Coraggio Consulting
Prince William Board of County Supervisors Meeting, Tuesday, December 17, 2024

Date: Tuesday, December 17, 2024
Place: Prince William County Board of County Supervisors, Virginia
Length: 3h 6m (video)
Official meeting video (Prince William County, Granicus): https://pwcgov.granicus.com/player/clip/3589
Official Board of County Supervisors page (Prince William County): https://www.pwcva.gov/department/board-county-supervisors

Machine transcript (speech-to-text) produced by Coraggio Consulting. Not an official county record. Names and numbers may be misspelled; check the video at the timestamp before quoting.
Speech-to-text: whisper.cpp, model large-v3-turbo. Produced 2026-10-31. Timestamps are [HH:MM:SS] into the meeting video.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[00:39:46] everyone good afternoon it is two o'clock on tuesday december 17th we are going to go ahead and get started with a moment of silence please stand if you're able for the pledge allegiance

[00:40:10] all right thank you everyone we do not have any accommodations or proclamations today so before we move on to the consent agenda i know some people got some things they want to say yes ma'am thank you madam chair for catching it madam chair before the board considers and votes on the consent agenda I need to declare a personal interest in agenda items 4c and 4d which

[00:40:48] authorize public hearings consider modifying the school crossing zone post speed limit at various county schools item 9c which is a presentation on the route 15 pedestrian bridge and school count study and the board's joint meeting this evening with the school board my wife is a school employee as a school's employee my wife and I are members excuse me of a group that is affected by this matter i will be participating in it because i am able to do so fairly objectively and in the public interest madam chair before the board considers and votes on consent item uh consent

[00:41:22] agenda item i need to declare a personal interest in agendas item i item 4c 4d which authorized public hearings to consider modifying the school crossing vote oh my god the school crossing zone speed limit at various county schools item 9c which is presentation on route 15 pedestrian bridge and school count study and the board's joint meeting this evening with the school board my wife is a special education instructional aid with the schools as a school's employee my wife and i are members of a group which is affected by this matter i will be participating in it because

[00:41:58] i am able to do so fairly objectively and in the public interest thank you madam chair all right thank you so very much before we move on to consent agenda i want to see if anyone had any items they would like to pull off supervisor weir madam chair items 4p 4q and 4s 4p 4q and 4s anyone else all right see people still shuffling papers so we're going to go ahead i would like

[00:42:32] to get a motion for 4a through 4o and 4r so move madam chair second thank you so very much any discussion on these items? All right, Supervisor Franklin. I just want to point out item 4-H, the Summerlin Drive to Horner Road commuter lot project. This is to authorize federal funding for a sidewalk. It involves the design and construction of a five-foot wide sidewalk on the north side of Prince William Parkway to the Horner Road commuter lot. This federal funding is made available through

[00:43:11] congestion mitigation, air quality improvement funds, and I would also like to add that these federal funds do not require a county match so the project currently has a budget of about four million budgeting appropriating one million from the federal side that will cover the design right away acquisition utility location and construction phases of the project so basically new sidewalks going towards the Summerlin and Horner area and so welcome improvement to the district so thank you - Supervisor Bode.

[00:43:49] - Thank you, Madam Chair. Just very quickly, wanted to just elevate 4E, which is a public hearing solicit public input for installation of a raised intersection at Seminole Road. Just really wanted to commend Rich Weinman, his staff, and with Rick Canezales and all of them, all they do to continue improving safety in our districts.

[00:44:09] Also wanted to elevate 4F. There's a lot going on in 4F, but the Sparks Notes version is, We're helping out OmniRide with getting some bus shelters in as part of a grant there. Also get some other projects, including the Route 123, Old Bridge Road intersection.

[00:44:26] Again, moving the ball forward on all these important projects. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Supervisor Bailey. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to highlight items 4C. 4C is just a continuation for a future public hearing for the speed limit on Route 234, where we've had some concerns in terms of public safety and speeding and the location will be in front of the patty and the patty elementary school and the washington reed elementary school where we've had some serious concerns of concerning public safety and i also want to just highlight

[00:45:00] 4g where oftentimes the board is spending money for our community but on this item we are saving money and so i just wanted to highlight that it's in reference to a proper that's where that we're initiating uh but the saving is 135k thank you all right thank you so much we don't have any discussion so let's go ahead and take a vote vote unanimous all right thank you so very much we're now going to go on to item 4p supervisor weir thank you madam chair do we have anybody here

[00:45:38] from i guess emergency management just a quick question with respect to funding it looks like it was funded from 2007 through 2023 fy 23 yes sir was there a lapse between 23 and the present in terms of grant funding, where we paid for it out of the general fund?

[00:46:13] There was no lapse. They generally are awarded between October and December. However, the two specific personnel positions are on a calendar year basis from January to the following December. So with this item today, we won't have a lapse in the funding. And this will extend us out through 2025? Yes, sir.

[00:46:29] Okay. Madam Chair, the only issue I have with this is the out years, where, once again, if we don't get the grant funding, we'll be funding it out of general fund and creating a new FTE. but I'm going to let it slide this time since the FTE is actually already there under present grant funding, but I will want a memo from somebody if we ever have to fund it out of the general fund prior to including it in the budget.

[00:46:52] Thank you. All right, thank you. Anyone else? Would you like to make the motion, Supervisor Weir? Not really. Go ahead. Second. All right, any further discussion? Seeing that, let's take a vote.

[00:47:13] Vote unanimous. All right, now on to 4Q. Mr. Weir, Supervisor Weir. Madam Chair, I will make this comment every time one of these comes up. I do not believe that we should be charging the towns for the use of the firing range when every town resident is double taxed pays us and pays the town.

[00:47:36] And just taking a pittance from the town to cover administrative costs and engage in this, what is essentially an accounting exercise, just bothers me. I think the paperwork is almost more expensive than the recovery fee, and I think we owe it to the local police departments who all have MOUs with us regarding service and the services that they provide the county outside of their own jurisdictional boundaries more than makes up for the $2,400 we're asking for, so I will not be voting in favor of this yet again.

[00:48:15] All right, thank you. I would like to have all discussion within a motion, So if we can get a motion in a second, we can have a further discussion. So, Madam Chair. Second. All right. Supervisor Vega. Thank you. So I guess this question should be for the county executive since the chief is not here. What is the process for us to review this?

[00:48:32] Is it a legal thing that we have to have this in place? Or is there a way that we can look at perhaps undoing this so that we don't charge them? It's not a legal matter. I know we've discussed it before. Every entity outside of our police department that has activity or has come and participates in or uses the range pays a fee.

[00:48:58] And while it is very small, it's $2,400, it would be inconsistent for us to not charge towns. Now, I will also say, and I know I've said this as well before, in the same way we would use any government facility and assess entities to use that government facility, we are doing the same here.

[00:49:23] So what I would be concerned about is establishing president, and not just for the range but for any of our government facilities that might receive some sort of assessment for use. Understood, and I don't want to speak for Supervisor Weir, but I guess your point is that the same applies to the Sheriff's Office?

[00:49:45] Correct. Okay, just standard, I guess, across the board. Thank you. Sure. Supervisor Weir. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just note once again that we have a mutual aid agreement with all these departments, and they provide a variety of services to Prince William County.

[00:50:04] When Prince William cannot respond or they are the nearest we owe to an incident and actually maintain a presence more often than not in areas within, generally speaking, mile of the of the of the jurisdiction and sometimes more i i almost see this as a punitive accounting exercise i'm not a fan of cost-based accounting i understand i understand the process behind it but i would also note that unlike uh other federal jurisdiction or other federal agencies that use the firing range we do not have mutual aid agreements with them to provide service

[00:50:44] within the county as we do with the towns and remain consistent i'm not going to vote in favor of this and i don't think we should be charging our taxpayers twice for this all right i just want to note that haymarket councilman um joe passanello actually reached out to me about this the same issue and you know i plan on speaking with him and hearing his concerns in the new year with that let's take a vote motion passes seven to one supervisor we are voting nay all right we're moving on to 4s supervisor we are uh thank you madam chair i've got a question for public safety

[00:51:23] communications if there's somebody here i just real simple real quick i just need to know is there going to be any additional requirement for new equipment on the pd side or in the case of the towns to accommodate the change in equipment or will it just flow seamlessly with the current current equipment that's in place for communications madam chair members of the board jared juliano public safety communications uh there will not be any new equipment required for specifically the police department or the towns. There may be some integration work required to make it work with our

[00:52:01] current CAD system. However, that would not be the responsibility of the police department or the towns to pay for that integration work. It would be part of the project. I'm good. Thank you. All right. I'd like to entertain a motion. So moved. Second. All right. Any further discussion? All right. Let's take a vote. Vote unanimous. All right. Thank you so very much. And we are going

[00:52:29] to move on to public comment time. Okay. What is an end of year? People don't want to talk to us. all right all right supervisor bode it's your time to shine thank you madam chair

[00:53:00] miss van whenever they're ready whenever you're ready let's begin thank you we have one speaker that is jessica grove they are checking her in now give me just one moment yeah we will since are we since we're waiting um well actually let's do the remote and then we'll do the in-person

[00:53:40] that'll be easier you may begin miss uh grove um good morning good afternoon supervisors um i just wanted to let you know and express my opinion about the briefing that's going to take place today about the santac report the same report that was buried when it counted most prince william county residents this report showed that it is and was a bad idea to place data centers by sensitive areas like homes rpas parks and open space and especially the manassas national battlefield

[00:54:15] the report was very clear and now decisions being made by this board are being used in in the JLARC review as a bad example. The briefing today will ask the board what to do in the future. Now is your chance to make a better decision because as Maya Angelou once said to Oprah, when you know better, you do better.

[00:54:35] Now you have the Stantec report, the JLARC study, Fairfax County water input, and also a lack of information from Dominion Power. Please direct staff to move forward with taking appropriate action in protecting the residents from further damage. Make sure that all of the concerns that are addressed in the future are addressed, and not just cherry-picked as the ones developers can work around.

[00:54:58] Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Grove. Thank you, Ms. Van. Back to you, Madam Chair. All right. We have one person for Ms. Johnson. If you can go to the back, you have three minutes. Thank you, ma'am.

[00:55:18] I'm rusty at this. I'm very rusty. Good afternoon. My name is Mrs. Johnson, and I am from the Woodbridge District. Absolutely don't have a speech prepared today, but just small notes that I want to make sure that I articulate because nothing's changed. My name is Aene Johnson. I am from the Woodbridge District. I continue to stand today as a wife, as a mother, and as an advocate and reminder to select members of the Board of County Supervisors, to Mr. Shorter, to Ms. Roble, and to individuals within the county who would like for you to forget about a child affectionately, pardon me, known as Bumpy.

[00:55:58] For 33 months, 28 days, our family had the privilege to love and support a foster child here in Prince William County. Despite our efforts to reunite him with our family in order to legally adopt him, Bumpy was adopted by another family in February of this year. We have spent the last year learning how to rebuild, rebuild sweet moments as a family. That means eating popcorn every Friday night. That was one of Bumpy's favorite things to do, Popcorn Friday. We've been eating popcorn every Friday. We have date night multiple times, my husband and I. I never knew how much a Tuesday

[00:56:33] could occupy my time, but I am affectionately enjoy dating my husband again every Tuesday night and a couple more times a week, hence a new baby. She's so cute. I'm forgetting something. I'm forgetting something. I do apologize here. We still record videos for Bumpy. Bumpy's a part of our family. Nothing has ever changed, just his physical position in our family. We are still together. Our hearts may be broken, but the county tried to break our family. That definitely didn't work. Our agenda has not changed. It will not change. We will advocate for foster children here in Prince William County. 2025, we're looking forward to it. We will again publicly request a

[00:57:09] meeting from you, Mr. Shorter. We requested a meeting. We did have a meeting. The meeting was never completed. We still need that other meeting, so we're saying that publicly. We will continue to say that, and we will continue to speak as it relates to lack of transparency and falsified documents. We have the falsified documents. We even requested documents. We requested those documents at court they were never given to us then we have the documents I have the envelope it was sent in a certified envelope sent certified by mail as well we have the documents the county never gave it to us so when we use this statement fraud we meant it we did not use that lightly we

[00:57:46] understand what the word fraud means we even understand where you were Mr. Shorter where you sat where you ate what you drink what you wore when you specifically talked in detail about my family about bumpy about the incident that occurred within prince william county and how you struggle with the decision of what you were going to do and guess what you did mr shorter you did nothing so as i said last year bumpy does not have his christmas gift last year he doesn't have his christmas gear gift again this year and unfortunately but fortunately too because i was you know taking care of my new little baby um nobody on the uh dais there has

[00:58:23] their cookie dough but you'll get that next year in 2025 i thank you all so much our family continues to fight. Thank you so very much. We are now going to move on to agenda item number six, and that is the public hearings. We have public hearings. We're going to open public hearings for 6A and 6B. Do we have anyone? Do we have anyone online? So we do not have anyone sign up to speak in person or online, so I am going to officially close the public hearings for 6A and

[00:58:55] 6B. Can I get a motion for 6A? So move, Madam Chair. Second. All right. Any discussion? And 6A is to approve the execution of a lease with Patriot Property Group. Any discussion?

