate dwellings, interspersed with a larger development, but they're all subject to the light tech process. Could you consider that a separate expedited review? I believe so, yes. That's what I'm thinking. It's probably the funding that defines the application now to Supervisor Tukarone's point. What happens if the light tech application goes through and the rest of the development does not pass? The applicant would have to submit a new application? Yeah, it's a valid question. I mean quite often the affordable housing is along the Exterior of a larger location. I understand that we'd have to look at the specifics when they come. Yeah I'm thinking that just might want we, we want to fine tune that criteria so that we take the subjectivity out of that or the guesswork out of that piece. Chair Turner. Yeah, could I offer comments? Sure. I think I, I had heard Ms. Marsh mention in the beginning of her presentation, midway through her presentation that you would want affordable units to be completely disconnected from market rate units. Is that not what you said earlier? So I think your question, how I interpret your question, if you had a row of 10 townhouses and three of those were affordable and seven were market rate. I don't think that you want to mix and match those types of projects. If that's what if I'm in terms of. That's one example. The one I was thinking of was the one we just approved on Ryan Road, which I want to say it was our Cola Village. I can't remember. They had ourquefied single family dwellings interspersed throughout the development. But they were all applying under a single liquefied application. I think that Ms. Martian, Mr. Glimdow can respond to that. But I think that creates challenges, particularly if you have infrastructure that is preferred, that is reliant on the market rate units to find that. Okay, again, I think that comes down to definition and criteria. So, yeah, if we want to say it's got to be in the same building. Okay, that's part of the criteria. It sounds to me to like one of the criteria or one of the lessons for applicants is as little ambiguity as possible in your language will instead of may. To take any doubt out of exactly what the, it's the horse trading over, well I need to see something in writing that's more definite than while we might do that if we like it. Yes. Okay. I would like to also consider some way and you can tell me did everybody in the system know that Atlantic Boulevard was in this new expedited review process? All the planning commission, all the staff. Yes. Everybody knew this one's coming through when it's expedited review. Yes, we have to talk to our referral writers to let them know. We're going to ask you to review this in 10 days as opposed to 15. The Planning Commission was aware and we will have applicants in front of the Planning Commission say like we need to meet this deadline. So, yes, everyone is usually often aware of whether or not an application is affordable if they're seeking to meet a deadline. Okay. I really want to talk about working overtime working on weekends. That's not a solution. That is not an answer. Expedited Review cannot mean staff working overtime. And so, and I take your point that if you're going to work on an expedited review package, some other package is going to get pushed back. Okay, that's more incentive to figure out if you can qualify for the expedited review process. That's one of the downsides. If someone is going to get moved up to the front of the line, somebody else is going to get pushed back in the line. That's just physical reality. But I'm thinking through, can we attach predefined penalties for types of circumstances? So if you have to go in for a third referral, that's a two-week penalty. If you have to go and you could think of these circumstances, but tell the people applying for expedited review in advance, if you do this thing, there is a, this is the time penalty that you will pay within the expedited review process. And so that you establish those penalties, it will give you two things. First of all, it gives you predictability in the application process. So it reduces the amount of time that you're telling people you got to work this weekend. No, you don't because they did this and we told them that's going to cost you another week. So our staff doesn't have to work on weekends because you didn't meet the eligibility criteria that we wanted. You shift to midstream so we're going to work over on weekends to help you out. No, that's one week penalty and we will work for the extra week. So that there's defined penalties when you do that. And then you also establish the second benefit is you establish a threshold. I'm sorry. If you hit more than three delays or three penalty boxes, you're out of the program. So if I may, so just to turn it first of all, anytime we have an expedited process, given the volume of work that we have in the county, I'm not prepared to say that saying no overtime is required is a realistic expectation, right? So, particularly with land use applications, we do have statutory frameworks that we have to work with in. And so that piece of it is just a part of being in a very active place that has a high volume of land use work that's ongoing. So I would be hesitant on the staff side to say that we can commit to that. I will say something a little bit different that I'm not sure Mr. Galindo or Ms. Marsh would say. So I'm going to say it, which is I think what's more important is having an established criteria and establish framework as you just suggested. I don't know that we would do it exactly the way that has been described. However, what I will say is that by far, the pressure that comes is coming from applicants that don't necessarily follow everything that they should be doing as part of the application process to the T, and then they call their favorite elected official, and then the pressure comes. And so I think in order to manage a process such as this, and the reason why we come to the board and see criteria is that once that criteria is adopted that there is a sense of the criteria has been adopted and the staff will implement the criteria the way it's been adopted. That is not what typically occurs. And so I think that's more where pressure and stress comes from as opposed to work volume. Because there are plenty of times where we see this on every public hearing agenda today. And this doesn't even get into the expedited process. But we see this on every public hearing agenda where we have something or somebody that hasn't met a deadline that is established and this is poor criteria deadlines and we're being asked to Then the rules now in some cases it's fine, but not in every case and so I just wanted to put that out there But I think if we're doing it, I agree with Ms. Marsh. We are happy to do it. We are happy to offer an X-Bite process for affordable housing. We believe in the mission. Some over time's always going to be required. And the rules are what matter. But just very briefly, I'm sorry, Ms. March, go ahead. And if I could, sometimes the problem or the issue that we face is an applicant's not meeting deadlines. It's applicants making changes after those deadlines. So we have applicants that will commit to things and emails that they send to the Planning Commission, but staff isn't a part of those conversations They are submitting materials a couple of hours before a planning commission meeting saying that they will commit to xy and z They will submit updated proffers after the board packets are distributed