County Board - workshop

Well, that may be a little.

Good afternoon, everyone. Barely afternoon, and it certainly feels like morning as we settle in. But this is welcome to the CIP wrap-up work session. If you'll, Ms. Purgis, you and FAC, I propose to go first with the presentation. And then we're kind of working this organically. We will go through potential amendments that have come up. First we'll give an opportunity brief opportunity should the manager or his team want to provide any big-picture updates that have occurred so we'll go to The manager first Assuming that it's brief and then to miss Burgess then we'll go to amendments. I am mindful that We may want to take a short break we want to be considerate of all staff who's here and but we may wanna take a short break to make sure that all board members are sufficiently caffeinated, sustained, are gonna make it. And also to give a little bit of a moment, we have more items proposed for potential for guidance than we do for amendments. Colleagues, I am open to your comments or texts as we try to have a, or however you wanna do it, as we try to make sure the process here works for all of us. But this is for our public, We have had a number of work sessions. I'm thinking in the neighborhood of eight to 10. And this is our wrap up. Next Tuesday, we will adopt the two-year CIP as well as the planning, the full CIP. And we have, to complete that, we will have amendments, I believe, a couple, maybe more. And then we'll have guidance that accompanies it. And we are working with our policy manager and the board, as well as the manager's office, to help reach amendment drafts, which we'll move towards final this week. And the same thing with respect to guidance that accompanies the adopted CIP. So I hope folks can indulge. staff and everyone who knows that process can indulge a brief description for our public. Mr. Manager, we had some emails over the last 48 hours. Are there pieces that you would like to update us that have happened since your initial presentations?

We're not going to be making a presentation, but we have posted all the material online. We've had a number of follow-up questions, so there's a lot of substantial material in there. I'm happy to talk about any of that.

But other than that, nothing at this point. Thank you very much for mentioning that. A number of the questions have been posted, I believe, in the last 24 hours, and that's on board members for me included, for asking questions at that time. It's just organically how it occurs. We now do have time for deliberation and consideration. So with that, yes, Mr. Spain.

Thank you. I think we have the CIP wrap-up work session maybe that's just for us. If you find it okay, I think it would be beneficial to kind of go through this kind of like the outline just so those who may be Watching can have you know you engage?

Themselves and know when they can probably come back, but I think this is Important to kind of lay out if you don't mind just talking through this a little bit sure so we're gonna do it by subject by sort of top big topic area and there could be some evolution and how these and there's some interplay there's some some items that initially may seem as amendments that may end up as guidance. Usually it wouldn't work the other way around, but that's kind of how it would work. And I'm happy to do that briefly now. I was going to do it after Ms. Burgess spoke. Okay, that's fine. Thanks, Mr. Chair. But why don't we go with that just so that we can engage with Ms. Burgess. And for those tuning in, we will give a sort of a context in the next, I'd say, depending on Ms. Burgess and our questions for her sort of 10 minutes or 12, 15 minutes from now, depending on how that organically works. But thank you for mentioning that. I do think it is appropriate to give people that context. It's to Ms. Burgess, you and the FAC for your, you sent us a very helpful letter, and you probably, if you can help us run through that and know where the FAC's thinking is, we're grateful.