[00:59:12] All right, let's take a vote. Vote unanimous. All right, I'd like to get a motion for 6B and thus to adopt an ordinance to modify the school crossing zone on Linton Hall.

[00:59:30] So moved. Second. Any discussion? All right, saying none, let's take a vote. Vote unanimous. All right, moving on to agenda item number seven, county executive time.

[00:59:48] Mr. Shorter, the floor is now yours. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, members of the board. I want to quickly go over the directives that were issued last week just to make sure we review for you and the public. First directive issued, considering an additional option for county residents to purchase a three-year dog license, which will be assigned to our police department and finance departments.

[01:00:14] We also received the directive to schedule a public hearing to amend the noise ordinance to revise allowable construction hours. This will be assigned to executive management and to the clerk of the board. We were also assigned a directive providing the board with a report of the various boards, commissions, and committees, which will be assigned to the clerk of the board, drafting a resolution to take formal action, canceling and closing out the county's involvement in the Route 28 bypass project, which will be assigned to the county executive and the Department of Transportation,

[01:00:52] And finally, providing the board with a comprehensive listing of all currently available Park and Recreation monetary contribution proffers. This will be assigned to Parks and Recreation. In addition to those directives, Madam Chair, I just wanted to make note and mention that we are, and I am certainly personally excited, that both the police and fire departments will be holding graduations this week.

[01:01:18] As many as, I believe, 60 new public safety personnel will be graduating this week between the both of the two departments. Really excited to be welcoming so many into our public safety community and certainly appreciate the board's continued support and commitment around investments in the agencies and their commitment to recruiting.

[01:01:43] None of this would be possible without the phenomenal recruiting program for both departments. Uh, and then finally, as this is our last meeting, just want to appreciate all of our staff, uh, and just thank them, uh, for the amazing year we've had, uh, and wish everyone a very happy, uh, holiday season.

[01:02:00] All right. Thank you so very much. Agenda item number eight, county attorney time. Madam attorney, county attorney, the floor is yours. Madam chair, members of the board, as my holiday gift to you, there are no items for closed session. So I want to wish everyone a very happy and safe holiday season. Thank you.

[01:02:17] Thank you so very much. That's one of the best gifts someone's given me. All right. We're moving on to agenda item number nine, agency time. Mr. Shorter. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. First item, 9A, Parks and Recreation.

[01:02:36] We are going to talk a bit about the Boys and Girls Clubs program and the in-line hockey rink. I'm turning the mic over to Seth. Seth, do you want to take it? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Shorter. Seth Hendler-Voss, your director of Parks and Recreation.

[01:02:54] I'm here to share with you an exciting partnership opportunity to bring a new recreation amenity to Prince William County. In 1990, the board approved a six-acre lease with the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Washington, D.C.

[01:03:12] to establish the Hilton Boys and Girls Club on Dale Boulevard. Since then, the club's been very active. We have a wonderful partnership with the club, and I've enjoyed seeing them grow and see their facility improve over the years.

[01:03:32] The Ice Zone Incorporated, which is the legal owner of the Prince William Ice Center, which is situated directly adjacent to the Boys and Girls Club, partnered with the Washington Capitals and the National Hockey League and George Mason University to purchase, install, and operate an in-line hockey rink, a dry hockey rink, somewhere next to the indoor ice rink.

[01:03:54] A dry hockey rink is basically a rollerblading rink for street hockey. It could be used for rollerblading and any other series of wheeled sports. So they approached our department to identify a site and identify some matching resources to implement the project.

[01:04:13] So we immediately conferred with Supervisor Angry, who expressed strong support and interest in the project and expressed his intent to advocate for the use of Neafco district proffers to serve as the match to make the project possible. So then we set off to look for a site.

[01:04:32] We began speaking with the Boys and Girls Club to look at areas that could be used for the rink, and we were able to find a portion of their lease area that's underutilized that would serve as a great location for the rink and provide the Boys and Girls Club an opportunity to enjoy the benefit of the new amenity.

[01:04:54] So then we set out to begin developing a partnership structure, drafting a series of terms for a multi-party agreement to where every party involved would benefit from this new amenity. So the proposed terms of the project are, of the multi-party agreement are as follows, and these are just in draft form.

[01:05:14] Number one, the rink, when constructed, will be made available for the Hilton Boys and Girls Club participants, ICE Center, patrons, and the general public. The Department of Parks and Recreation will manage the project.

[01:05:34] We would be responsible for preparing the site for the rink, and that would involve the transfer budget appropriation of Neabsco District Park proffers, monetary proffers. That's going to require board action at a later time. The ICE Center will operate and maintain the rink throughout the lifespan of the asset, so there will be no operating impact to the board, with one exception, and that is that we will need to add the rink to our insurance policy. Early estimates suggest it could be about a $10,000 increase in the premiums.

[01:06:11] The current lease for the Boys and Girls Club does not allow the county or any other entity to make any improvements on that property. It's wholly under the control of the Boys and Girls Club. Again, there is a portion of that property that's underutilized next to a former athletic field and a playground.

[01:06:33] And in order for us to construct a rink there, we will have to amend the lease with the Boys and Girls Club. It's a 99-year lease, and it's only about 35 years into it.

[01:06:51] And by amending the lease, to amend the lease, you're going to be required to have a public hearing because it does deal with county-owned property. The Hilton Boys and Girls Club Board of Directors has approved this project, this lease amendment, and are excited for this project to occur.

[01:07:12] What we're recommending is that you allow us to set a public hearing for this lease amendment, which we'll bring back to you after the new year. The resolution of this lease amendment is before you today.

[01:07:29] By authorizing staff to set this public hearing today, the project will officially kick off and it'll be followed by the following steps. Number one, we'll return to you all in early 2025, January, February timeframe with the public hearing, as well as action to transfer budget and appropriate the proffers. It'll be about $350,000 worth of Neabsco Park proffers to match the rink donation. We're going to have the lease amendment for you to take action on, and we're going to have a couple of memorandums of

[01:08:08] understanding for you to take action on. One MOU will be with the Washington Capitals to accept the rink, and another MOU will be with the ICE Center to allow them to operate the rink, maintain the rink, and program the rink. One piece I left out is that in these MOUs and with the lease amendment, there will be specific guarantees for access to this rink for the public, for the Boys and Girls Club, and for the ICE Center patrons. Once all of those documents are approved by you

[01:08:46] all early in 2025, we'll go through the permitting and design process and hopefully break ground in the spring or summer and cut the ribbon in the fall. You can see here where the Boys and Girls Club property lies. It's highlighted in the yellow border. It's just above the commuter lot off Dale Boulevard. The ice center is to its left. You can see the proposed location of the inline rink. You can see a photo of what the inline rink will look like. We have one other inline rink in the county

[01:09:20] over at Lacey Compton Park in the Potomac District. And you can see here exactly where on the premise of the lease area the rink will be situated it's going to be tucked down on the in the end so with that i'll take any questions that you might have about the project all right supervisor angry um actually manager i don't have any questions so i'll save my comments all right supervisor weir thank you madam chair i do have questions um i think before the public hearing i think we need

[01:09:57] to clean up a couple of things in this i'm looking at the resolution and it says in the resolution the ICE center will operate and maintain the reconsumed liability. But in the lease agreement, it says the landlord, or a tenant agrees that the landlord, us, and or the Prince William ICE center and their employees and contractors shall maintain, operate, program, and manage the risk.

[01:10:21] So I'd like those two things to jive, both the resolution and the lease, so that there's no ambiguity as to who's responsible for the maintenance, because it seems like you're saying two different things here between the resolution and the lease.

[01:10:40] I'm a little unclear on the guarantees. It reads, the landlord and tenant, us and the Boys and Girls Club, agree that 25% of the rink operating hours defined as dawn to dusk, seven days per week, unless outdoor lights, blah, blah, blah, shall be reserved for tenant's use, that being the Boys and Girls Club, in coordination with the Prince William Ice Center.

[01:11:00] Any hours not needed by the Boys and Girls Club shall be offered back to the Prince William Ice Center by the tenant. So it doesn't seem like there's any guarantee in here of public access, at least by that language or anything.

[01:11:17] I mean, it sort of gets to it in paragraph 6, where the tenant agrees to Prince William Ice Center and the general public to have access and use the rink during aisle hours not reserved by the tenant, but that's not what paragraph 4 says. So if we could just get this all cleaned up before the public hearing, that would be really nice.

[01:11:36] Yes, sir. Thank you for those comments. I will say that the MOUs, which you don't have in front of you now, will provide for that detail. So, for example, the proposed MOU with the ICE Center stipulates of their use versus the public use.

[01:11:56] So that lives in there. But we can also add it to this agreement as well. I understood, but I think the lease needs to comport with the MOU, or the MOU needs to comport with the lease. We just need to get it straight. Supervisor Angry? I have Supervisor Angry and Supervisor Bailey in the queue.

[01:12:16] these are for questions for seth if you want to make comments we'll do that within the motion did you have a question okay supervisor bailey so i just wanted to um uh seth i know we talked about this just make it clear in terms of for the public um um going back to what you said about the boys and girls club having access to um to um to this new project i want if you could expound just a little bit about you and I talked about programming if you could just a little bit and just kind of iron that out a little bit. Yes ma'am thank you Supervisor Bailey for the for the

[01:12:54] question. So we are going to of course allow the Boys and Girls Club Lease to have dedicated access to that rink and the for their programs mainly hopefully inline skating and the benefit of this partnership is that the ice center has offered to help conduct those programs to where they're teaching the participants in the boys and girls club how to how to play hockey and how to skate if they so choose to take take advantage of that and so we're hoping that this project will nurture

[01:13:29] that relationship bring it to a whole a whole new level thank you i want you to uh say that seth in reference to how we're trying to expand being a member of the board we're trying to expand opportunities for our boys and girls and so i thought that was important for the public to know thank you all right thank you so very much i just had one thing and i don't know if this will be addressed in the mou but um i think it's um item number 10 it's about locking the facility it says shall be permitted i wonder you know if there's any objection to shall be required to lock the

[01:14:09] rink during non-operating hours um since with those hours you know the county will have liability Is there any objection or any concern about requiring it to be locked when it's not in use? Thank you, Chair. I don't believe that will be an issue.

[01:14:24] We can certainly explore that with the partners. All right. Thank you so very much. If there are any other questions, I would like to entertain a motion, Mr. Ingrid. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move item 9A for approval.

[01:14:40] Second. I saw, because I'm sitting with Supervisor Vega, yeah, Vega wins that round. All right, Supervisor Ingrid. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Seth, thank you for that presentation. So I first want to thank R.J. Ziegler, who is the CEO for the ICE Rink, also Mr. Jim Allman, who basically leads the Boys and Girls Club and the legal team over there, and also the partners of the Washington Capitals and the other entities that are part of this.

[01:15:14] This came to my desk about eight months ago, and we have been investigating this. Where we are today isn't even approval. It's simply what we put together can be put before the public and brought back to this board and clean up some of the questions and comments you've heard today.

[01:15:33] I'm excited about this because we continue talking about creating opportunities for our youth, which we clearly have created here through an opportunity created by the Capitals. And so I thank them for this because, listening to RJ, the owner of the ice rink, he grew up in Dale City, used to skate in there as a young kid, and bought the place.

[01:15:55] And so he was telling me about the partnership that they had with the Boys and Girls Club and that the kids used to come over and skate in the ice rink, and they would teach him that. And somehow that relationship distanced, and so now we have this opportunity to create it again.

[01:16:12] Furthermore, that field that we're going to build this has not been in use for so long that I know for a fact because I assisted with Keep Prince William Beautiful and Our Habitat for Humanity and cleaning up much of that property for the Boys and Girls Club.

[01:16:31] So the opportunity to take that piece of land and put it back into great use and creating it for our youth and creating that partnership again between more than those two entities and now the Washington Capitals who are coming to Prince William County to create an opportunity to help our youth, I think, is invaluable, is impressive.