which requires staff to send out supplements So it's and that's a perfect example Because what I think the first round through has said is okay. And then I may be biased here, but staff is going to really look at its processes and streamline those and consolidate our meetings and our referral process. And we're going to do all that. And the applicant is real excited, but is approaching the problem in sort of the same way it always approaches the problem with all the give and take and horse trading all along the way. And I think it's an education process to say that applicant, you can't horse trade like that. And oh, by the way, one of the rules is, if this is the next bidide review, don't be calling your supervisor. If we find out, I mean, you can't say don't do that, but now as a supervisor, if I'm educated, I can say is this an expedite review? It is. I'm sorry. You know what the rules are? You're going to have to work with staff and thank you very much. That's probably part of the sky. I understand that. But, Chair Rennell, you've been waiting patiently. So I think there are some things that are not being set. Maybe we should say, which is if the issue is that things are being changed after they are agreed to, that is an issue of the Planning Commissioners and the Supervisors. It really is because they're not really calling staff to do that. They're calling us to do that. They're calling the planning commissioners and supervisors. That's an issue of us turning them back around the staff or saying what's going on and not trying to have those last minute kind of, can we get five more feet of sight walked in whatever. I mean, at some point, we have to take our hands off and let it fall or rise as it is. I, going back to the previous conversation, don't want to see light tech all in one building. That was the whole point I just made. I want to see that dispersed and how it could be. Maybe those applications can't be expedited. Maybe everything can't be expedited. Maybe everything can't be expedited. But for that, that can be expedited, it really is a discussion between three entities between the elected officials and planning commission the development community and staff. But at some place in that process, staff that we have to go, okay, we're done now, and not allow the day before that it comes to the day as conversations to happen. Otherwise, they're never going to get through the system. And I'll go back to something Ms. Glass asked, which was what kind of staff is needed. Because although it is not unusual for anyone to have to work over time here or there when necessary, we don't want to see that happen a lot just because people are going to Mr. Himstree's word, their favorite supervisor. So we can have all kind of discussions, but unless we get right down to it and say that we can be part of the problem too, including the planning commission, we're not going to get this fixed. So thank you. And by share. Yeah, thank you, Chair Turner. So I do want to just make a quick point when you're looking at establishing criteria and a framework. Atlantic Boulevard, they did their infrastructure. So they were, as far as what they needed for their application. I am concerned when you look at clear springs and Cedar Terrace, they had their separate lie tech. If we include them, we need the rest of that infrastructure for that to work for those buildings. So I am concerned about having that as standalone and then Chair Randall just brought up. And I support what she's saying. I liked our coal of farms because it was single family detached cottages spread out in that community, lie tech. So how would we do that? So I think I definitely would encourage strong criteria and a framework and the infrastructure is important. So if it's not standalone, if it can't support the residential, see what I'm saying on its own. So if it's part of a larger community and a larger application, then I don't think that would work. Because then you wouldn't get the infrastructure. And then you'd have the housing and, you know, the affordable housing with no infrastructure. So I just want to put that out there. No point taking. Thank you. And just clarify some things. I absolutely agree. We can't say absolutely no over time. That was not my implication. I think we can really tighten the process and refine the process to where there's an acknowledgement that somebody's going to have to put back in the queue if we're going to get an expedited review through. But I don't want the expedited review definition to mean okay everybody works over time from now on and Yeah, the problem of what do you do with light tech that's interspersed with other Out of a single building that's that's an issue because We don't want to incentivize people to put all their light tech into a single building as chair Randall said because we're trying to get away from that So how do we do that? I don't know what the answer is. I think this is a good first start. I think this is a good effort, and I think you're focused on the right things about what we should be focused on in order to, in order to make this work. And I applaud your efforts. I know this was a tough one and I was very, very happy. I thought you guys did yoga and it really turned out very well. Other questions? I move the Transportation Lane News Committee direct staff to return to Transportation and Lane News Committee with a formal policy to expedite legislative affordable housing applications as discussed at the September 18th, 2024 Transportation and Lane News Committee meeting. Seconded by Vice Chair Tukroni. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passed for zero one. Thank you very much. Our next item is. I did not. Do I need to? Is it legal? Okay, thank you. I'm being schooled up here. Sorry. Next item is federal aviation administration community process to mitigate aircraft noise within the area of the airport impact overlay district staff that you could come forward. That would be great. Before dinner. We're going to dinner. Thank you Mr. Chairman, committee members, good evening. For the record I'm Josh Peters joined of course by Daniel Willendo and Dusty Smith. There is no PowerPoint this evening, but I do have prepared comments to try to make sure that I cover all the points that I need to. Thank you. So as you mentioned, Chair Turner, this is an update on staff efforts to open a dialogue with the Federal Aviation Administration regarding community concerns over airport noise in the vicinity of Delus Airport. So the staff message tonight is fairly brief. It provides a status update on what we've been up to since we were last before you in April. And then it deals with two potential action items. So we could be taking votes afterward. So the two action items just looking ahead, the first one is simple, just to establish a regular reporting interval between staff and the committee. And then the second one is to continue discussion of the board's July 2 direction to staff, as directed by the board on July 16. So the board's July 2 direction dealt with eligibility of contractors and subcontractors on the project team, and I'll get into a little bit more detail later on. So first project status. So the item was last before T-Luck in April, and then it was before the board in May. At those meetings, staff presented on an expanded community engagement plan which was endorsed by T-Luck and the board in turn directed staff to proceed with the project. So that happened in April and then in May. So accordingly staff worked with lead contractor by an air