Great. Thank you so much. I'm Jillian Burgess, chair of the Fiscal Affairs Advisory Commission. And I want to thank everyone here, and especially the staff. Staff did a great job with their presentation, answering our questions. This is a very complicated subject matter, and we really do appreciate it. Also appreciate the IT staff that puts everything online. And to anyone watching, members of the public, there is so much public information out there if you go into the county's website. The board has asked questions. staff has answered that, that's up there. And you can watch all the videos on two times speed, which is great. So thank you very much for all of that. Speaking of speed, I'm not going to run through every single recommendation of the FAC in detail out of respect for your time. But we did send a report with nine total recommendations. And I was going to go sort of thematically and cover them briefly. And I'm happy to answer any questions. So with that, we do have a presentation. to pop up. Thank you very much. Okay. So, next slide. Generally, and actually just pop over to the next slide, the themes are in two broad categories. We have recommendations related to this proposed CIP and recommendations on the CIP process. Related to this proposed CIP, these are really big picture recommendations. In part, as you'll hear me talk about, because we didn't have recommendations to change very specific line items or change where money is allocated. It's more where we could be spending our time to improve how the money is allocated. And then the second bucket is how the process works. So the big themes under those. For this CIP and for specific CIP projects, we think there could be better partnerships to use our assets better to get more efficiency, to get more bang for the buck, so to speak. And we think there's ways to get better project delivery. On the process point, we think there's ways to get better information to help with the decision making and better public engagement. So next slide. On this CIP, and I call these the capital project delivery recommendations, the real headline here, and I know this is a lot of information, but better partnerships and alternative delivery methods and ways to go. We think that better coordination can stretch the capital dollars. We're thinking with APS. We discussed specifically coordination with APS, but also with outside partners. Nova Community College is out there. There are other partners out there that we could be thinking of. to do these capital projects with, especially when it comes to facilities. And one thing that struck us was there were a couple discussions where a question was raised, was an alternative public-private partnership or alternative delivery method considered? And sometimes the answer was no, for various reasons. And so we have a specific recommendation that above a certain threshold, we should always consider a different delivery method. And the answer may be no. The answer for TJ Middle School might be that the empty career center makes good swing space, but it might be that there's a reason it doesn't. Or the answer for the Career Center might be that we can partner with Northern Virginia Community College, build a big building with a new building for Montessori beside it, and there's room for all of that. But there might be a reason that doesn't work. We just should consider it when we're investing above a certain threshold. The specific opportunities in this category, our central library, that site is one of the most valuable that the county owns and we're sinking, this CIP has some money going into the park planning process, it's really relevant right now. TJ Middle School and Community Center, the Arlington Career Center, Also with parks, exploring friends models, foundations. There's friends of the Mount Vernon Trail, friends of the W&OD that already exist, but are there other things that could help support parks? We see that with the boathouse. We think there's probably more opportunity out there. And then school transportation, just making sure that when we're planning transportation, the school's question is front and center, like on George Mason, maybe prioritizing the segment in front of Wakefield instead of putting it last. So that was the big one, going even faster. We also talked about third spaces. A lot of the headline issues that we are grappling with these days, mental health, deep disconnection, needing things for kids to do, third spaces is one of the important solutions to those problems. And we noticed that a lot of the projects that were delayed in here in this proposed CIP, compared to the last one, were third spaces related. some recommendations about trying to restore some of that third spaces funding, and also finding more reliable funding strategies, particularly along the commercial corridors. We recommend that we evaluate streets that VDOT still owns. Are there any segments that it would be more efficient for us to own? Also to explore AI for capital asset management. There's new tools out there that could potentially be saving us money and predicting things before they come up and helping us evaluate what's the most efficient way. Not relying on it entirely, this is just explore how we can use it. And then for transit capital planning, there's broad support for transit and love that there's a lot of funding going to transit in the CIP. But one thing that we've noted is that there's not always integrated planning between all the different capital projects and the implementation. So, for example, with the zero emission buses or ZEB, you know, having one plan that, and it's an evolving topic. This isn't sort of a criticism of the past. It's more like, okay, now that we have this experience with them and we know something about them, now is the time that it makes sense to have a comprehensive plan that looks not just at the capital for the bus, but the capital for the bus, and where we're going to park it, and how the energy is going to be used, and if it could be an extra battery for resiliency sites, and then also the implementation and other parts of it, just a single plan. Better performance metrics, which is something we always talk about. But better performance metrics for transit, we hope that that's coming in the updated master transportation plan. Especially for the Maggar transit pilot, we would like to see metrics before it gets expanded, like some targets and see if we're actually meeting it before it gets expanded. And bus stop accessibility, which is a long running thing, but let's, you know, let's talk about how far we are from the goal and how we're going to get there. Okay. That was really, that was a lot. But the next slide will be faster, I promise. Next slide.