[01:16:53] And speaking for the board, I'm honored that Prince William County gets to be a part of this. So I just simply want to say thank you, thank this board for this opportunity to bring this before the public and get back to the board so that we can hopefully get this done and have this relationship rekindled.

[01:17:10] So thank you. Thanks, Madam Chair. Supervisor Franklin. Sure, yes, thank you. Yeah, I just want to highlight, because I know we talked about the details of this, but I don't think we spent enough time talking about the opportunities that this project brings. And I was admittedly a little surprised myself to hear about it and learn about it.

[01:17:30] But it was a welcome surprise because this is just, again, another step forward in terms of Prince William County being recognized as a place where entertainment and sports can really reside and thrive here in the county.

[01:17:45] And so congratulations to Supervisor Angry for being able to get such a deal in his district. So thank you. All right. Anyone else? So I really appreciate this.

[01:18:01] I know that Fairfax has a similar facility, and I'm glad that, again, that Prince William is able to offer more to our community and to our youth. As I've said, you know, the best investment we can make, the best return on investment is education, but it's also offering opportunity to our young people.

[01:18:19] So with that, let's take a vote on authorizing the hearing. Thank you so much, and thank you. Madam Chair, for May, I just mentioned one other individual.

[01:18:36] I want to thank Michael Rojas, who's with the Office of Tourism. When he was with our department, he helped spearhead these discussions from the infancy. So thank you, Michael. Thank you so very much. Thank you very much, Seth, for the presentation. Madam Chair, with Item 9B, we are asking, with this resolution, we're asking for the Board's authorization around condemnation and quick-take powers.

[01:18:59] As you may recall, it comes back to us from the November 19th agenda, and we've asked Rick to come down and lead the discussion around this and take any questions. I'll turn it over to you. Madam Chair, members of the Board, Rick Canazales, your Director of Transportation.

[01:19:19] I do not have a formal presentation for this, but I did want to update the Board as I've updated Supervisor Franklin and Supervisor Bailey regarding where we are on the condemnation and negotiations for the property over at Princeton Woods. We have continued to negotiate with the Princeton Woods group.

[01:19:39] We just had a meeting with them last week where we have asked them to get some information back to us in the new year, and they have asked us to look into some information for them that they require some work on their project that they have said that they may be willing to do.

[01:19:55] So we're on back and forth. I do have a meeting with the Potomac Shores individuals on Thursday to let them know and give them an update of what's happening in the situation here. But we are looking to move forward as they are looking to move forward with the public improvement plan that was voted for back in July 2013 and again looked at as a compensation agreement on March of 2024 when the board approved the compensation agreement for that.

[01:20:23] So we're looking for the board to go ahead and move forward on the condemnation. As we continue, we will have 45 days from this point forward as well to continue to negotiate with them and continue to finish up and close the agreement. If we can do that before we even have to record, the condemnation won't even be recorded.

[01:20:41] We will be able to just pull the condemnation out and do this as an agreement. If the condemnation does move forward, we will continue to negotiate with them until we reach either a mediation issue and we have to go to mediation or we end up in the court system. But until then, again, we will continue to work with them.

[01:20:57] We will continue to work with all the individuals involved and follow the agreement, the compensation agreement that the board passed earlier this year on this matter. Ma'am? All right. Thank you so very much. Mr. Canizales, does anyone have any questions for him?

[01:21:13] All right. Supervisor Bailey. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just want to thank Rick and the team for continually working through this project with Supervisor Franklin and I. As you all know, we are just trying to move Potomac Shores forward, and I think we have continued to do that in a very positive way.

[01:21:31] And so I'm thankful to the clients as well and the developers as well for being amenable to sitting down and talking this through. I think that when we converse together and we iron out things, good things happen.

[01:21:47] And so, Rick, thank you so much for your patience, And thank you to my colleagues for responding to our calls when I called just to make sure that there was a clear understanding. Not trying to stop you if you have any other questions, but I really appreciate you just responding back to me to let me know where your thoughts and your ideas were.

[01:22:07] So that's all I have, Madam Chair. Thank you. Supervisor Franklin. Sure, yes. Thank you for that, Supervisor Bailey. And, yeah, thank you, Rick, for, I would say, getting more involved because I think that from my discussions, everyone is in a much more comfortable position than before.

[01:22:28] And, you know, realistically speaking, there's still a lot of things to work out and still a lot of concerns on behalf of the landowner. But one of the reasons why they're not here today is because of the conversations that they had with that kind of everyone involved, including Supervisor Bailey, myself, and especially with you, Rick.

[01:22:49] So I know that this isn't a county project, but it was very important for the county to get involved. Yes, ma'am. So thank you for that. Thank you. All right. Thank you so very much. Madam Chair. Supervisor Bailey. Do you have someone else? No. I move forward this project on the agenda.

[01:23:10] All right. We have a motion and we have a second. Supervisor Rear. Madam Chair, I'm just going to reiterate my philosophical opposition to the county engaging in condemnation practices for developers against third-party properties, private properties.

[01:23:29] I've seen this far too often in the county. And, you know, my preference is the developer take care of their own problems and not rely on the sledgehammer of the county to do the condemnation for them. I've seen it happen far too often.

[01:23:45] in the Gainesville and Brentsville districts. So I have a philosophical issue with the whole condemnation and quick take. Thank you so very much. I don't know if anyone else, I don't see any other speakers. So let's go ahead and move forward with our vote.

[01:24:07] Motion passes six to two. Supervisors Vega and we're voting. Oh, I'm sorry. Vote unanimous. Supervisors Vega and we're abstaining from vote. Thank you so very much.

[01:24:26] Thank you, Madam Chair, and Rick, you're not going far, right? So the next item, Item 9C, is a presentation, really also a follow-up item from a previous directive, Route 15, the pedestrian bridge, and I want to have Rick, I believe there is an actual presentation on this one, so.

[01:24:46] Yes, sir, there is. Thank you. Madam Chair, members of the board, again, Rick Kennizol is your Director of Transportation. We'll see for it here to load up in a second, but we are discussing today uh the route 15 pedestrian bridge that uh that was um asked to be looked at back in in 2022 by the board and given some design money to start some work on uh so a little background obviously in december of 2022 the board appropriated two million dollars to look at a concept and design of the pedestrian bridge uh we started that task order later that spring and started moving forward

[01:25:25] As we were moving forward, we got a directive on October 10th after discussing with the supervisor involved the possible cost of the project. We were looking at about a $20 million pedestrian bridge improvement out in that area.

[01:25:44] After discussing this, we were directed to take a look at the need for this project and see if there was an actual need for the pedestrian improvement. What we did as staff is then take a look at this for you in a study. We took five other locations that are similar and have similar walking patterns as Battlefield High School.

[01:26:07] We did some counts. You see when and how we did them at the bottom of the page here. And we kind of came up with some results where we showed you, where we can show you, and you were sent this in a memo earlier as well, where you can see the total pedestrians that were crossing in those times and and the rate of those in the percentage of the school pedestrians for that what you see in the study conclusions here and you see that we're showing is that you know the volumes here that we see of our pedestrians don't uh don't support the need for a pedestrian bridge actually at any of our schools uh so as

[01:26:45] we're looking at these schools and and and battlefield high school being kind of in the middle of the pack. We just didn't see the need for this pedestrian bridge. It ranked lower than some other schools and again I think doing the overflow parking that was kind of looked at with this improvement or with the property in front of it in front of Battlefield High School makes sure that that doesn't happen as often that those crossings aren't happening over 15 people aren't parking over in the shopping center and we'll talk a little bit about that more a little later. Some key factors to consider, and I'm not going to name them all off, but you see that

[01:27:22] they're all referenced from the Safe Routes to School Guide, and that's very important. So Safe Routes to School is saying those things that, in this case, shows that this facility may not be justified or needed in this area. And then it has some evaluation measures that we look at as we looked at the data that we had, and we kind of saw that, you know, obviously, if there's an easier way to get through to cross a road people are going to use that and they're not going to use a pedestrian bridge and that's kind of like the anecdotal data that comes out of this as well

[01:27:55] uh so the reason the thing is that you know we we do bridges are are things pedestrian bridges are things that we should look at here in the county but they just need to be looked at in the appropriate locations uh people tend to think that they encourage uh in walkable livable communities and they you know that they improve road safety for drivers but that's not necessarily true all the time especially when a person has an easier route underneath the bridge instead of using the bridge they'll take that chance sometimes and that risk and safety over time and the time that they save by just crossing underneath so it shows that you know sometimes we don't do these things so

[01:28:31] uh there are better options that exist at these especially at these school locations and you see them listed there uh you know we reduce or eliminate the need to cross and when we improve the existing pedestrian facilities out there uh and we increase again driver and pedestrian awareness is done by education. The great thing about what's happening over at Route 15 and Battlefield High School is that we have done all these things already. We have come in and we have taken down and reduced and eliminated some of the issues by proposing this parking lot and saying that people don't have to park across the street in the shopping center and may be able to park at

[01:29:06] a public parking lot close to the school. We also are looking to see if we can do a trail on Route 15 that goes from Dominion Valley over Cat Harpin there. We also looked at improving the pedestrian facilities through that area. We brought everything up to speed and up to the best practices out there and put additional lighting, street lighting, so that the intersection was lit up. We modified the timing of the signals and we actually increased the ramps so more people could be on the ramp safely to cross the streets. And then finally, we did some pedestrian awareness.

[01:29:42] we actually have a school zone out there that we put up and not only did we put up a school zone but after that we put in automated enforcement of that school zone uh and and and again not not only did as we are looking at those two things but we're we are also looking at how to improve those intersections and the intersection safety at at this at the school with that said uh again the best practices we have taken them here at this intersection and and we're not like i said we're not saying that the pedestrian bridges are a bad thing. They're not a bad thing. I think they have to be located in an appropriate place. And here's some examples of where appropriate places

[01:30:18] are. Tyson's Pedestrian Bridge. This is connecting, again, where there's major retail and there's major access to transit, and there's no other way to get across a major large highway. We have that in the proposed North Woodbridge Pedestrian Bridge. I mean, that makes sense. We're crossing nine lanes of road to try to get a bunch of people from a proposed town center out to the buses and the VRE and where that's at. That is an appropriate location for a bridge that even connects to a bridge at the, or may connect to a bridge at the transit facility. You see the bridge that we put in at 234 in Brentsville. The picture is on the bottom right-hand corner there. There was

[01:30:58] no other way to cross there. The bridge, it was a three-legged intersection that we created one intersection into and the movement within that within that interchange didn't allow for safe crossing of a about nine lane section of roadway that connected two major trails that we had one on the parkway and one on 234 Dumfries Road that again an appropriate place for a pedestrian bridge so we're not saying no to pedestrian bridges we just want to make sure that we put these in the appropriate places and that when we're looking at them that we're looking at them in the appropriate places. The cost of these bridges is large and it tends not to get a lot of funding like it's

[01:31:34] mentioned in the presentation earlier and we tend not to be able to get a lot of grants on it. So these facilities would have to be funded with local funds mostly. Our staff recommendation here is again on the 15 pedestrian bridge we should cancel that project and again not move forward at this time. The pedestrian bridge is not practical and obviously for the reasons that i have mentioned earlier in the presentation and we do are looking to move those monies to a pedestrian to a parking facility uh where there's some proffered land that was proffered for public parking uh in that area as well as looking at a trail out there on 15 uh to see uh where we can

[01:32:13] hook up perhaps to uh long park uh we can we will continue to evaluate as pedestrian bridges come in as the proposals come in like i mentioned uh in the in the woodbridge district as that proposal came in, we took it into consideration, and we saw that there was a need there, and we're able to go forward. That's what we continue to do here. We'll continue to look at these facilities on a case-by-case basis and let you know what our recommendations are in the future. With that said, we're here to take any questions you may have with us. Thank you. Thank you very much. I don't see you in the queue, but, Supervisor, where did you have anything?

[01:32:44] I know you. All right, Supervisor Angry. Just one question. I didn't see it in the presentation. Did you guys question to public or send out any kind of survey to get their inputs into that community involvement in this whole piece?

[01:33:01] No, sir. It was strictly a traffic study. We were doing it based on counts. We did have a scope that we showed to the board, but did not take public input regarding the study. Supervisor Bode. Thank you. Thank you, Rick, for that and for fleshing this out.