and the subcontractor, a loft group to draft a change order proposal to implement that expanded project. That proposal remains under review by procurement staff at this moment. It's not yet been finalized. However, staff expects the work agreement will be finalized soon and then the project will proceed when the work agreement is fully processed. The project team is planning a community kickoff meeting with the community to provide an overview of the project which will include a series of work group meetings with communities within Loudon County and then of course the expanded outreach and engagement with jurisdictions around the county. Staff initially targeted September 25 for the kickoff meeting, but we'll need to push that back since the new contract has not yet been finalized. We will communicate with the board about a new date when we have the work agreement in place and we can continue those discussions. So that's coming, I think, very soon. So that's the project status. As for the action items, first one very simple, and it's in your staff report. Staff seeks to reestablish a regular reporting interval with T-LUK. The draft motions include direction for staff to initiate a quarterly reporting interval, or other such interval as this committee might wish to see. So if we were to do quarterly starting now, the next scheduled update would be December 18th at that meeting. Of course, we submit that as just a starting place, happy to do whatever's helpful to the committee. The second action item, the board discussed this project during both the July business meetings. On July 2, the board provided direction to staff that effectively restricted any additional county residents who live in the projects to find study area from participating as paid contractors in the same project. Then on July 16, the board forwarded discussion of that motion to this September-T-Luck meeting. And then the board's discussion on that motion contemplated that a non-disclosure agreement might be sufficient to address concerns about proper dissemination of information. So staff has consulted during that time and between. Staff has consulted with the county attorney's office and we corresponded with the contractor and subcontractor on this idea. Use of a non-disclosure agreement or a similar instrument such as a confidentiality clause within a subcontract agreement would be between the contractor and their subcontractors. So this instrument would be between the contractor and their subcontractors. So this instrument would be between the Viannere and the Eloth group and whoever else might be in that chain of contractors. But the point being it's between the contractor group is not between the county and subcontractors. So the county as I just described would not be a party to that non disclosure agreement. However, this is the part that's responsive to the board's July 16 discussion. The draft change order does include a confidentiality clause, so that would be between us, the county, and Viennere. So the draft change order does include a confidentiality clause that establishes expectations and responsibilities for the treatment of project team correspondence and confidential information unauthorized sharing by either the The contractor or the subcontractor of project information that was deemed Confidential it would be considered a breach of contract by the lead contractor. So the entire relationship is between County and the singular lead contractor. So that is really the update, the motions in your packet. Guide you toward making a giving direction to staff on when we return to you for reporting interval. And the second item deals with discussing this non-disclosure issue and then making recommendations. The board we are anticipating moving from this meeting to the board on October 1st with whatever recommendation the committee makes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Peters. Before we do questions, I want to restate this and make sure I understand it and then hopefully level set for the rest of the board. So what we're doing here is establishing, and I'll make the motion as proposed a quarterly reporting period. I don't see any objection to that, but we're certainly hoping to any ideas. And then establishing rescinding the prior restriction on who a law group can have within their circle of people that they're working with. It's up to a law group. They can have anybody that they want that they choose to have in there. We're asking Vianne to enter into a n-disclosure agreement with their subcontractor. Principal communications would be between, for the, on the project, would be between the subcontractor and the contractor. And then our principal communications would be between the county staff and Vian air. And even though Vian air would have, and aier would have a confidentiality agreement or not disclosure agreement with the law group, the combination of the law group and Viannier would be subject to the confidentiality agreement that they have with the county. Our concern and we would consider any action by a law group or by Viannier to be under the umbrella of the confidential agreement between the county and vine air and vine air would be responsible for upholding the provisions of that confidentiality agreement. If we have an issue it's with vine air. Vine air can sort it out with whoever their subcontractors are. And then we're often running and we're good to go. Do I say that right? Any questions? I think everything you stated is accurate. Okay. Questions? Anybody? Thank you. Thank you, Chair Turner. Thank you for that update. I do support in NDA. That's the most reasonable approach. I'm wondering why our motion says the NDA between the contractor and subcontractor must be deemed appropriate by the county attorney's office when we've made that separation between the contractor and the subcontractor. I think putting that in there, I think the intent, my intent in putting that in there, I think the intent, my intent, and putting that in there is that if the board chooses to move forward in this way so that we're bringing in potentially a chain of subcontractors, we could at least have staff say, can you show us your non-disclosure agreement? Can we look at it? Can the county attorney just look it over? And then if there were concerns, we could report that back. But you do raise a fair point, the agreement is, the county is not a party to it. So I would like to remove that from the motion. If I may. I would recommend you leave it in mostly because we would want to ensure that the language of the NDA with our prime contractor and their subs matches up with the language with our prime. They're because if they don't, then there's a possibility that something could happen that we don't have control over because the language isn't explicitly tied together. So as Chair Turner had described it, which Mr. Peters agreed to with the language is all set and designed to work together. And so in order to have all of the agreements work together, we need to make sure that the language is consistent. Chair, is that language standard? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm not sure. Go ahead. Not yet. So I just think it kind of is contradictory to what's been said that we wouldn't be involved with that contract, that NDA contract between that would be a standard contract that Viannier uses for their subcontractors. So that seems kind of contradictory to what was said. So the enforcement of the contract is with whoever holds the contract. Which is a different issue from what the language of the contract is with whoever holds the contract, right? Which is a different issue from what the language of the agreement says. So what Mr. Peters is articulating and what the motion is stating is that we are not in contract with the subcontractor. We have no enforcement authority over the subcontractor. Our enforcement authority is with the prime. However, if we want to hold the prime accountable and ensure that the prime has the control over the subcontractor that we want them to have control over, the language of that agreement needs to say what we wanted to say. And so that's what the purpose of the motion is. So one issue is about who has, who's in a green, who's in contract with whom? The other one is what does the language of the contract say? So there are two different issues. And it's a standard, right? And this is a standard NDA confidentiality agreement. I'm just wondering, you know. And NDAs are drafted by the attorney who drafts them and the language is only as good as the language in the NDA. I would refrain from saying that there is a standard non-disclosure agreement language that everybody uses. Almost every NDA, most NDAs are similar but I've signed a lot of them and they're the language in them are different and so I think here what we're suggesting is that the county attorney just makes sure that the language for all of these non-discoge agreements match up with each other so that the board has the protection that it believes it has. And just to restate the extreme example would be if an NDA was established between the contractor and the subcontractor that was directly legally contrary to the NDA between the county and the prime right off the bat were set up with legal conflict. So we have to make sure that they align otherwise we can set ourselves up. Okay so I do want to make sure motion to does not preclude Carolyn McCulley from working on the project as an employee of a law for the regional group. For the regional project group. Motion number two, correct. Motion number two would be recommending to the board that that direction was is rescinded. And so the rest of it kind of sets in place the things that would need to be in place. So it says non-disclosure or similar instrument which could look like a clause within a contract somewhere else. Okay, thank you. I just want to dig into this a little bit more in Mr. M Street. Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, kind of dig down a little bit. So Mr. Mst. You said, I think you said, a lot of times contracts don't have the same language, which makes sense. But they do, but it's not, is this language completely unusual to a contract we might have otherwise? So given that there have different languages based on a lot of things, but is this very particular to this motion in that language, very particular to what we're doing here tonight? I'm not sure I understand the question. What I will say is that the nondisclosure language that we have with the prime and the nondisclosure language that we have with the prime and the nondisclosure language that the prime has with their subcontractor needs to match and needs to work together. So an example could be that we define information not to be disclosed as being specific to this project and we may go on to describe what is underneath the non-disclosure agreement was covered by the non-disclosure agreement. So we may say information that is contained in documents. We may define documents as text messages, emails, teams messages, video, right? And we may go on to be very explicit about that. The contract between the prime and the sub may not be as explicit at that. It could potentially say that there's a non-disclosure agreement, and that the non-disclosure agreement covers only documents, but doesn't cover video, or doesn't cover text messages, or something of that nature, or doesn't cover verbal conversations. And so what I'm saying is that we want to make sure that what is covered by the nondisclosure agreement is consistent so that we're holding the- And we do this, and we do this, this is normal. This is standard operating procedure for us. Can my pay the yes? And what would happen if the county attorney deemed something was inappropriate? He would work with the prime contractor to ensure that the language is. He would work with the language. He would adjust the language. Correct. OK. OK. All right. Thank you. Thank you, language. Correct. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other questions? Hearing none, I move that the Transportation and Land Use Committee direct staff to assume a quarterly reporting interval to the Transportation and Land Use Committee with the next schedule update to occur at the December 18th, 2024, Transportation and Land Use Committee meeting. And I further move that the Transportation and Land Use Committee recommend the board rescind the July 2nd, 2024 direction to staff regarding contractor eligibility, subject to execution of a non-disclosure agreement, or similar instrument deemed appropriate by the county attorney's office between the contractor and the subcontractor. Seconded by Vice Chair to Crony. Discussion on the motion. Vice Chair to go. Yeah, I just wanted to level set everything. So, Viannear hired a loft as a subcontractor because of their local presence in the project area and technical aviation knowledge to lead the regional project team. And before the county engaged consultants, community members came to the board, community members that were experiencing airport noise and wanted to address the issue came to supervisors and said, you know, let us work with you and they spent significant time to help us understand the complexity of the problem and they offered help to find solutions to make things better for all communities. And I believe we should be encouraging community involvement and I want to thank Carol McCulley for being engaged and really helping us get this far in the FAA community process and I also want to thank Tom Lentler for his professional expertise. So I'm glad that we're moving forward. I look forward to getting that NDA and confidentiality agreement signed and I look forward to the kickoff meeting which it sounds like it'll be in October correct. Sounds like or maybe a little that NDA and confidentiality agreement signed. And I look forward to the kickoff meeting, which it sounds like it'll be in October, correct? Sounds like, or maybe a little later. And then getting the residents involved who are impacted all the residents, all the communities in the design group. So thank you so much. Any other discussion? I would just associate myself with Mr. Crowley's comments. As would I. And it's unusual, I will say this. I think this is unusual to have community participants with this level of expertise involved in this process and it's very, very helpful and gives us a dimension and a depth and an understanding of the context I think that's unusual. I think we're very fortunate to have Mr. Lenten and Ms. McCulley this engage in the process. I appreciate that. Staff, I know this is a long hard slog when the A new A IOD got approved two or three years ago. I kind of seen this movie before around the country. I knew what we were in for, have faith, hunker down, we will get through this process soon. I hope. Is that passed up or down? Yeah. So, any other discussion on the item? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any post? That motion will pass five zero. Thank you all very much for your work. And we're going to roll right into the PDR program and you know we're not going to take break. We're going to roll right through. I think this will be in the last words. Thank you. Thank you for that. That is great. You have the PDF believers up here. I'm just going to ask. You have the PDF believers up here. The workers are always the ones that you have to help me. Well, let me. Yeah, that's right. I got a way to see comes out. I was going to make some opening comments. But I'll say that. Thank sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. point this evening. The purpose of this item is to present the purchase of development rights from now on PDR program outlined to the T-Lock as directed by the board at the April 16, 2024 board business meeting during the DPC quarterly work plan update. The staff presentation is essentially a reproduction of information presented at the September 12, 2023 Finance and Government Operations and Economic Committee meeting. However, to date, the documents presented this evening have not received board review and staff is available to discuss the work performed on the three PDR program documents which include attachment one which is the pdr program outline which includes a property ranking system or a point scoring system to review applications attachment to a draft codified ordinance drafted by county attorney's office in 2022 attachment three the draft deed of open space easement drafted by the county attorney's office in 2022. There is an additional update you may notice and that is that we have with OMB's input incorporated the 2023 capital intensity factor numbers. In light of tonight's presentation being a repeat from the September 12th, 2023 FGOEDC meeting, staff is happy to offer to skip the PowerPoint presentation or to deliver it at your discretion. Thank you, Ms. Moore. Okay, let me frame this discussion just a little bit. What we have in front of us is the proposed resumption of a PDR program that was created and worked from 2001 to 2004. It is a grand purchase of development rights program as originally envisioned by the concept. Its focus was on purchases of large pieces of land in western Loudon County, the purchase and extinguishment of their development rights, using taxpayer dollars to preserve western lands. It is a very large program that operated for those four years, was repealed by the 2004 board I believe in the spring of 2004. It went to finance, then it went to the board. It was basically pushed off to the very bottom of the priorities for the Department of Planning and Zoning, correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. And rather than kill the program outright, the board said, send it, the T-LUQ committee said, we haven't even seen this program as presented to finance. Please send it to T-Luck so we can look at it. My chief of staff called up the discussion that we had at the board meeting on the motion and I was irritated that essentially the direction the board was giving T-Luck was, okay, you can look at it, but you can't touch it. And I said, no, no, that's not how this works. If it comes to T-Luck, T-Luck is empowered and chartered to do what it feels is appropriate with this large plan. The presentation I'm assuming is the large plan that was presented to finance. And it is the attempt that has been going on for several years now to resurrect this large purchase of development rights program. Okay, that brings us to up until about a week ago. I received a presentation by the Peabond Environmental Council on a notion of a much, much, much scaled down pilot project for one or maybe two properties in eastern London County at a much, much smaller and manageable scale to demonstrate viability of a modified PDR program, which uses the same basic functions, but does it at a much smaller scale and a much more focused way as to demonstrate that this is a very valuable tool to have in the county's toolbox. And so it's a fairly radically different concept. It will probably rely on a lot of the administrative details that have already been laid out in the larger program, that the notion of scoring pieces of property, for example, that's probably good. But it will use that as a launching point to establish a much more narrowly defined and modest program compared to the larger program. And that's the purpose of the discussion tonight is to basically ask the Transportation Land use committee in its motion to authorize to direct staff, please go back, look at this concept, talk to the subject matter experts, the PMOI and any other subject matter experts or stakeholders in the process that would be involved in this smaller pilot project, get that input and then come back to T-Luck with a notion for the pilot project. In the interim, in order to make that work and develop, we have to be empowered. Right now, the staff has no power to do anything on a separate pilot project. So we have to go to the board and say please put the pilot project somewhere in the Department of Planning Zoning's work plan and then authorize T-Luck and staff to go develop the framework of this pilot project and present it back to T-Luck. So that's what we're doing here tonight. We're not voting on the larger program. We are empowering staff and we're going to the board with asking for permission to advance a much, much smaller pilot project. It is incumbent on me and hopefully on the members of the T-Lock Board to tell the larger board who was already preconditioned to say no if they see another PDR item come back. No, no, this is something completely different. You were looking at a massive SUV and we're bringing you a Volkswagen. It's radically different and it's a whole different concept. Please give us the latitude to flesh out this new pilot project in T-Luck and we will come back to you and then we can decide whether or not we want to continue to have it into the Department of Planning and Zoning. Staff, did I miss say any of that or is there anything you want to add to anything I just said? So I had Mr. Crow with Kip me informed today's motion drafting was kind of ongoing. I will just say for me personally, I'm not anywhere close to fully aware of the scope of the project you're talking about. So it's hard for me to really comment on that. At the moment. Right. And that makes perfect sense. I just had the briefing the other day. And what I thought I knew about the large PDR program, which I think I probably did, when I saw this new concept, now this is much better. This is much more appropriate. It's much more palatable. It's a bite of the apple instead of the entire apple in one swallow. And I don't know any other way to go about introducing this new concept other than to have T-Lock say yes we're willing to take a look at a pilot project but we can't direct staff to work on a pilot project until we go back to the board and get permission from the board to do that. I got it. So this presentation is the pilot presentation? Let's go into the pilot project presentation is the. Let's go into the. Let's just. High the project presentation. No. The presentation. Here's the full program because that's all we were empowered to look at. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I can go straight to a motion. It's a fairly straightforward motion if you want to. It does talk in a motion. Yeah. So. So do we have any, and I'm not looking for parameters because obviously I would prefer to have the bigger program that we've been talking about, but I think because we do have to get something started. And also, I guess we don't really have a con, this would go to the full board to say yes, we authorize. And then, I guess Mr. Galindo couldn't really tell us how long it would take because he doesn't know the size and scope of it. So, yeah, if you could maybe provide a few more details. That would be helpful. Happy to, if you know my middle-aged chair, okay. Okay. So the presentation by PEC says let's come up with a list of properties in eastern lout and western lout and then it illustrates the Clark County and surrounding counties PDR programs and the benefits of them the amount of funding that comes in from the various resources and it shows examples of what the how the property is used once it's developed. So one of the example properties that we could use for example is a six X or piece of land which is I think part of the Hennessy property. It's not being developed. It's just sitting there. Six X or land attached to the southern piece of the Hennessy property. And what we would do is we would work with PEC has a program and there's a number of other experts that would work with us to keep loading on staff absolutely minimal that had done PDRs before. And they would put together a PDR package for the county to purchase a development rights on the 6-8-can-piece of land on Goose Creek. And then we would go through that process. Everybody would learn. We would come back and say, okay, this is how the pilot project worked. We think we can protect the development rights on this six acre piece of land. It gives us access to Goose Creek. We're going to put a boat landing in there. That's all within the PDR process. Now, what we'd like to do is come back with a list of pilot project potential properties all around the county and prioritize some of those properties and launch the program to focus on those properties and priority. And I guess if I don't, I may. And so my understanding is once we kind of get to that, we would prioritize what properties are first, second, third, fourth, and that would come back to T-Lug assuming we had the full authorization of the board to kind of continue to pursue that. Correct. And then presumably, my bet is I would be shocked if the pilot project didn't include a western property and an eastern property. Sure. And we would look at it and then we would make a recommendation when the staff had built the framework for the pilot project and we actually proceed with that framework then we would go back with the potentially the actual pilot properties that we're looking at then we would go back to the board and say, okay, this is what we think is worth pursuing. Do you agree we'd have a board vote and if the board agrees presumably it would come back to T-Lock and we would flesh out the process? Sure, okay. And see we don't have any sense on how long this is going to take. I think there's a sense of urgency but I understand this approach. I really do understand this approach. I don't know. Staff, any suggestions on how long? I think there's a question right without fully understanding the scope of what you're proposing and it's hard for me to say. I'll say looking at the draft work plan that was submitted for the October 1st meeting beginning of the week. We currently have 21 projects that are on there. I love them and they're ongoing. So we don't have a lot of capacity to take on additional large things. I like what you're saying about us not having to do a lot of extra work, but I don't know the scope of what we're talking about. Well, and that's an excellent point and we have to be sensitive to that, especially since we've got a board that's already cocked and loaded to say no to the new PDR program. So to the extent that we can rely on non-staff expertise to steward the program and based on the conversation I had the other day, they felt that the current staff that we have to administer the current PDR process would be fine and that the way could supplement that with outside help to run through this pilot project and see what was required. So not to be contrary to me, we don't really have staff set up to run. Okay. Our project? I mean we have obviously not as good people they can help out. And I think looking at the draft motion to be provided to staff, I guess part of my question would be for the first part about working with the Piedmont Mayor of Manel Council and others, what is your perception of that? Are we talking about they are going to give us the same presentation that they gave you? And kind of my expectation would be PEC would provide all of the supervisors with their presentation and staff. So you have an understanding of what the concept is. And then at that point that gives gives you, I think, a broad framework. And believe me, I'm not trying to staff an overwork staff, or task an overwork staff with yet another project. But I really believe there's a way forward here that has minimal impact on staff, even without the FTEs to administer the current PDR program. The way it was described to me, I really think we can do this with outside experts that you're aware of and watch how this process goes on. Before we ever have to commit staff and resources, we're going to have to get approval from the board. All I'm trying to do is flesh out a concept and say, this is a really valuable tool. We don't need the Cadillac. We can do with the Volkswagen. It's really valuable. Here's the concept what it looks like. We'd like your permission to go forward and develop the pilot project. We will come back to the board and say, this is the pilot project. What do you think, yes or no? If it gets voted down, it gets voted down. But if it gets voted up, then all of your concern about staff and staffing and FT's, that would all be taken into account. So I have two thoughts. One, I think if the committee wants to move forward the motion that's been drafted at a minimum, we need to meet with PEC as presented to you. Don't have a better understanding of what they're proposing prior to the board taking action. Unless I'm surprised by the absolutely minimal amount of staff work that they will need in order to make it effective, my concern is going to be that we only need to move something in the work plan that's currently operational or the board, the committee board, they understand that we probably can't start this for nine months at a minimum. With what's in the work plan, the first thing that's proposed to come off is six months from now. And that staff members essentially teed up for something else that we're already preparing to bring to the board as another future project. And we have a number of things lined up like that. A number of things aren't even on the work plan I'm presenting on October 1st. So it's not something that we'll be able to get to quickly if it's truly at staff's ability to get to it when it can get to it without further direction. I guess my only thought is if that's, would this be something that we could have a that you could have a meeting with the PC and come back to us at the next meeting between and to get some sort of grasp on it To give us a little better understanding or Because if we're gonna I mean my only thought while you're discussing if we're gonna take this long We may just try to I mean mean, I understand it failed at the full board level. So I think the concept here is, well, let's try it out at a much smaller level and see how it works. It's like a proof of concept. But. So, we would be happy to meet with them in the interim. The issue we're discussing is that our typical expectations for providing an item and preparing it in the review process is time consuming. So we would