There's not, I mean, efficiency does not mean you have to sprint.

Yeah. So process recommendations, just for better decision making. We sit here with these documents, and you guys do too, we've noticed some things that would help us come to better, we think that would help us as a community make better decisions. So on facilities, We do a pretty good job of the inventory of the condition of the facilities, but we don't have our utilization metrics. We brought this up in the operating budget, but we think that looking at the CIP really underlines it. We have supply. We don't have demand. And developing those utilization metrics, I think, would help us a lot in just how we spend our money and find places where we could get some more efficiencies or have some improvements. And then for individual projects, we think risk metrics would be helpful. For example, in the public safety area, especially with the jail, there's a lot more investment going on there, and it's a bit hard to to evaluate what investment is really public safety, what investment is risk of failure of a building, and what investment might be sort of a nice to have. So having metrics and having some data there would really be helpful. Also, we recommend that everything, that there be standardized summaries and that changes all consistently be explained. We're definitely moving in that direction. Just have some recommendations around there. Finally, better engagement. We noted that under the current system, the primary paths for engagement for the CIP are the Arlington Neighborhoods Program really provides an important pathway for citizens to sort of directly influence capital projects. But it's focused on civic associations, which sometimes doesn't capture everyone, every resident of the county. Sometimes we are not getting renters. You're not getting people who live in multi-family buildings, which is the majority of our residents. And so we think expanding opportunities for individuals and civic groups, in addition to civic associations, to have a role in the process is important. And then the other main pathway is the survey. And the survey is very general. It talks about priorities. You know, the general priorities of the county, which is great, and that's a great way to capture people who are invested at a very high level. But there are people who are more invested than that. And so maybe an extension to the survey, getting into more depth and allowing people to comment on specific projects in that way. And, you know, we're here with a staff-developed project list. The opportunity for individuals or civic groups to propose projects is important. And that's all sort of related. So with that, that is my very quick summary of everything in the report, which has a lot more information. But I'm happy to take questions. And I, again, would like to thank staff and the work of the commission.

Thank you, Ms. Burgess. And thank you as well to Ms. Cunningham, the liaison. who was able to help me move off a dime to, you guys have been working together and I can hear pieces of it. I'll open the floor to questions for everyone I see. Mr. Karantonis is light at the moment. I'm sure there could be others, but Mr. Karantonis.

Thank you. I was thanking the FAC for investing the intellectual capital to go and to think ahead, and for us, many times. So I have two questions, and the first one is pretty central to my thinking about the balancing of priorities of this IP, and this is about the third space discussion. So there are different carriers or different departments that create third spaces. Third spaces should be classified as a public facility that has many uses. It's very flexible in its delivery, yet very efficient in operating it. So there are two types of third spaces. pieces to that. Number one, we had a couple of years ago, or three years ago, a strategic planning process for libraries. There was a lot said there about what the new third space should be looking like and how it should be operating. And in the interim time, we haven't found a way to actually deliver towards that. There are only the bigger libraries. It's obvious that the plan is saying, oh, you need basically more versatile facilities. It also implies that you need facilities that are closer or in the middle of where most people live. like the Central Library for example, and then you have the mix of conditions to grow a public space as it is envisioned by the strategic plan. So does the highlight of third space investment connect to that thinking?

Well, I think the one observation from the commission is that third spaces are kind of split between different silos in the county. I don't mean that as a normative term, just different ways that the county thinks about things. So libraries have lots of great third spaces, but so do community centers, which are under parks. And so when we're thinking about these strategic plans, yes, libraries has a strategic plan, and parks has a strategic plan, and both of them have looked at demand and where we need things, but they're sort of not a third spaces plan. We're not saying we should make a third spaces plan. We have lots of plans. But this has kind of ended up in a bit of a gap where you have two different plans that are not necessarily lined up. They don't really talk to each other. They're just sort of separate. That was the discussion at the fact table, that these two plans don't totally talk together, and therefore we don't have one vision for third spaces.