[01:33:23] Just two quick questions. Going back quickly to the analysis you did of some of the sort of pier crossing areas and seeing that, you know, most of the other, like you said, Battlefield falls in the middle of the pack, but of course the Kings are Garfield and Woodbridge High by and large. With Unity Reed in there too. Are you guys continuing to sort of analyze those for future considerations for the pedestrian bridges as well? Do you need direction from us to continue to do that? Where do we stand with those? Again, as we're moving forward here, At this point, we don't recommend any pedestrian bridges for any of the schools listed.

[01:34:02] I know that you see those numbers and they're a little high, but we really haven't seen a lot of issues through those schools and movement through those schools. Richard Wyman is here with me today, and he continues to look at improvements through those schools.

[01:34:18] Like I mentioned, the best practices that we look at and making sure that those are corrected as we're moving forward with schools, making sure that the speed zones, and you saw some of those today, are becoming ordinances and being regulated and making sure that we're applicable for automated enforcement.

[01:34:35] So as we look at those things, we'll look at the safety aspect of them. We'll continue to look at any incidents that happen within and continue to give the board alternatives into how to follow through and do any improvements necessary as they come along. Thank you. All right.

[01:34:51] Thank you so much. I don't see any other speaker. Supervisor Rear. Thank you, Madam Chair. To go along with staff recommendation, I would move we cancel and close out the design and advancement of the James Madison Highway, Route 15, Pedestrian Bridge Project, and Transfer Budget and Appropriate $1,928,854 in general use proffer funds to the Graduation Drive parking lot project in the Gainesville Magisterial District.

[01:35:21] Second. All right, Supervisor Bode, then angry. Thank you, Madam Chair. There's a few comments here. I know that, you know, we had started this because there was concerns in the community around, you know, near misses, you know, people getting struck, what have you.

[01:35:40] But I really appreciate our transportation department breaking down the actual analysis and facts around this. Because it's really easy to sort of get caught up in, hey, there's these tragedies, what have you. But I know Mr. Weinman says it all the time. There are some issues and some challenges we can't engineer our way around. And, you know, we wanted to at least bear this out, have you do your due diligence.

[01:36:00] You've done that. We appreciate that. But I just wanted to broaden this out a little bit and just say that, as I alluded to earlier, the work needs to continue at these crossings, right? I appreciate the fact that you look at each crossing individual and case by case. I know that Woodbridge High, for example, there's really not enough right-of-way on either side of the road to really accommodate.

[01:36:19] There's residential right there. There's a school right there not really working out. Garfield's a little bit different, but at the same time, Garfield also has, right across the street, the mall. So there's issues around that church there, what have you. But what I will tell you is, especially in areas like Potomac Mills, which is right across the street from Garfield, we have slated major developments in our long-range land use plan.

[01:36:42] So I hope that as we continue to sort of bear out that kind of vision, that we continue to make those analysis proactively so we're not stuck in a situation where we have to then direct you all to look at something after houses start going up, buildings start going up especially in an area like that where you have MU6 in some places where you have you know seven eight story buildings in some cases in some regards and large amounts of new development activity and looking at that kind of situation as well yes sir thank you we'll take that into consideration supervisor angry uh thank you madam chair um you know this is hard because

[01:37:18] you know it's always how we got here and so to the mother that lost her son at that intersection she doesn't want to hear this and all it takes is one life lost this isn't you guys do great work so this is not you because we're about data driven for me it's frustrating because you know i watch kids walk on colgan high school i watch them walk down old bridge road by the high school there and it cringes me how fast traffic is moving and the fact that you know i don't want this happen again but lord praying it doesn't because no parent wants to hear this conversation about

[01:37:55] us you know not want to invest this money when it the reality is it's you know let's talk about what it is it's about the money it's not that investment and so you know i don't know what the answer is i mean really we like you said we can do all we can with pedestrian bridges and folks will still walk across the street so maybe that's something in telling you know your children don't do that look both ways before crossing i don't know i just this is a tough one for me because, you know, how much is a life worth?

[01:38:25] I keep saying that. And so, you know, I'll spend every dime I got to make sure safety is number one. That's not what we're here to do. We're here to save money and look at the smart investments. And I get it. It's just this isn't easy. So, you know, I don't know. But I just want to let it know for the record, I understand the life loss in this situation, which brought us to this very particular pedestrian bridge.

[01:38:52] And we have other areas that probably would require the same. I hope that in the future we can look at this and really make the investment at all of our schools if, in fact, we need these bridges because we see that these kids' lives are literally every day dangled with the way traffic is being handled now.

[01:39:11] So thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Supervisor Franklin. Yeah, I actually have a quick question. and the way we came about this is obviously because of the student who was killed and my question I guess for Supervisor Weir and maybe Rick have you all kind of talked to the family and the community and so they are they are aware that we're going in this direction and and can also ask if because slide nine has a number of different options or I'm assuming you guys are

[01:39:46] going to work with the community and the family to kind of go through what makes the most sense so that they know that just because we're closing this out doesn't mean that we're not looking at that intersection at all. And so I'm not sure if Supervisor Weir or Rick, you want to answer, but I just want to make sure that they do expect us to do something. Just as you see the next page after nine it showed how we how we were the supervisor and talking to the uh to the individuals uh where their their their children were you know tragically killed there um we we we try to implement

[01:40:26] all those best practices now at the intersection and we have shown this to to those individuals they are aware of of what we have done out there and and and understand it uh but we we have been in conversations with them and i think the supervisor can add to that because he's been in constant conversation with them that is correct my office has been in constant conservation conversation yeah conservation um for at least the last year so yeah the people out there are well aware of what's going on and we have already not only explored most of those options i think all of them are already complete correct with the exception of possible with the exception of

[01:41:05] possible trail on the west side of 15 and in the addition of a parking lot next to battlefield which would reduce the need for parking or in my view eliminate the need for parking in the giant shopping center where they shouldn't be parking anyway um that's a discussion for another day thank you all right now i do want to actually just quickly on the parking at the giant parking lot that's the thing for a lot of high school students they don't park you know because it's a hundred dollars a year to park the school and some kids can't afford it or you know simply don't want to pay and so they park in adjacent residential neighborhoods or areas where they you know can

[01:41:43] park for free that's a larger discussion that's something I don't know maybe more for the school board to handle but I would like to note you know supervisor weir that you have been in touch with the community over this and I appreciate this because we've talked about it and that was very important to me and we haven't had very much engagement on this issue you know I don't know if that's a good or bad thing but you know a number of people are aware so with that madam chair if you will indulge me for a moment your point with respect to the giant parking lot and other parking lots in the county is well well taken uh and that's part of the resolution is to

[01:42:19] address that uh there is a vacant parcel next to battlefield high school that's owned by the county the county the school division for whatever their reason have resisted efforts to put an additional parking lot there under county control i suspect because they wouldn't generate revenue from it i think from a public safety standpoint and additionally it would provide access to the unused or relatively unused portions of long park i think putting that parking lot in will do a much better job of addressing the issue by eliminating the need or at least a significant

[01:42:58] portion of the need to cross route 15 i suspect the school division might not like the loss of parking lot funding um but that's not my problem i got to look at the safety aspect of it all right supervisor bailey yes thank you but you know i was just sitting here thinking thinking that might be an opportunity uh this afternoon when we're having our meeting uh to just bring that to the school board's attention to assure that we are in partnership with that because that's very important so i just for the dais i just wanted to make mention of that all right thank you

[01:43:37] Supervisor Bailey? I don't see another speaker, so let's take a vote.

[01:43:52] Unanimous. Supervisor Angry abstaining from vote. Thank you. Thank you very much, Rick. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, members of the board. With item 9D, I'll invite Chief LaBelle to come down.

[01:44:09] We are asking for the board's consideration around accepting budgeting and appropriating HRSA grant dollars in the amount of $800,000. We are getting the slides up now, and with that, Chief LaBelle.

[01:44:25] mike thank you good afternoon chair jefferson members of the board mr shorter um just want to run through briefly what the what the funding would support um as you know this is uh hrsa grant uh it was originally intended for the health district concept um but this grant ends in july uh july 31st specifically of 2025 uh and so the fire department was approached uh about the

[01:44:59] possibility of utilizing the funding for public health-like services. So we're utilizing it or we would like to utilize it for our nascent CARE program. CARE stands for Community Assistance Referrals and Education. We are really expensive way of dealing with health care. Ambulances are expensive. Rescue squads are expensive. We're also not usually the best resource unless you're truly having a true emergency and so we're trying to at the fire department level figure out ways to get people to the resources that they actually need sometimes they're government resources

[01:45:38] sometimes they are public safety resources sometimes they're not-for-profits and so this original concept was introduced to the board as part of the pwc works program we did an initial test in October and November. We'll be coming back later with more specifics on what we discovered in that test, but what we know is this sort of work needs to continue to be done, not unlike fire prevention work. So we help our residents get to the right service. That's really the goal at the end of the day, and we do that through public

[01:46:14] education, during an intake process while we're engaging with the patient, making sure that we can get them sometimes instantaneously connected with the right resources this is a multidisciplinary approach again working with social services community services office area officer of the aging other organizations that quite frankly are much better tuned to long-term solutions and quite frankly are often cheaper solutions and again really leaning into the community into non-governmental organizations to see what they may be able to bring to bear

[01:46:49] Our intention with this program is to, again, really treat it as a wellness program, help the community get better resources to long-term solutions, and then build upon the quality of life and the ability, quite often, for citizens to remain in their homes longer.

[01:47:12] This is the use of the funds. What we'd like to do is an API for data collection. Some of you already know, I don't necessarily utilize the term data-driven because everything's about people, but I certainly make sure that we're doing data-informed choices.

[01:47:31] Technology setup we need for the team. We need phones, laptops, tablets. We can't use the ones that are currently assigned to existing apparatus. They're assigned to existing apparatus. Communication integration, the ability to have secure conversations back and forth, particularly with HIPAA.

[01:47:51] regulated language between ourselves, community services, social services. And so we don't want to give them $12,000 radios. That's a really expensive solution. There are much, much cheaper solutions available. And then specific software for the CCC, for the Coordinated Community Cares Project, to allow us really to do case management, but do so in a way that's HIPAA compliant between multiple agencies.

[01:48:19] I can tell you from my past experience, it's really helpful when the fire department knows someone from social services is paying a visit to someone who we interact with consistently. We're able to support that effort. Vehicles, again, these teams need to be able to get around in a non-emergent way, and then educational materials.

[01:48:41] And so the total of that across the board is the $800,000 from the original grant. We do think there are continuing expenses if we were to continue to do the program in the future. The LifePak, we're still going to have these team members have the LifePak, the unit that allows us to read heart rhythms, blood pressure, things like that.

[01:49:03] They are going to homes with people who have medical conditions, and so we want them to be able to successfully intervene if they need to. So we're still going to make sure they have those resources. Again, we talked about in the previous slide the software. There's a licensing fee for that.

[01:49:19] We'd have to continue with that, and then continuing with educational materials. So that's $350,000 ongoing. And so, again, what we're asking is for acceptance, re-budgeting, and appropriation of the grant, $800,000 that comes to an end July 31st of this coming year.

[01:49:37] And then we obviously expect to be able to, you would want us to come back and give you updates on how the care program is working, either in person or in writing. So that's the presentation. All right, thank you so very much.

[01:49:52] Do we have any questions for Chief LaBelle? Oh, Supervisor Bode. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chief LaBelle, thank you for this presentation. And also thank you for including this on the PwC CARES, or PwC WORKS, sorry.

[01:50:09] PwC CARES is a good acronym for it too, right? So thank you for including this. Just a couple questions. So in your last sort of point on this, Chief LeBell, you talked about the potential ongoing costs that could be, you know, if for whatever reason the grant is shifted to some other way, we're not given money on a recurring basis, what have you.

[01:50:30] Do you have sort of plans on what happens from a budgetary standpoint? Should we not be able to avail ourselves of the grant? Yeah, I mean, some of the things would disappear, some of them wouldn't, right? So if we don't have a license for the software, we don't have a license for the software.

[01:50:47] But we're working without software right now, quite frankly. It's just not as efficient as it could be. And again, what I would specifically point to is that interagency relationship. What I would also say is some of this is based solely upon our supporting the program ourselves.