need to double check deadlines and also just kind of set an expectation of what we're bringing back. If we're essentially recycling what's in front of you and then we can just talk verbally. I don't think it's a lot of extra work, but Mr. Kerbick will explain. If I could just clarify, are we even empowered to ask staff to even do anything with PEC before we get approval from the board? This is what I was hoping to be able to say, and that's the reason for the motion the way it's been crafted. As it stands today, essentially the direction from the board, the full board is that staff exert no additional effort. But a meeting with PEC would be certainly fine. But if you're going to ask them to do any follow-up and come back and engage in a discussion with the committee, that is beyond what the board has directed. So we have to go So just to flesh out how that would happen so staff would meet with PECs so they understand the concept So their situational awareness is raised up to a common level and then they got a comfortable this motion Then would perceive on its own separate from that and we would need board direction To say okay, you can go ahead and explore pilot project That gives us permission to come back and then ask staff to actually begin to flesh out the pilot If I may so I think what would have to happen is yes staff it meet with PEC and Kind of fleshed that out and then and then and then let me know After that if that's if this is something that is reasonable, workable. And if so, it goes on the agenda for the full board to do, to look at, to vote on. Understanding that the voting on this may still mean that it could be months away. But it wouldn't, but it would only be if staff believed this was reasonable and working with a look at that I would put it on the agenda for the full board. It would not come back to this committee before it went to the full board. Because the staff can't do anything further without the full board's approval. And so the next step is back here. The next step is not, I'm sorry, the next step is to full board. The next step would not be coming back here. And if staff came to me and the discussion was, we saw it, it scaled down, but it's not scaled down enough or it's going to take this amount of time. Then I would probably let you know that putting it on the full board agenda is not something that I would do. So I'm not sure where that leaves us. Well, where that leaves us is, yes, we can ask the staff to go meet with the PEC just to find out what health scale down this looks. But that would be the only ask that we would do right now. It's to meet with the PEC because, truthfully, we as a committee cannot task staff to do anything that's not already created. So you have to have this to be scaled down because whatever they're going to do, whatever they're going to show them has to be scaled down from what already exists. The staff cannot go create any new work that doesn't exist because a committee asked them to. They can only do that if the full board asked them to. Okay. I understand what you said, Madam Chair. Everything is accomplished by this motion then in that sequence. The challenge, of course, is convincing the full board to, now the question I had for Mr. Hamster, Mr. Crowbeth, does it have to go on the DPC work plan? Is there another mechanism that we can use to can it go to soil and water for example? Is there some other mechanism we can use other than DPC because that's going to be the tough vote at the board is getting the board to add yet another item to a 21 item list for the DPC. So if the intent is for Loudon County to do this program then it needs to go on the DPC work. Okay. All right. Well, that's a heavy lift but it's a proper way to do it. I don't know any of the, any way else to describe it. Ben Cherry. That is correct and sorry, the only question is right now. If we, I'm not even sure would be an emotion to be honest, that we ask the staff, we make requests of the staff to meet with PEC, it's really all we're doing tonight. That's really all we're doing tonight is making that request of staff to meet with PEC. And then Mr. Turner, staff can come back to you and I as T. Luck Chair, share the board. And then a discussion, and obviously Mr. Himstree's knowledge discussion can be made based on what staff is saying to me to whether or not I placed on the agenda for the full board. But that's kind of, and I gotta say Mr. Gullendo and I have talked enough and we're at a place where if he thinks it's just not a deal that we can do, he'll tell me. And a deal that we can do he'll tell me and I feel confident about that They'll tell me and then it just is thank you very much for having to meet with the P.E.C. And and that's where we stop Okay, that makes sense. Okay, so so I have a question. Yeah, I'm sorry. Oh, you've already had you welcome back. Yeah I know that D P.C DPC is pretty bucked. You have a full plate of items on your agenda. What about B&D? What about could B&D help us with this pilot? I know that that was kind of the second staff member that Mr. Hemstreet had proposed. If it's really scaled down and it's a proof of concept and we're just saying the goose creek in the SPA is where we're looking, this suburban policy area. We don't need an advisory board to do the pilot. You know, all we really need is someone from B&D to do the proof of concept and maybe a grant writer from the finance department because we would want to show that money was not 100% county money, that we were going out and looking at funding from state and federal grants. Is that possible? So the discipline and the knowledge is within the department planning and zoning. So billing development is great. Department have great staff, but this is not their area of expertise. And Mr. Tipture, may I? And even if that were true, the process wouldn't change. Because the staff, no matter which staff it is, DPC, DPC, whoever the staff is, still cannot be tasked to do anything by a committee. So it still wouldn't change the process. I see where I was at last. Thank you, Chair Turner. So I feel like I missed something. So are you saying that staff would talk to PEC first before or are you going to continue with this motion? We'll make the motion separate process. Motion is, the motion is principally determined, is the purpose is to get permission from the board to proceed forward with proof of consent. That's what the motion says. So I move the transportation, I'm not making the motion, I'm just reading it. Recommend the board of supervisors to rec to rec staff to collaborate with PMO and Environment Council and others as defined by the Board to develop a framework for a pilot purchase. Pilot purchase of the right project. In the meantime, while that's taking place, PEC will meet with DPC just so that DPC has an understanding of what the concept is. They're not developing the framework, They're just understanding the concept. The second piece is I move the transportation lands. You can use committee. Recommend the Board of Supervisors. Place the concept, prove a concept on the DPC work plan. That's the tough one. And then the last one is I move the following Board of Supervisors approval that staff returned to the Transportation Langes Committee seeking feedback and comments from the committee matters on the program for staff to incorporate in the development program that task DPC staff assuming the board has said yes you can put it on the schedule go talk to the experts to flesh out the concept. Madam Chair, you're shaking your head. I don't know that any