I appreciate that. Yeah, there is some siloing between different, in the division of labor between the parks and rec and libraries, there is a division. Yeah. And actually the strategic plan for libraries wanted to overcome this and spread the functions into more assets, so therefore making more efficient use of these assets. The second question, it has to do with what you talked about, the ARNAC. The idea of this program is to give agency to residents to actually do something, effectuate change or capital investment that they think that they're good for their neighborhood. And you're absolutely right that this was not always handled with the same intensity and efficiency across the board. There were also equity issues, et cetera. So what is the thinking of FAC here when you say to involve more organizations, which sounds very... intriguing to me. Is that a change of the operational, you know, the assembly of ARNAC and the type of delegates they have and the type of leadership they have?

So we didn't, we were, I think it's fair to say that we had a diversity of opinion on ARNAC. But what, and one thing I should have said at the start, all of our recommendations were unanimous or nearly unanimous. which I'm particularly proud of. And we worked together and we found sort of the areas where there was consensus. On exactly the role of ARNAC, that was one place where we were very much divided. But we were in agreement as to the fact that participation is a very important goal and that there are these gaps in participation. So we didn't get into the solution as to whether it's make ARNAC more robust and add more more channels into ARNAC aside from the civic associations or if there's another solution or if something needs to evolve. It's just here is the statement of the problem and here is the goal, which is make sure we're covering the rest of the county because currently the civic associations are they have their limits.

Yeah. Thank you, Ms. Burgess. I find it very intriguing. I mean, we hear from other cities and other places where they also experiment with micro bonds, with, you know, municipal. They elevate. They started where we are with ARNAC, where the money is on our side and the public input is on this side. And they even found hybrid solutions to that that are, and even increase the agency. And this is where other civic, the civic sphere gets, you know, more coordinated and provides more input into that. I find it absolutely intriguing to follow that line of thinking. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. For taking too much time.

No, no, no. Thank you, Mr. Karantonis. I have two buckets of questions. I know Mr. Spain also has a question. We'll sort of loosely try and keep it to one or two questions and we'll turn to amendments. I don't know if anyone in the room on our staff knows the answer as to whether we have ever considered with ARLNAC, like the CFED, different, but CFED was rooted initially in neighborhoods, but now they've moved to organizations. Does anyone know if we have ever considered organizations for ARLNAC, keeping in mind that the name of the group is in tension with having, you know, but wanting to consider your point, Ms. Burgess, do you know? We don't know.

I don't think so. Not for our NAC, no.

Got it.

We certainly collaborate with other organizations. Think about Arlington Soccer Association and the great partnership on, for example, Kenmore. So there are different organizations like that that are engaged in our capital planning processes and helping, right? And then on the operating side. You all know about our NOFA processes, so I don't need to talk about that.

But for things that are very specific to this organization. So the beauty of participation earnings is that when we have this intersection, right?

Yeah. I guess I'm still trying to think through in my mind how this might work on a capital basis. So I could envision it plausible that A group of, say, supporters of gymnastics, for example, might be interested in a new facility other than the one at Barcroft. And so I simultaneously think there's merit to the approach of having a different form of engagement, but I haven't yet taken that idea and thought about how community engagement would best work. But it does seem a reasonable question for our community engagement team. So that's one thought. I'll have one more question, but I'll send it to Mr. Spain.

Well, thank you. And I'll just have one question. One, first, Madam Chair, thank you so much for your work. And Scott, thanks for being here. Y'all put in some long hours on behalf of our community putting these recommendations together. I did take a look at your presentation, and one thing stood out to me, and we'll talk a little bit more about this later, You made a high emphasis like on the Lee Arts, the Lee Center as a potential opportunity. And you also talk a little bit about public-private partnerships. Are you saying in essence that we should be as a county more diligent in our efforts to maybe study these a little bit more before we bring them into a CIP? Can you talk a little bit more about that and the rationale behind it?