[01:51:04] I will tell you that for me as a fire chief, this is important enough that I would look for savings within our own budget uh to see if we could fund it i i can't tell you uh how often our residents are using 911 because it's the only thing they know how to use and we take them to a hospital and they're there for hours on end and their medical condition is not addressed and at the same time the county has amazing resources and amazing human beings who want to help these same residents out and we need

[01:51:41] to figure out how to get them in front of those again whether they're whether they're uh employees of the county or in some cases not-for-profit organizations so i'm i'm pretty committed to figuring out how to make this work i appreciate that he just sat back to me because i'm channeling my supervisor weird you know right we have this grant funding set this up and just you know looking at that horizon so you you mentioned a very important part which is one reason why i really appreciate and support this wholeheartedly is that education piece on, hey, what's, I'll just use this term, what's the right door to go to and who's the right person to go to in these situations

[01:52:16] where 911, frankly, you said it's a suck on resource that, frankly, could be diverted other places and getting that word out to the public. So, you know, education materials, which it looks like are printed information, is part of that potential ongoing expense. Is there, I would assume yes is there a strategy around digitizing some of those those materials so regardless of what happens that funding there's still a place there's still resources online or some other way to get there there are we absolutely would we've had conversations everywhere from qr codes not just on our apparatus so that our personnel when they get off the rig if they're interacting with

[01:52:55] someone and aren't sure what to do they can right there shoot the qr code and and find out the resources. But we also need to recognize is a large number of these individuals are struggling in our social network and community and don't necessarily have the resources to use and gain access to information that the rest of us do. And so sometimes printed is necessary. The other thing I know when we talk about fire prevention is the recognition that simply not everyone has a reading level comprehension that we would expect.

[01:53:32] And so sometimes there's a language barrier and then sometimes there's a reading barrier. And so making sure that we have multiple ways to communicate how people can get to resources. I appreciate it. And my last point on that, Madam Chair, is exactly what you said.

[01:53:49] Because ultimately, the more folks that are aware, it's not just that person who may be in that moment. The more the community is aware of this, the more they can refer to their family members, what have you, or someone has a crisis in that moment, they avail themselves of resources, and they realize, oh, wait, hey, I know other people that might go through this.

[01:54:06] I want to get this out. So as much as we can sort of put this out, the libraries, in my opinion, is another place because you have a lot of folks, to your point, that have low access to technology normally. Go to our public libraries, access that. You know, there's a lot of potential there.

[01:54:22] I really like the idea of multiple languages, too, Because, frankly, no matter what is someone's native languages, they need to avail themselves of health services. So as much as you guys can kind of dig into that, I would appreciate it. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Supervisor Weir. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not sure who this question is for, Chief.

[01:54:39] You or the county executive suddenly occurs to me. Do we have any sense of any other stranded assets, funds, monies, grants, or otherwise as a result of our failure to transition? No, this is, and we've been working actually very closely with Supervisor Franklin's office on the health district funding.

[01:55:02] So this funding we were very well aware of. It is not one where we are confused around the intent. And I do not know of any other funds, federal funds, that is sort of out there.

[01:55:20] Supervisor Bailey. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chief, thank you so much for your presentation and your forward thinking. I totally support this because I believe that this is something we probably needed during the COVID era as well.

[01:55:36] And so just really appreciate your forward thinking on this and being a little creative with funding as to how we can serve in different kinds of ways and just not the traditional way. Because I think that's where we are now, not just in the county, but in the country.

[01:55:52] So that's the only comment that I had. Thank you. All right, that's it. Thank you so very much. You know, I'm excited to receive, you know, reports on this project as we move forward. So I need a motion. So moved, Madam Chair.

[01:56:07] Second. All right. Any further discussion? All right. Let's go ahead and take a vote. Unanimous. All right.

[01:56:24] Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to say a word to Chief LaBelle and thank him for his creativity, his entire team, for all the work that they've done to, you know, really establish a very strong program and I think one that other jurisdictions will certainly look at us for.

[01:56:42] And with that, Madam Chair, with item 9E, a presentation from planning, I'm inviting up Tanya Washington to provide a presentation on the overlay district. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board, Tanya Washington, Director of the Planning Office.

[01:57:08] We are here today to provide an update to the board on the Data Center Opportunity Zone Overlay District Boundary Study. This comes from a directive that we received earlier this year from the board to conduct an analysis of the boundaries of the data center Opportunity Zone Overlay District.

[01:57:27] David McGettigan will be walking through the presentation, but I wanted to just make note that at the conclusion of our findings and some staff recommendations, we have identified...

[01:57:43] There are two decision points that are included in the presentation in terms of the staff seeking direction from the board related to the focus of today's presentation, which was direction that we received from the board after we received the directive to start our analysis with nine sites that were identified in earlier February 2023.

[01:58:10] STANTEC consultant report that was done as a part of a previous data center directive. But there is still the larger boundary study that was called for through the directive that we received. So we will be seeking direction on how the board would like to proceed on those two fronts.

[01:58:29] With that, David McGettigan will be here to provide the presentation. Thank you, Ms. Washington. Again, my name is David McGettigan from the planning office. Glad to see the board here, Madam Chair.

[01:58:47] So the agenda for this presentation, one, we want to give you a little background and talk about the board directives that brought us here and the conversations we had that it brought us at this point. We're going to review the sites recommended in the Stantec report, which was something that was created because of a directive in 2021.

[01:59:09] and they had recommendations for removals from the overlay district and we're going to go through each of those recommendations and then again as as Ms. Washington mentioned decision points for next steps that hopefully we can get some guidance from the board moving forward so in May the board Gave us a directive to work on the boundary of the overlay district related to overlay to data centers,

[01:59:45] the data center opportunity overlay district, and recommend suggestions for adjustments to the boundaries. We did provide a memo to the board that outlined what staff would do to complete this task.

[02:00:04] And, again, we did provide a memo to the board that outlined what staff would do to complete this task. And then in September, we came back to give you an update, and that's when we got the recommendation, hey, we already have these Stantec recommendations. Why don't we bring those forwards? We can bring those forwards much more quickly than doing the analysis that we needed to do for the other areas of the boundary.

[02:00:29] This report from Stantec was really, well, first of all, the ordinance that created the data center Opportunity Zone was developed back in 2016, and the focus of that effort was primarily to promote the development of data centers and have them located where existing infrastructure could adequately support the proposed use and to foster high-tech industrial growth while minimizing adverse impacts on surrounding communities, particularly

[02:01:05] impacts of the extension of transmission lines to these uses. In 2021, we got a board directive to look at the boundary again. We had looked at it in 2019 and added some other provisions in there regarding architecture, but in 2021, we are directed to engage stakeholders, look at embracing green technology, encourage conservation of green open spaces as have data centers constructed in a more holistic way.

[02:01:46] And staff, as a result of that, hired a consultant, Stantec, authors from the board to help us in doing this work and looking at the data centers. So though Stantec's main purpose was to find areas for more areas for data centers and expansion of the overlay district, they did look at, in addition, areas that could be removed, that were appropriate to be removed, and they identified nine sites throughout the county

[02:02:23] where we could remove the overlay district. Their first recommendation was the landings at Prince William. The county had, since the overlay district had been established, developed a small area plan for the land exit Prince William, and this area was replanned to mixed use and residential uses, and the existing industrial land that remained in the plan was topographically challenged and had irregular relatively small lots.

[02:02:56] And staff recommend that we proceed with a zoning map amendment to remove this from the overlay district. It's inconsistent with the landing small area plan, the landing at Prince William small area plan, and it's well served by transit and should be targeted for transit-oriented development.

[02:03:19] For Possum Point, again, this area did have power and was industrially zoned. uh for for half of it however most of the land is replanned from uh suitable land uses it's about parks and open space and the long-range land use plan and the existing industrial is either topographically or environmentally uh challenged due to coal ash and the electrical infrastructure that's there uh so we are recommending that this be considered for removal as well

[02:03:55] um as we had designated most of this parks and open space and um there's encumbrances on the remainder the other electrical infrastructure and coal ash for the independent hill again this was before the independent hill small area plan um it does have access to power but the areas were planned residential and mixed use and or publicly owned and so our recommendation is that consistent with the small area plan and this be replanned that we replanned this area in the small area

[02:04:30] plan from light industrial designation to residential and mixed use and so we're recommending that that area south south of 234 that was planned that be removed from the overlay district number four the noakesville area there was this industrially zoned land has access to power

[02:04:53] The county is looking for a more non-data center industrial in this area, and the long-range land use plan has identified this area for alternative industrial, light non-data center industrial, and that is what the plan was changed to, to I-2, which does not recommend data centers, and it is specifically for non-data center industrial land, and that was changed in the 2040 comprehensive plan.

[02:05:24] Uh, this small piece is just, um, a minor adjustment. Uh, some land had to be purchased from the nearby quarry for access to private access to Rosemont Lewis elementary school, a school, uh, division purchased that and is using that for their access. And they're the owners of that piece of land. So our recommendation is to take that out of the overlay district.

[02:05:47] The Bethlehem road, uh, area, um, east of Bethlehem road, uh, between the railroad tracks and the residential community there along chatsworth drive this area has been planned for office and residential and the office component is only 20 acres and has already developed with those types of uses and the other portion is residentially planned staff recommendation is based on the long range land use which is residential in office to the data centers are not be

[02:06:22] appropriate here and we're going to recommend taking that out of the overlay district number seven arcady run apartments this is built zoned and planned residential that's a residential development of apartments and staff is recommending that it be removed it's also been planned to reflect that existing use number eight university village this is areas partially built with residential and it's fully zoned and planned for mixed use we have the comprehensive plan

[02:06:59] shows that it's a mixed use area and there are those plans for additional residential and then finally the last recommendation up at Sudley Road and I-66 along Ballsford Road There's three areas on the west of that.

[02:07:21] There's 30 acres. It's planned for mixed-use development. It may not be appropriate. It's surrounded by residential on the south, and then it's an existing shopping center. Then the 118 acres on the other side of Sudley Road on the right is also planned for future mixed-use development.

[02:07:44] It may not be appropriate for data center development. And then the Coppermine Road Drive area, which is a small sliver on the south side of Coppermine Road that is planned for residential and it's environmentally constrained.

[02:08:00] There's a stream going through that. So staff recommends removal of these areas and they're inconsistent with the comprehensive plan to be in the data center overlay district. And that brings us to our decision points.

[02:08:18] So what we're asking is where the board wants to move forward with these staff recommendations to remove these sites for the data center overlay district. That will give us a next step to bring a resolution to initiate a zoning map amendment.

[02:08:36] Two, interest in staff conducting broader analysis for a boundary study per your directive in May of this year and implementing the process outlined in the June 2024 planning office memo, which will look at proximity of residents and schools and impact on other industrial uses and in the Innovation Park District space for future growth in the sci-tech industries.

[02:09:05] And the proposed process would be consultant assistance to conduct in-depth analysis of the approved data center applications and existing sites within the overlay, public engagement, meeting with the Development Ordinance Review Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission Review, and, of course, recommendations to the Board.

[02:09:24] And that concludes our presentation. All right. Thank you so very much. Supervisor Ware. Thank you, Madam Chair. I've got a number of questions, and I'm going to try to remain temperate, although I'm not sure how that's going to work. The Stantec report is now two years old, and the original version of it is even older than this one.

[02:09:46] Were any other parcels other than those contained within the Stantec report considered? No. Not for removal. There were other parcels considered for addition, but no. I mean, in your analysis, the only thing you did is take a two-year-old report and determine whether the parcels in that were eligible or should be removed, and no other work done on other similar parcels that have changed since the Stantec report was done two years ago?

[02:10:15] We were given direction the last time I was at the board in September. On the boundary study, we were given specific direction to start with the Stantec report and to look at the nine sites that were identified as recommended to be removed. Has this been reviewed by anybody else, DC, OAG, DORAC, CDC at this point in time, or is this simply a draft?

[02:10:39] So this is simply a draft. We were asked, first of all, the directive that we were given, the original directive was a priority directive. So we were asked to work on this expeditiously. And then secondly, when we received the direction in September to focus on the Stantec, the nine sites and the Stantec report, we did our analysis with the initial analysis with the expectation that we would be coming back to the board to present this and to get direction in terms of whether or not you want us to continue to proceed with focusing on these nine sites as a first step as part of the larger boundary study.

[02:11:11] I would simply suggest that maybe it's just me being cynical. But in the view of many residents, particularly those currently impacted by data center infrastructure, existing data centers, data centers under construction, this whole thing is rather meaningless and it's window dressing.

[02:11:34] All of the areas that you want to withdraw already have development plans that are non-data center development. You know, Independent Hill is already residential. We should have done this two years ago so we could have addressed industrial across the street.