of these motions are appropriate to be quite honest. I think that I don't, first of all, I'm not sure if we need a motion to ask staff could they meet with PEC. But beyond that, even if that was a motion, nothing else would be appropriate until after that meeting happened. Nothing else would be appropriate. I'm not, can you explain why? Because the next the next the next motion is there further move is that it's placed on the project the pilot project is placed in the work plan. We can't say a pilot project it's placed in the work plan until until that meeting happens and then we know what that looks like. And then the following motion is to follow up on the second motion. None of that is appropriate until they have that meeting and discussion with PEC and even And even, you know, if this is a debelpable scale-down project that can happen, and what's needed, what's timeline, and then we will decide where to go next. So, the I Further Moves are not. I want this program. I put this program for in my very first term. But the I Further further moves are inappropriate for a committee to do. Well, all of the three parts of the motion are simply recommending to board of supervisors. They're not directing staff to do anything. So the first one simply says that the TILA committee recommend to the board of supervisors direct staff to collaborate with the Peabond Environmental Council and others as to find to develop a framework for a pilot purchase PDR program. So we're asking, we got to go back to the Board at the October meeting, one of the October meetings and say, we recommend that you direct staff to work with PEC and subject matter experts on developing a PD. The way this, Mr. Chairman, with respect, the way I'm reading this motion is you're asking staff to create. I'm not asking staff, I'm asking the board. You're asking the board to ask, can the mayor ask, could we just say staff do you mind me with PECs? Because you're asking the board to ask, do you're asking the board to go to PEC to create something new? I don't think we can ask staff to work with PEC. We're not empowered to do that. I'm not, and I, well I know that. I've said, I've said that a couple times. Well, but you just finished saying we're asking staff to work with PEC. No, okay. The way that I think you're both saying, I think you're both right. So I think my interpretation of what T. Looks discussing is in order for Mr. Gullendo and his team to understand what the program is, to be able to answer questions for the D. P. ZPC work plan about what the project might entail they need to go talk to PEC. There's no board requirement. I can just authorize them to go talk to the PEC and have that meeting. However, what the first motion is saying is for the board to direct staff to then go and work with PEC and perhaps other stakeholders to actually put the pilot program together. So that's what the first motion is. In order and that's a recommendation from Tealock to the board asking the board to direct us to put the program together which is different from just meeting with them and understanding what PEC's concept is. The second motion would then ask the board to actually place the creation of the program into the work plan because so both of those motions have to be passed by the board. It's just T-lux making that request to the board. And then the third motion returns the item back to T-LUX so that under the board rules, the board is directing staff to work directly with T-LUX to put the program together so it can be, the proposal can be solidified and then brought back to the board for consideration. So that's how I interpret the motion as direction. I may be wrong, but I believe we've just come full circle to what I originally said, which is ask DPC staff to meet with PC so they understand the concept, then make the motion which recommends to the board the sequence of events so we're empowered to then ask staff to develop the framework of the pilot. Correct. Chair Turner? Yes, I'm sorry. So, I would assume if we were to move forward on this motion between now and whatever meeting we set this to whether it was October and November, hopefully the staff would at least be able to have an informal meeting with the PEC, have a little better understanding what their concept was, and so they could answer questions at the full board meeting. That's correct. So I think that's the way I understand it. And that would seem to make a lot of sense. And then they may not have all the answers. Maybe it will get deferred for further answers than they authorize at that point, depending on whatever motion happens. Or they say, OK, we it comes to the full board meeting. But they're going to at least have a better concept of hey, we could put this on the DPC plan and we could maybe get to it in nine months or whatever it may be. Is that I think that's a fairly fair assessment of how this would probably work? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Madam Vice Chair. Wait. I'm sorry. Any other questions? Madam Vice Chair. Yeah. Thank you, Chair Turner. So staff would not work on this at all, right? They're just going to meet with PEC and then for the proof of concept, like the proposal. And then it would we would go to the full board for authorization to put it on the work plan. Is that what it sounds like? Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I'm sure. I am still confused as to why the why. Okay, so say the state staff sits down with PEC and they come back to me and they say, Chair Rando, this is not a scaled down project. This is pretty still fairly wholesome and we can't do that. And we're not going to do this. At that point, I would not put this on the agenda to go to the full board. So my confusion is, first of all, again, I do not believe we need a motion for them to go talk to PC. Let's just start with that again. Secondly, I'm a little confused by that's why the second the ends, I further move, is a little confusing to me because that assumes something that happens that we don't know this is going to happen. Chair Turner. Yeah. Madam Chair, if I could, is your concept then to maybe defer this for a month, have them speak with them come back and they can have a discussion with us to maybe further pass this motion and so we would have a better idea whether it's reasonable to put it on the full board agenda. I would my concept would have a discussion have them come back to Mr. Turner and I and give me and then we would go from there. That's what I'm saying the next two assumes things that we cannot assume yet. But all of that the feedback will get from staff about whether it's a viable concept of now. We'll all happen, we'll have to happen before this motion is made, which means we are deferring this motion to the next T-Luck meeting. We'll hear back from staff of what they think of the proof of concept. So say sure, that's viable. Then we have to make this motion at the next meeting to go forward. After they do that, they say that's They say that's fine, but not tonight. That's right. I mean, we're going to ask them to meet with PEC tonight, and then we will fur this motion till the next T-Lock meeting. That's it. Are we OK with that? I think we are. Staff, are we OK with that? OK. Then we will defer this motion until the next meeting and if you would meet with PEC that's fine And I let me recommend all the T-Lock members please get the PEC briefing as soon as you can because it's very it's very good very informed I think we are done any other questions any items before before the committee Thank you.