Yeah. I mean, land is our most valuable asset. People are probably our most important asset, but our land is very valuable in Arlington. And so every sort of square foot of that land has a lot of potential. And when we're looking down the barrel of some of these budgets that are so tight and constrained, it's hard not to see the opportunities that there might be other pots of money that we're not quite taking advantage of. And this is where the county staff has been innovative and really excellent at doing things that are relatively new in lots of spheres. And we think that they could use a little nudge to get into this sphere of public-private partnerships, other sort of delivery methods where we have to be careful about it. We shouldn't run headlong and make the mistakes that other jurisdictions have made. But then there's also success stories from other jurisdictions where we can find extra capital dollars by renovating or building buildings that other organizations might will use. And so that we can build up, we can have the space that we need. And I mean, just thinking about the Central Library site, the buildings around it are all so much taller than that building. you can imagine a world in which that building goes up. But in order for us to afford that construction, we could fill some of that space with a private use that helps pay for pay for the construction and the building up. And it's just important to think through it and do it right. Lee Arts Center is another one because of it's in a commercial corridor. The transportation is already there. You know, the opportunities are just huge.

Yeah, it helps us at the end of the day, speed up delivery. And then it also helps us with some of our county costs, right? If we can do partnerships, I believe. Thank you for making that poignantly into your presentation is duly noted. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Sorry, if I can just add one thing. You can also improve service. So Northern Virginia Community College doesn't have a metro accessible campus, and it doesn't have a campus in Arlington. And here we are with Arlington Tech, with all of our option schools, with all of the things that we find to be a priority. Northern Virginia Community College is just sitting there. So that if we could find a space for them, it probably would not only help us fund it, but also provide a better educational path and a better service path for residents that would want to take those classes. So it's not just money. It's also improved service to go along with the funding.

Thank you for that way of thinking. Appreciate it.

Point very well taken. invite you and others. My experience when I was liaison with the Northern Virginia Community College, I started all this eagerness to get a site, not just in Alexandria, but in Arlington, for goodness sake. I did not eventually run into a ton of enthusiasm from their board in this virtual world. Your solid thinking is they're irrespective. But if someone can disabuse me and say there's hope there, I'd love to pass that to someone in addition on that specific item. But more broadly, point taken. And vice chair Coffey and then Ms. Cunningham.

Yeah, I guess I'm just thinking about the times at least one that I'm aware of, that we have done public-private partnerships, right? Because if you think about the HB Woodlawn and the Heights and the fire station and the housing, that was a public-private partnership. And I don't want to put staff, too, on the spot. But I know we are thinking about it. I think in the scoping of the Lee Center, at least one or two of the options include the possibility of some form of external partnership. And so I just would invite staff to maybe share. I think we are all discussing it. Maybe this goes to the more communication side of things, that it isn't always making it out. But I think we're always thinking about who else we can bring in, and especially if those people can bring money to the table for us.

The short answer is yes. I mean, we rely on the board giving us direction. I'll go back as far back as the Arlington Mill Community Center, which is probably at this point the charge we got on that was 15 years ago, where we were directed by the board to do a public-private partnership. And Western Roslyn Area Plan, which you were referring to that led to Fire Station 10 being part of the overall development, was guidance there. And that's part of when I say that we're looking for guidance from the board about what might happen with Lee, or in the future when we've laid out a timeline for what would happen in the Quincy Park and Central Library area, absolutely a part of that conversation. Places where... It simply won't make sense. I'm just going to be bold enough to say that if we're looking to do improvements to our jail, I'm not interested in a public-private partnership. So we can't say it applies everywhere.