[02:11:51] Skip to Nokesville for the moment. Rosemont-Lewis, yes, it addresses one tiny area, but then you've got a data center right next to it. So what good does pulling out that 2.5 acres do us when you've got the larger issue directly next door?

[02:12:09] I mean, this isn't going to really impact the application that's currently coming before the board. Bethlehem Railroad East, we just rezoned Bethlehem Railroad West and put a data center there. So how does that impact all of these properties? Arcadia Run, we don't go far enough.

[02:12:27] There's applications in right next door. Nobody's tearing down these apartments to put in a data center. So what's the purpose? You know, I could go on and on suddenly in I-66, the university village one. But to be honest with you, this really doesn't accomplish anything.

[02:12:48] Yes, it reduces the size of the data center overlay, but it doesn't address the underlying problem, which is that when the data center overlay was created in 2016, it was meant to funnel by right development of data centers in areas where there was sufficient infrastructure.

[02:13:04] As we've seen from multiple presentations before this board, from the JLARC report that came out last week, from the SEC hearings yesterday, that existing infrastructure no longer supports data centers. We have a generation issue.

[02:13:22] We have a transmission issue. The local co-ops, not including Vote and Novec, somebody else spoke yesterday, noted that simply getting equipment for a substation right now is a five-year process. If you order the transformer today, it will be five years before you get it, and then you can add construction time to that.

[02:13:42] Dominion does not have a transmission route to provide it. So the question is, why are we even doing this when the broader question is, should we just remove the data center overlay in its entirety since the premise under which it was created no longer exists from an infrastructure standpoint?

[02:13:58] And then we're not playing around the edges and giving what appears to be, take your pick, lift service or window dressing to the residents who are most concerned about it. I mean, I don't know that this juice is worth the squeezing, especially since the Stantec report is now two years old.

[02:14:23] And quite frankly, many would assume outdated and needs to be broadened, if anything else. And I'll leave it at that for the moment, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, may I just respond briefly? Yes. so again just want to remind the board that the original directive called for a boundary study of the overlay district with the assumption that we would be looking at the entire overlay district and we produce a memo back in June at that time this was before we were given a subsequent direction to start with the Santec the nine sites in the Santec report but in the memo in June that we provided to the board we outlined an in-depth process that we propose to look

[02:15:00] at the entire overlay district and to work with a consultant to do some analysis to identify the issues that have been identified as particular negative impacts of data centers such as proximity to residences to schools etc and as part of that process we propose to include community engagement not just as a part of the public hearing process but the actual process in terms of developing recommendations and examining the current overlay district in identifying sites that the board should consider potentially removing.

[02:15:35] So, and that is actually one of our decision points. While we were subsequently asked to look at the nine sites in the SANTAQ report as a first step, our assumption was that that was a first step. We've done our initial analysis. There's a question to the board as to whether or not you'd like to proceed with those sites.

[02:15:53] But our second question to the board is, would you like staff to continue to do this larger boundary study? we see that there is value. We believe there is value in doing that larger boundary study to look at the entire overlay district and to see if there are other sites that should be considered for removal.

[02:16:11] So I just wanted to just provide that context, which is why we include it as a decision point. We wouldn't ask you about it. Number one, it's related to the original directive, but also we would like to get the board's direction as to whether or not you would like us to continue with this study and to look at the entire overlay district.

[02:16:28] So I'm going to jump in. Yes, I would like, you know, and I'm going to survey the board members, but I do think we need to do this. And I think that's the next step. So I'm the one who issues this directive because, I mean, quite honestly, I was hoping to see more. I do feel like this report, we're nibbling around the edges because, again, a lot of the land is already developed or has some other use in mind.

[02:16:48] So I would like to see a broader study. But I also, you know, please pardon my ignorance. I'm new. This study was done two years ago. Why was it shelved? Why, you know, why didn't we, you know, I'd like to ask, you know, maybe Mr. McKenna again, because you were here.

[02:17:04] Why was this, you know, why haven't we acted on this sooner? Well, one thing I will note, obviously I was not with the county at that time, but in sitting down and reviewing all of the earlier work and previous directives related to the data center overlay district, I would like to note that the SANTAC report that we looked at for this exercise was released in early February of 2023.

[02:17:33] And later that month, the board issued another directive that led to the establishment of the data center overlay district advisory group with a focus on looking at the DCSM, the zoning ordinance and the noise ordinance.

[02:17:48] So that just wanted to point out that those were sort of two overlapping efforts just in terms of looking at the timeline. Quickly, you know, the data center overly working, data center, D.C.O.A.G., we need to have further discussions because in talking to some of the members, they are saying, and I guess Mr. Hugh was saying, you know, they have a Moseley Architects that's handling, you know, zoning in the D.C.S.M.

[02:18:19] We need to have a discussion because, you know, the group is under the impression that, you know, again, they're not touching that at all, and they're under the impression that they're only going to be dealing with things like setbacks, and again, I don't believe that they had a chance to look at this before it went public. For that to be a real working group, they need to have, you know, and it's an advisory group.

[02:18:41] They need to be able to advise, so I just wanted to put that out there. They need to actually be able to advise. So, actually, also looking at this, considerations for analysis, recommendations to the board. I do think we need to have, you know, greater public engagement.

[02:18:59] I do agree that it needs to be a Doric and Planning Commission review. And I do think that, again, we do need to do that larger boundary study. I really support that. I know I have other people in the queue, and they're waiting. So I may take another swing at the apple soon. Supervisor Vega. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[02:19:16] And it's refreshing to hear you ask the why. Why did this report sit on the shelf since 2022, October 24th, to be exact, 2022? It's a bit frustrating, to say the least, because if we would have had access to the report, I think we would have done a much better job at planning and making decisions that are obviously now far past our control.

[02:19:39] But we are seeing the damning consequences of those decisions and those votes that were taken. So, you know, thank you for asking those questions, Madam Chair, and realizing that that was an important factor that was never taken into consideration as we made decisions. And also, thank you, Ms. Washington, for, you know, talking about and offering the importance of looking at this in a more holistic lens, because I do think that it's needed.

[02:20:04] One of the things that I did notice, and maybe I didn't read the report correctly, but I do feel that we did look at current zonings and the comp plan, but, you know, I do think that a better effort should be made in regards to looking at areas close to schools and residential neighborhoods, because that is the challenge that we're facing now.

[02:20:22] And so as we continue to dialogue, have dialogue around this issue and what comes next and how we move forward, I think that that should be the emphasis. I don't want to, you know, speak further on it because, Supervisor Weary, you pretty much covered everything and the chair addressed a lot of the questions that I personally had.

[02:20:39] But we can't dwell on the past, certainly have to focus on the future, and the what comes next I think is very important. And I hope that we can give clear direction to the planning office as to what those next steps are going to be as we look into the future. And so, again, I take it you want the wider study.

[02:20:57] See more people jumping in a queue. Please let us know, you know, myself and planning, know which direction you want to move in. Supervisor, we are. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess my question comes down to timeline because Stantec's been sitting on a shelf for more than two years.

[02:21:15] I think everybody up here knows why. The public certainly does. DCOAG has been spinning its wheels for two years. And now I'm hearing, you know, work on the Stantec report and the data center overlay boundaries and removal of that was essentially ceased, or the excuse I'm hearing is it was paused so the DCOAG could work on it.

[02:21:39] Now I'm hearing from the DCOAG members that, you know, even though they were, by resolution, given the purview to look at things like siting, setbacks, locations, proximity to schools, in addition to the noise, which nobody is arguing they don't have the ability to look at.

[02:22:01] But in order to look at things like siting, proximity to schools, you have to look at the entirety of the data center overlay. And my understanding is staff was told them that's not in their purview, but that's in the directive. So I think we need to get clear on just exactly what we're doing here, who's doing it, and what role everybody is playing.

[02:22:18] I don't want to sit here for another two years waiting for, you know, things just to, quite frankly, I'll say it, things have been slow-walked for two years. And I don't think anybody up here is willing to wait two more years. I don't think we can wait two more years given the circumstances.

[02:22:37] So I think we need to come up with a very clear path forward. And for my two cents, I think that clear path forward needs to involve arriving at one of two destinations.

[02:22:53] You either look at the entirety of the data center overlay and you remove all of those parcels that are no longer able to be developed as data centers or shouldn't be developed as data centers due to proximity to schools, residential homes, that sort of thing, and dramatically pare it down, taking into account what's already developed or what's already been approved for development that is different than a data center, or, quite frankly, I think given the current circumstances, given the load demand, the amount of square feet that have already been approved as we rapidly approach a million square, or, yeah, millions and millions of square foot of data center,

[02:23:34] is whether the data center overlay in its entirety has outlived its usefulness And perhaps bring back an alternate suggested direction, which is removal or elimination of the data center overlay and what many other jurisdictions have done, which is make all data centers an SUP.

[02:23:53] Therefore, you can look at things like siting, proximity, and that, and address those issues on a case-by-case basis rather than giving them a cookie-cutter sort of process. The last thing I would note is this, with respect to community engagement, prior to the DCOAG being impaneled and during the original process that led to the Stantec report, there were numerous committee meetings, numerous public meetings, community engagement.

[02:24:23] In fact, some of the meetings that were supposed to happen at the time that the Stantec report was released in 2023 were then canceled. and I think we need to go back to that well and engage in more community engagement.

[02:24:39] However, I do not want to see what happened in 2022, 2021, and 2023 happen where you just put a bunch of poster boards up and say put your Post-it notes with your suggestions on it, and then they just go in a circular file. I think we need to have a real conversation with the community and not just some sort of dog-and-pony show with a bunch of slides and presentations and not really engage with the community to hear what their concerns are and how we're going to address them.

[02:25:08] And maybe we need to do that as a board collectively at some sort of town hall because I think we've, you know, we talk about a lot of crises. We talk about the housing crisis. We talk about this crisis, that crisis. I'll be honest with you, in Prince William County, we've got a data center crisis on many levels, and I think we need to get out in front of it and address it.

[02:25:27] Thank you, Madam Chair. Supervisor Gordy. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do believe we need to move forward with further evaluation. But in my mind, I asked the question, based upon the very foundational purpose for which the data center overlay exists, and that is to locate data centers within the areas of the county with existing infrastructure that could adequately support the proposed use.

[02:26:00] Jay Lark made it clear the Commonwealth of Virginia does not have the infrastructure to support this use anymore. And so for us to say, to look at this myopically from a Prince William County point of view, I think fails to recognize that we have a crisis that extends well beyond our borders as a county.

[02:26:25] And even if we do keep these areas within the county, keep some areas as part of an overlay, what it fails to recognize is that the areas outside the overlay are going to be impacted because that's currently happening in my district where the transmission lines are now having to come from areas that are either eliminating the buffers between data centers and the residential because that's the only way they can squeeze the lines through, or they're literally coming from areas and crossing over residential areas

[02:27:05] in order to bring power into the Hornbaker 234 corridor. And so the very idea that somehow just because we have the overlay, that this somehow doesn't have an impact. If we put the data centers in the overlay, that it will not have an impact outside of it is just no longer true.

[02:27:26] It has incredible impact outside the overlay. I do appreciate the fact that you used translucent mapping in this. Because if you take the subtly and I-66 photo, and this is the point that I've been trying to state, what's left in the overlay, if you go along Wellington Road, if you go along the 66 and Balsford Road corridor, there's currently existing business.

[02:27:56] There are small businesses. There are jobs that would be sacrificed for data centers if we gave this land up. And just in that area, and I'm not talking about just the three little parcels that are part of the Stantec recommendation.

[02:28:13] I'm talking about the entire part. The whole area should be removed because that, I mean, my son's train store is in here. There are bakeries in here. There are dance studios that would all be lost.

[02:28:33] And oh, by the way, there's nowhere to go. Nowhere to go. So I think having a better understanding of what we're up against here and realizing there is no infrastructure, not just in Prince William, but in the Commonwealth.

[02:28:53] B, what we stand to lose now, based upon the current what's left in the overlay, is we're going to lose other business. And so I believe we need to look at this. my view is we need to eliminate this altogether. How we do that legally is what we've got to work out, but I think we are beyond the point. I mean, we are saturated. That's the only way I can describe it. Saturated with data centers in my district particularly. We will be the data center

[02:29:24] capital of the world within the next decade and a half. So what we see today is just a small spot of what we're going to be dealing with in the future because this is a 30-year build-out of what's already approved. So that's my perspective on this, and I think the overlay at this point just really serves no useful purpose except to give licenses to data centers continue moving forward. Supervisor Bailey. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Tom, they do have somewhere to go.