No, I appreciate that. And we did note in the report a couple places that they're already in there. And this isn't to say that it's not happening at all. We just would like to put the nudge in there that there could be more. And we did note that there were a couple projects that were discussed not on the county side, where when it was asked, did you even consider something else, the answer was there was no consideration at all. And at some point, if if there were a clear line that we're not spending X amount of money without consideration, and even if that consideration is it's the jail, you know, at least consider it. Yeah.

Great. Thank you. Is that it? I saw Ms. Cowan, did you want to add to that? Or you don't have to?

No, no, I just, I think, and we are, think about the Boathouse, where we're relying on outside fundraising. Again, Kenmore, where we've partnered with nonprofits. Think about... the partnership at Long Bridge with Boeing that we're continuing to pursue other options there. So I think it's more in the bloodstream than I'm not sure who all and county staff that you all talked with, but I think it is a regular question we ask. I would also just note that every site in Kenton County is so site-specific, so what is the possible, without having a conversation on trade-offs, like think about Lee Center. We have a park there that's heavily used by other partners. How are we gonna talk about that and what the possibility of those partnerships are? And I think that's why we need to be really Working with you in the community about laying out just rather than just saying broadly public-private partnership What is the scope of that because in order to get any yield on a particular site? You really need to know how much space how how tall are you willing to go? What are the other public policy goals that you might want to pursue as part of that partnership? Then then go right into what a financial yield could be affordable housing as a priority We're not going to get a great contribution to a public facility if we partner a public facility with affordable housing, which is exactly what we should be doing. But I just want us to really think through, and that's where we need engagement with you all. I would also remind you on Arlington Mill, it was one of the first projects I worked on with the county with actually Greg. And when we did that public-private partnership there, the first time it fell apart. I want you to know that. They're very complex deals. We spent about two years working on it. It fell apart for a variety of reasons. We ended up in a great place with True Grounds out by True Grounds. But it is not an easy pathway. It is very complex. And so we just have to be realistic about so much of it is the counterparty risk. Do you know what I mean? Who are you working with? What are their interests? So I just, I, you know, anyway, just wanted to say all that.

No, I think that's great. And it largely touched on my kind of concluding thoughts, which in some ways it feels almost like we have a slight chicken and egg problem because until we do the engagement to decide what direction some of these projects are going, it's really hard to imagine engaging any sort of external partner on what that could look like. But I do think that there needs to at least be a sense of that this is on the table of something that we want to be considering and talking about without providing perhaps too much direction that it preempts what the engagement process. And I think we'll get to that circular problem on at least one facility when we talk about guidance.

And if I may, I think the utilization metrics point kind of gets there. Because there's one thing just to document what's happening today. But the next step of that is what could be happening. What's the denominator? We can tell you how many hours something is open, but how many hours should it be open? And the first step is just to figure out how we are using the facilities we have. And then the next step is to figure out what the utilization could be. So it's all in that direction.

Thank you. All of that is very helpful, and I do think we will get to some of the issues there as we go forward. Ms. Cunningham.

Yeah, I mean, I just, it was one of the pieces when you summarized the conversations you all had had, and it's right at the top of your proposed capital projects, but that And I think it really respects a lot of feedback we've heard from some of these bigger projects, which is when they move around in the CIP. The CIP, again, is a 10-year plan that's really a two-year plan with some rounding of what we think might happen. And it's really hard on communities when you have your heart set on a new library at Central in one decade, and it shifts to another decade, or Virginia Highlands, or Lee Arts Center. And so I really like the idea of when there's a shift of more than X years, which happens sometimes as we're rebalancing, that that's a moment where you say, what are the avenues that might be available? And I think one thing that other jurisdictions have done and we haven't done as publicly at least, I think some of it happens at the staff level for sure, but is to say, hey, we've had to delay this project and we're not going to get to it until later. If anyone has any ideas and want to bring them forward to an RFI process or something for some of these bigger parcels that might even go ahead of the engagement, it's sort of a precursor and you're not committing to anything but you're collecting ideas. Because I think we're going to continue across the next decade to have a lot of conversation about these bigger projects, about revenues that are tighter, about climbing costs in other areas. And so ways to open up to that creativity in addition to the great work we're already doing at the staff level I think is a very important point. I also wanted to go back to the third space piece, because I know our chair thinks that I probably planted this, but I actually didn't. I really didn't. So I'm really thrilled to see it, and I think we hear it in the community as well. And I wonder what thoughts you guys have about how to weave together in the public spaces master plan or in an overall arching element, how do we get that right, thinking about libraries, thinking about parks? They're not all buildings, right? They're gathering spaces, community centers, public private spaces, or publicly accessible private spaces. What thoughts do you have there, or what questions would you like us to work on so that you can strengthen those thoughts?