[02:29:56] They can come to my district. I'll be okay with that. But I wanted to thank your department, for just going forward and bringing this back because we did request this and so I really appreciate that. Just a brief overview, but I think we do need to dig deeper. I think we need to take a deeper dive in this. But I think also this will give us more guidance as it relates to buy right if we take a deeper dive and I think that's important as well. And it will give the

[02:30:34] board more authority in our decision making as we go forward. I think the thing that we need to do is work smarter and not harder with this. But my request is that in this deeper dive, we make decisions based upon what makes sense going forward. Because with other jurisdictions, I know there's been opportunities where this has moved so fast that they kind of lost control. And I think we don't need to lose control i agree with you tom on that we don't need to lose control but i think

[02:31:10] we also need to think in a broader sense of what's the opportunity for our county as we survive so the deeper dive will give us that answer as it relates to but for me by right as it relates to what makes sense where um and i'm certainly um as you said you know the consideration of the analysis proximity to residents and schools that's very important to me very important to me So I would like to see the deeper dive, give a more deeper, thorough analysis.

[02:31:44] And I would also like to have one of the things that, from the experience in 21 through 23, is public engagement and input. I think that's very important across the county, not just from a certain space. So that's very important to me.

[02:32:00] So, Madam Chair, thank you. Thank you. Supervisor Bode. Thank you, Madam Chair. As the person who gave that directive back in 2021, this has been a long time coming.

[02:32:18] And frankly, I'm just as frustrated as some of my colleagues about the length of time it took. But on that same token, I want to commend Ms. Washington and her staff for taking a directive that was given just a few months ago and bringing something we can act on. Frankly, if such expediency had been done two years ago, we wouldn't be sitting here right now with some of the issues that we have, or at least some of them would be less pronounced um because i'll tell you um there are a lot of areas of this county that data centers are not a a preferred use nor should they be and they're not an appropriate use but because the

[02:32:56] data center overlay currently exists the way it does the outward policy facing uh posture of the county is it is and we run into these issues especially this year as a board time after time not if a data center should go there, but how high or how intense or what might be able to be done around mitigations because one's going to go up there anyway. And so again, this is a good first step, but frankly, I'm frustrated that this first step wasn't taken two years ago because this is exactly what I was looking for when I made that directive three years ago, almost four years ago

[02:33:31] now, as we sit around this dais. So again, I want to commend Ms. Washington and her staff for bringing this forth. I understand that. I know it's not enough, but within the confines of the directive that you were given, you came back with the outputs we requested, and I wanted to commend you for that. That's number one. Number two, I will answer the questions more directly, and I'll go in reverse order. So I think that we should do a broader analysis, but I want to kind of a little bit amend the second bullet point on that considerations for analysis. Because right now it says impact on other industrial uses. I think we should broaden

[02:34:10] that out to other non-residential uses as a whole. To Supervisor Gordie's point, industrial uses doesn't include other types of businesses. It doesn't include, you know, mom-and-pop shops, does not include restaurants, does not include bakeries, does not include commercial-facing retail that are for the community. Industrial use, I think, is too small of a box for that consideration. Because there are other community-facing uses that should be looked at on if it's appropriate for a day center to go anywhere close to. So I wanted to add that. Other non-residential uses, because I think that encompasses all other commerce. Because residence is already covered in

[02:34:48] the first one. So that's one. So I agree with Supervisor Weir. I don't want to be sitting here having outputs for this another two years from now. Because again, we know the General Assembly will be acting on some of these things this coming year. And then we know that they're going get probably another bite of the apple at least and then FY or uh calendar year 26 so we should not be sitting around here with another two-year lead uh lag time between now and and when we make

[02:35:23] more additional actions around this so that's my other thing because I agree with that um the last thing I would say is we should move forward with removing these sites and I know that just as we were, you know, having earlier agenda items, Ms. Washington got a proposal or at least a pre-submission from someone that's looking at one of the parcels in the landing that was looked at. So obviously as you move forward with your analysis, I know a zoning, a resolution initiative, a zoning map amendment is going on. Obviously as we talk about the context of getting rid of larger swaths of the

[02:36:00] overlay, there's obviously that concert that needs to happen of where are things in the process, right? We have existing things in the overlay that are already campuses that are built out. They're asking just to add some more. We have other ones that they're under construction, not a full campus yet. And we have other ones like this where they have either a project in the pipeline or a pre-submission.

[02:36:19] So obviously from the legal but also the policy standpoint, we have to really look at what can we do and what we should do to help constrain this where we can, but not cause folks sort of legal turmoil because we don't want to be in that position. The very last thing I will say, because I see I have 45 seconds left, the other part of the Stantec report that I made sure was in the directive was on the architectural review, the standards, and what have you.

[02:36:49] And I understand that at this point, we're in a crisis level, so that stuff isn't as important as just limiting where these things can be built. But I still think that there's also a proper path to how versus just if. So I still think that that broader analysis, after the boundary study is done, should still include a revision of those standards so, again, we're not stuck here negotiating with folks over and over on the standards that should always be there at the start.

[02:37:15] Thank you, Madam Chair. Supervisor Angry. Ms. Washington, to the point of the landing in that parcel, are you working with the landowners as you determine these parcels that we want to remove from the overlay?

[02:37:32] So at this point, again, we wanted to bring these findings and recommendations to the board to determine how you would like to proceed, but we will definitely be in communications with any affected property owners. Thank you. That is my recommendation.

[02:37:47] Secondly, I would agree to expand to look at other parcels on the overlay. I would also agree to look at the same SANS Act that wanted to recommend other parcels where they believe the overlay should be or parcels that should be in there.

[02:38:05] So if we're going to do this, I want to do it holistically. That's just my one-eighth. I'm not going to – anyway, thank you, Madam Chair. So I just want to say what is before us, and we can have a separate discussion at a separate time about adding parcels to the overlay because what we're specifically looking at and what the directive I gave was to remove from the overlay and to do it with some sort of immediacy.

[02:38:30] So if we're going to look at adding stuff, that's a separate discussion. And I would say that you have, hold on, a number of people on this board who do not want to add to the overlay. So that has to be a separate discussion because that's something that may not pass.

[02:38:47] And if I could respond to that. And that's clearly what I see happening here. So I just want to go on my one-eighth of the record as not being a part of what is happening here. That if we're going to talk about removing parcels, we should talk about where parcels should be.

[02:39:04] If this study that we've contracted out this group to do so has recommendations as such. So I just want to go on record. Yes, that may fail. I will just go on record of stating it. Thank you. I would encourage you to work, you know, although the meeting is going on or maybe between meetings.

[02:39:21] Actually, no, we're going to do supervisor time before we meet the school board. I encourage you to possibly come back with a directive. If you want to add parcels so that we can make this official and get it on the record. Because right now this directive is talking about removing. Supervisor Bailey.

[02:39:40] I don't know if this fits in those two little boxes, but I want to throw it out there. As we're moving forward to do more analysis, one of the things when we talk about Possum Point, that is an environmental opportunity for us.

[02:39:55] So I don't know how that flows with this, Tanya, but I would like for it to flow with this because that's something that is not new, but it's something that is on our horizon. And we need to dig a little deeper to see how that kind of information flows with the output here.

[02:40:18] I would like to see that. Certainly we can do that. Thank you. All right. I am so sorry about this. So just for where we are, we're going to put a pen in the discussion and move forward. it looks like you know we have a majority who wants to move forward with a broader analysis for a boundary study um and it looks like you know we have people you know even though a number has feel that this isn't you know we would have liked to see more that um you know we have the votes or the interest to move forward with the zoning map amendment so thank you very much for

[02:40:54] this thank you very much all right where are we now so all righty woo i can say this now because it's only four o'clock, but we're moving pretty quickly. So now we are going on with supervisor's time. Hold on. Oh, wait. All right. We're going to do things a little differently. Supervisor Vega. We're going to go with Vega, then Franklin, then Gordy. Thank you, Madam Chair. My gift to

[02:41:30] you all is that I have nothing for supervisor's time except wishing you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. All right. Supervisor Franklin. Yep. I just want to point out a couple of things. Last evening I was joined by Prince William Department of Transportation as I hosted a public information town hall on the Indus Drive Port Potomac traffic study. This was held at Port Potomac High School. I'm sorry, Potomac High School. This is the first of its kind comprehensive traffic study provided residents with a holistic view of traffic safety concerns

[02:42:03] and solutions for the community. I want to thank everyone who came out and obviously there will be a lot of follow-up as we've been talking about Indus Drive for a few years now and as those who live off of Port Potomac have expressed concern about speeding cars as well. Also I just want to point out last Thursday I spoke at the Chamber of Commerce about the importance of affordable housing not only to our residents but also to the business community. I just want to thank the Board of Directors for their questions and their interests. I'm looking forward to their participation in the

[02:42:39] larger discussion around affordable housing as well also a couple of electeds who are retiring pamela sebesky out of the city of manassas was able to attend her going away she and i have served on the omni riot commission where i served as chair and she served as my vice chair we've always had a good working relationship so i told her i think she's going to be much happier than the rest of us in her retirement but we're certainly going to miss her and her thoughtfulness on omni ride so thank you to uh councilwoman pamela sebesky and then also outgoing congresswoman

[02:43:15] abigail spanberger who hosted um her legislative brunch on yesterday as a going away for herself and so just want to thank her for her service to the seventh congressional district uh and i know that we're in good hands moving forward but certainly i'm going to miss uh being able to collaborate with her office on everything from constituent services to that on larger public policy issues. So thank you to Congresswoman Spanberger. And then obviously, as an honorable mention, Congresswoman Jennifer Wexton, who does not represent the 7th, but who I know many of us

[02:43:51] were able to work very closely with as well. And then lastly, I just want to point out that we had our 37th annual holiday senior holiday luncheon at the Woodbridge Senior Center. I want to thank those who attended is always well attended i want to thank our county staff who came out as well and so looking forward to next year and at some point we'll be celebrating 40 years so i expect to see everyone there including everyone on the dais and that's going to be fun and then lastly i want to point out supervisor weir's holiday i'm just going to call it extravaganza

[02:44:25] you know we had an incredible time um we had some great holiday cheer uh everyone was in the spirit and uh looking forward to uh spending some additional time with my colleagues so thank you and i hope everyone has a great holiday supervisor gordy thank you madam chair um i just want to uh thank uh all the planners uh in the uh in noakesville for putting on a very successful noakesville christmas parade um had a great time and it was great to see the community come out for that i also want to congratulate the prince william county police department on

[02:45:03] receiving the top award in the virginia state police's uh help eliminate auto theft otherwise called heat program uh combating auto theft and related crimes um throughout the year they have been very active in reminding folks to lock their cars to take their wallets out take their firearms out and other items that are certainly people are leaving their vehicles and so just want to congratulate and appreciate the Prince William Police Department for the good work that they do

[02:45:36] on that want to wish Space Force a happy fifth birthday on the 20th and just want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Happy Holidays. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Ingrid. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[02:45:53] We've, OmniRide's expanded again. We launched another route, Front Royal to Warrington, did another ribbon cutting, so congratulations on that. The transportation industry in the county is picking up and very happy. Also want to thank Congressman Spanberger as well for her time in supporting Prince and also my colleague Pam Sebesky for her time on the council in Manassas.

[02:46:24] She's been a tremendous help. I also want to just thank and look forward to continuing the work we've done in the Neopsco District. We've done a lot in this past year, got a lot of projects completed, got a lot of projects on the way. Hopefully we'll be finishing up some things here in the beginning of next year and also starting some miserable work that's going to be with the interchange at Minivale and the Parkway.

[02:46:51] So that's going to be hopefully a groundbreaking here coming up in April. But there's light at the end of that tunnel with the Whole Foods still being a big part of that, and so hopefully we'll be seeing that at the end of the year start taking shape.

[02:47:07] It'll be a couple of years before that's actually done. And so getting into 25 is going to be a lot of major development coming on in the district. And I just want to prepare the folks for that coming. But there will also be a lot more ribbon cuttings as we are starting to wrap up some residential developments and also fewer opportunities.

[02:47:28] So I'm just excited for the year. I want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and looking forward to a prosperous and a healthy new year. Thank you, Madam Chair. Supervisor Bode. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to sound like a little bit of a broken record here with some of my colleagues' comments.

[02:47:44] Really appreciate being out to the Western OmniRide Center for the ribbon-cutting on that new route. It'll serve a lot of folks in western Prince William County, and will hopefully start to bring more influx and inflow of residents from other jurisdictions who want to work in Prince William County versus the opposite.