So one of the things I love about FAC is that we have a fairly diverse set of backgrounds and opinions. And third spaces did come organically, in part from people like me who have kids, but also in part from people like my amazing vice chair, Scott, who

Not so many kids.

Yeah, doesn't have kids, but needs a place to work. There are people with different life experiences, and many of us had the third spaces concern. As far as your answer, I actually don't have one right now, but we as a commission are happy to take that back. That is a great, we call it the off season between budget and one budget and the next budget. So we have a few months of off-season where we do some work, and I would love to take that back as an off-season discussion for us to have.

Yeah, I think that's great, and I think some of the original kind of community facilities study efforts a decade ago were trying to open this question a bit, and we may have gotten stuck on the facilities piece, because it's not all... a roof. It can be a plaza. It can be a bus stop that's cool and has a little, I don't know, but it could be a public art piece. And I think to zoom out a little bit and think more broadly about that with schools is a pretty important thing that maybe FAC and or JFAC together could help us move the ball.

Great. Thank you for clarifying that the third space was separately arrived at. And it's very helpful. I am mindful of time. And I do have a specific question that loosely I'm hoping the manager or his team or some of the four or five folks who I associate as facilities engineer wonk leader types who are in the audience might be able to tell us which is you mentioned ai do we use to your question miss burgess do we know if we use ai and capital asset management yet is there a head nod or i'm fine with folks to come up but i also um imagine that the answer could be no not yet and we're thinking about it um i'm not I think I've already demystified that I do not have great AI command myself. But I do think it's a relevant question to ask either now or prospectively.

We're going to have Adil answer that question because he actually has those two letters in his first name. So go right ahead. Yeah.

Yeah, as far as, I think it goes back to predictive modeling and some of the things. I think, you know, we are very much moving towards a data-driven approach of how we manage facilities. A lot of the comments from FAC, I just had a chance to look at it, I think we're very well aligned on. With respect to AI specifically, we haven't started doing that just yet, but we are definitely aligned on a data-driven approach, taking a look at utilization and all those things. All those other things were definitely very well aligned on.

Great. I would imagine, I'm not sure that I'm there on... but in the next CIP as we lead into it, I really think we're gonna have to think more granularly about data and also perhaps at least consider a tool that from what I know about AI could be useful. Ms. Coffey.

Yeah, I worry a little bit about that as I worry all things AI, but especially thinking about liability and risk and relying too much on models that may not know all that they need to know, especially when it comes to things like facilities and maintenance, because so much of it is tangible, making sure that we don't Rely too much on on predictive things versus measure act a true measurement Which we do I think a pretty decent job at I think because Ultimately just because a model says this roof should last five or ten more years If we are seeing things or we know things we you know, I just I guess I question kind of like the utility of that in terms of We have processes that work for us right now. And injecting a level of unreliability, especially knowing that these predictive models are not nearly as good as everyone thinks that they are at this point, we're still a ways away from that level of reliability.

Sure. Got it. And I know that Mr. Karantonis has endless intellectual curiosity, so he will want to jump in on this. I would just say that over the weekend I learned of a friend, of a high school friend, who is using AI as a substitute for their own personal financial planning. And you can imagine I was aghast. So I'm hoping that we can move beyond, like, as a tool is what I'm hoping. And there won't be guidance, at least for me, in this. But that's what I was thinking of. Mr. Karantonis, did you want to add?