[02:48:04] So there's a lot to come there. So I really appreciate that conversation and that ribbon cutting. We had our last Joint Environmental Task Force meeting of the year back on the 12th. I will be sending out to my colleagues here probably the next couple of days, not only the first report which we finished this past year, but also a look back on everything that we were reviewing over the last year for that JET task force.

[02:48:31] A lot of great work has been done in collaboration between us and the school division. Really a lot of opportunities for us to continue to collaborate, so I really appreciate that continued commitment. Last Friday, we had that joint NBTC, a PRTC-BRE legislative forum.

[02:48:47] I know, under his role as Chair Angry and OmniRide, did a really great job and was a really great conversation around the regionalism of transit and how, frankly, one of the biggest things that we can do as elected officials to help improve the quality of lives and cut back on costs for our residents is to continue offering transit as much as we can and grow our transit network.

[02:49:08] And I think there's a lot of great things on the horizon to look at that. I'm going to cut the rest of my comments short because I do have a directive to give. It should not come as a surprise to any of my colleagues as I sent it out on Friday, and it pertains to the JLARC report that came out last week from about data centers.

[02:49:29] So give me one second as I bring up the language. Without objection, I would like to direct the county executive to have staff amend the Prince William County 2025 legislative agenda with the following addition.

[02:49:46] Quote, Prince William County supports the findings from the December 2024 Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission, J. Lark, study, which recommends legislation that would, one, expressly authorizes local governments to require and consider water use estimates for proposed data center developments.

[02:50:05] Two, expressly authorize local governments to require sound modeling studies for proposed data center developments. And number three, expressly authorize local governments to establish and enforce maximum allowable sound levels for operational data centers facilities using alternative low-frequency metrics zoning ordinances.

[02:50:23] In addition, we support legislation which seeks to protect utility rate payers from bearing the cost of infrastructure needs driven solely by the data industry as well as address the risk of generation and transmission infrastructure costs being stranded with existing customers. Madam Chair. Yes, Supervisor.

[02:50:40] Would the supervisor entertain a friendly amendment in addition? What is it? To expressly authorize localities to require load data from data center applicants as part of the application process?

[02:51:01] Interesting idea. I don't know if all applicants would have that information, would they? Yeah. They would? They're supposed to. At least that's what their testimony yesterday at the SEC and to JLARC is. They just don't provide it. Yes, I'd be okay with that.

[02:51:22] All right, I don't see any other questions. Madam Chair. Yes, this is Professor Bailey. Pardon my ignorance. What's load data? When a data center does its application, in almost all instances, they have an idea of how much electrical load they're going to require or have requested or have put in a load letter to the utility so that they can figure out when and if they're going to get the power necessary both to open up and to operate it full build-out.

[02:51:57] Okay, I get that generically, but would there be a legality parameter with that? That's what the General Assembly needs to address. Currently, the SEC and the industry withhold that data. It's going to require legislative action to change and authorize us to get it.

[02:52:15] I know there is a bill or two or four currently, not that we can see them yet because they haven't fixed LIS yet but that will address that and afford local jurisdictions the opportunity to request that data so that you know full well ahead of approving an application how much power that application is going to require. So if I may one more question Madam Chair will that jeopardize us as decision makers as a board if we require that in advance in terms of you know we have to take a vote on the application will that put us in jeopardy and make they're taking that vote

[02:52:55] from a legality standpoint not that i'm aware madam county attorney i mean i'm assuming it's just one more data point in consideration of a larger application madam chair members of the board yes i agree okay i just want to keep us safe okay all right thank you so very much in order to add that to the legislative agenda we will need a motion correct if there's no yeah no objection all right thank you so very much supervisor we're we'll start off with merry christmas happy holidays thank you for reeb cutty coming to the holiday extravaganza last week

[02:53:32] particularly those who actually lived up their commitment commitments to come and um enjoy the eggnog this year having failed to the prior year but um i said thank you um i'm going to make a comment though um sort of dovetailing or continuing the discussion on the the overlay for my 1 8th and I think in the view of most residents of the county and particularly those in Brentsville and Gainesville expansion is not an option supervisor angry I understand if you

[02:54:09] want to put one in Neabsco I can't even support that because the the impacts that such a decision or such an application would have not only county-wide but statewide and somewhat argued across the mid-Atlantic region you know Possum Point's not going to get redeveloped in anything other than a new gas generation facility or a nuclear facility because they now have to revamp it to provide power to stuff on the east end.

[02:54:33] But it's not the east end of Prince William County. It's the east end of Stafford County, the east end of Spotsylvania County, King George and Caroline, because all the power from there is going south to supply their new data centers. And the new power lines, the new taller power lines, will be going through y'all's districts.

[02:54:53] Believe me, I've dealt with it. Have fun with that argument. You know, I think more to the point, it's time to send the industry, speculative developers, and their attorneys a message. They don't run this county, this board does, and the residents who elected us to this board run this county.

[02:55:13] There are a lot of restrictions that are likely headed our way by way of Richmond and legislation this year. There is an appetite for it, we'll see if they clear. I'm sure some of them are not going to be welcomed by VML or VACO.

[02:55:29] But I think because of the actions of any number of counties, we're not alone. It's us, it's Loudon, it's Stafford, and take your pick. The state legislature is going to act. And they're going to act because this is now a matter critical to the Commonwealth from a grid stability standpoint, a grid security standpoint, and, you know, the ability of the utility companies to provide the generation, provide the transmission, even provide the distribution.

[02:56:03] I've been following this rather closely and have been listening to meetings most of the last two weeks, including SEC meetings all day yesterday and JLARC last week. There is no underestimating or understating the level of the problem and the impacts that it will have on us, both from an infrastructure standpoint and a cost standpoint to the rate payers.

[02:56:24] That's something else the General Assembly will be handling this year. My fear is that if we don't handle it and the General Assembly doesn't handle it, then the feds are going to handle it. And the last thing you want is the feds taking over local policy. So if we don't do it, they will. I think you can be pretty assured of that.

[02:56:41] And the last thing I would note is that, to Supervisor Gordy's point with loss of commercial space, Loudoun County is actually ahead of us. We're going in the opposite direction if we do this in terms of expanding it. Even Loudoun is looking at reducing the footprint of their data center industries because they see the loss of other commercial properties, valuable commercial properties, tractors and that where they're losing a portion of their tax base because the landlords of their facilities are selling out. I think we need to get out in front of this. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[02:57:13] Supervisor Bailey. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. On December 10th, I had the honor of receiving the service award from the Boys and Girls Club. It is an honor to be on that board. We have a great time, but also we serve the kids of the county. And so just thank you very much for acknowledging my service to the community.

[02:57:34] I want to thank Seth and his team for hosting the community meeting at the Fuller Heights Park Expansion Project. It's something we've been working on for about three to four years, and it's coming to Fru-enches, Fru-enches, excuse me. And so I thank you for that.

[02:57:52] Congratulations and best to Mr. Quentin Haynes, our former deputy. We took him out to lunch, and we had a great time. And so we'll miss you, Quentin. So thank you for your service. And to my dear colleague, as Supervisor Franklin said, Pamela Sebesky, we will miss you being on the boards we've shared with you.

[02:58:13] But you've done impeccable work, and so congratulations on your next life. To TCOM on Quantico Base, thank you, Lieutenant General Benjamin Watson and Emily, his wife, for a great Christmas party this past Friday. We had a great time.

[02:58:29] And going on Quantico, just reminiscing, you know, the old times and having a good time with the staff there. We appreciate you. On the 14th, Tom and I had the privilege of participating in the NOVA Veterans Association 5th Annual Reef Across America project.

[02:58:49] And to the Secretary of Virginia, we thank you so much for coming to share that day with us. It was a total sincere and warm but cold day, but we had a great time. And then on the 14th, the Dumfries Parade.

[02:59:04] We had a great time in the holiday parade. It was big fun, and I want to give a big shout-out to the city manager, Tangela Ennis, and her staff and Mayor Wood and the council for a great time in the parade this year. Congratulations to Future King's Alumni Day.

[02:59:21] That is an organization in our community that is doing impeccable work with our young men in the community and so Dr. King you're doing great and thank you for the invitation of participating with you. Church Jefferson thank you so much for coming to visit Mrs. Santa yesterday. We had a good time in my building passing out Christmas gifts to the little ones who are there to get their medical services for autism and for mental health concerns and we had a great time so thank you for coming to support

[02:59:53] And I echo congratulations to Representative Abigail Spanberger for the service that she's given to us in her tenure as our county representative in Congress. We really appreciate the work and the support. Last night, my staff and I had an opportunity to go to the Forest Park School Winters performance with my school representative, Justin Wilk.

[03:00:18] I'm telling you, these students, they are going to go and get these Tony Awards, I know, on Broadway, because they are absolutely great. And then I'm looking forward to the joint school board meeting. To come, I'm looking to also participate in the Smoking Jokers graduation that's coming up on the 18th.

[03:00:38] And then on the 19th, I'll be honoring my annual appointees holiday gathering for my appointees. We appreciate your service so much. Notice of intent, I'd like to appoint Tom Smith, our very own Tom Smith.

[03:00:54] I know most of us remember Tom. To the Solid and Ways Citizens Advisory Board. Tom, thank you. That's a good place for him. That's a good place for him, yeah. Thank you so much, Tom. And then condolences to the family of Patricia Lightfoot, who has been a stalwart in our community.

[03:01:15] She passed away on December 6th. We will miss you, Pat, and to your family, our love and condolences. And then today, Madam Chair, thank you for allowing me to support in this way just for the funeral of our own Tom, Mr. Tom, who passed away.

[03:01:32] And he was a part of our Parks and Rec. And we just appreciate his services. And that's all I have. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Supervisor Franklin forgot something. She has two seconds. Let's time her. Yeah, just very quickly, I just want to mention the annual MLK oratorical contest that will be taking place January 18th, 11 a.m. at Mount Zion Baptist Church in Triangle, hosted by the Prince William County Alumni Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta.

[03:02:02] So we only have a few more weeks, so I want to make sure I got that in. So thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so very much. This is our last meeting of the year, and I want to take a minute to say it's been a pleasure working with everyone on the dais, at least 75% of the time. um but i was okay i'll go to 80 because that's a b that's a solid b so i do want to say happy holidays to everyone i gave a number of people what i'm doing is um i traditionally give christmas cards or happy holiday cards but this year i decided to give new year's cards you know there's

[03:02:37] a great quote from socrates the secret of change is to focus all of your energy not on finding the old but on building the new i love new year's because it's a chance for us to start over to look at the things that we wish we would have done better could have done better should have done better but we'll resolve to do better so one of the things i actually want to announce is you know this is tentatively scheduled we're still working on it but monday january 27th doing a state of the county um and so doing a really gigantic town hall on steroids um everyone on the dais is invited i am sorry tom i know that you will be out of town you know i was trying to

[03:03:14] it an alternate date because I would like as many people to join me as I can where we really talk about what's going on in the county. I think it's very important. Again, transparency is something we've heard over and over from constituents, so I want to make sure that I have, you know, a big event and really talking about the county as a whole, not just one particular district.

[03:03:35] With that, I also actually do also want to say, because I had the privilege of attending congresswoman spamburger's going away brunch um i didn't have the chance to work with either her or congresswoman jennifer wexton as you know many of you on this day as have um you know i know that they're you know moving on to the next chapter of their life but i also want to say that i really look forward to working with congressman elect suha subamani and eugene vintman you know i've with all of them already with both of them already that you know i'm going to come to them with my christmas list of needs for the county they laughed they thought i was joking i'm not i'm

[03:04:14] not it's not a joke yes i think i've been mostly nice you know mostly um and so with that i would like to also you know give a little bit of business before i head out before we head out for our recess i would like to announce my notice of attend to reappoint the following individuals to boards committees and commissions samantha mirror patricia bright and laura halfler to the animal advisory committee mirror believe m-i-r whatever bob it doesn't matter okay um diana paguia to the board of equalization seth handler voss to the health and performing arts center

[03:04:52] jim larkin and jacqueline connor to the tourism industry and advisory board um i just wanted to note that we have our joint school board meeting at six o'clock in the powell creek conference room looking forward to talking to our colleagues about you know um i know that They want updates on the crisis receiving center, you know, talking about the governor's budget, you know, and we really want to, you know, we had questions, you know, particularly concerning enrollment, their capital improvement program or CIP.

[03:05:21] So, you know, I'm looking for a fruitful discussion with that. We are in recess until six o'clock. Thank you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coraggio Consulting · aguyonx.com