I would like to complement a little bit Ms. Coffey's thinking. We haven't yet modeled the system. And by the way, the model will look pretty much like our preferences. So major, major cities are trying right now to figure out what the promise and what the reality of that is. And they start mostly to the economic efficiency of investment here. I'll give you an example. One line of... One mile of a water main, a replacement of a water main in Detroit is about three times less expensive than in Chicago. The reason is that in Detroit, because of the problems of the city, they do it in very big patches so they don't have to mobilize often, et cetera, et cetera, so they do bigger chunks. which is not the case of the city of Chicago. The difference in the per mile measure is abysmal. It's 300%. So we are not yet there to have understood that. We are about to standardize and understand that, and I believe that you provided a very good explanation of what is your modus operandi right now. If you pair it with the fact that we've seen our pay-go budget going down and being very constrained, that's the point where I would begin to expect some return on investment in anything that is automated or algorithmic. The other thing is I really want to understand how metrics work. For me, there are also other things like, for example, measuring emerging needs. We put a library in this building. This library is actually so popular that I would easily say that it's too small for the place it is. And the proxy measurement is how many people live around here. And so I believe that it is easier to see the need than to before we measure performance and measuring need is for me an absolute priority right now.

Thank you. It seems to me that we will... The place... Yeah, you're okay. Run while you can. The place where it seems that all board members have come together, and maybe this can be helpful, is around data, which is on individual need as well as performance. And so that, as we look forward, it remains to be seen whether that would be a guidance piece, but certainly... I hope it's useful as we're planning for the next time. And I see your light on. Concluding thoughts to you? Oh, Ms. Cunningham, go ahead.

I just wanted to lift up two of the other things we didn't spend quite as much time on. And I know our staff has spent an enormous amount of time on them, so I just want to have an opportunity for that conversation. About VDOT ownership of roads, could we share an update of what we've been studying and any additional comments so FAC knows what's going on?

And I can have transportation, Sarah, come up. You know, I think we have done some initial evaluation of Langston. And I know, Mr. Spain, we were working to get with you on the Langston Boulevard Alliance at the Langston Boulevard Alliance timeframe, which they delayed. But it does come at an additional expense that we think we should talk you through.

other control issues but sarah why don't you go ahead sure yeah and just to pick up where ms cowan left off it does come at additional expense and we've done some rough high-level calculations of what that could be on certain corridors we did speak specifically with vdot on langston boulevard We've thought, and you made mention, Ms. Burgess, of could it come in sections and from an operational maintenance perspective, that wasn't something that VDOT was really willing to entertain. It was kind of an all or nothing perspective from their mind. But we haven't gone further with them because we first needed to understand the cost implications. There are also other implications on Langston Boulevard related to the national highway system and agreements with FHWA that would have to be co-signed with the county should we want to take over, which is something that we'd not run into with Columbia Pike because it's a different classification of roadway. So there's layers there, and we're starting to compile documentation that we can brief as needed.

So we're doing a deep dive on Langston right now, and then I think FACT was interested in some other, probably GLEAB if I had to guess, and some others. So this might be a model for how we'll look at that going forward.

The similar complexities is much longer than a lot of other federal, right? Yeah, yeah.

I mean, I think the first pass is pretty compelling that the costs are really ginormous. And probably this isn't the right moment for it. But it's important to do the analysis. And it's a logical question. So thank you for elevating that. The other one was really just overall delivery risks, particularly on the large transportation projects. So I don't know if there's any comment we can make on that, but especially the projects. A lot of our transportation projects have regional funding. You know, it's all this dedicated funding that you couldn't use to do a third space or something else. But then when... if they are bigger than the breadbasket that was initially estimated, that usually falls to us as a liability. So maybe any updates on Metro projects or CC to DCA or how FAC and the board can think about that risk. You thought you got away.

I'll just start off a little bit, too. I mean, of course, as you know, Crystal City East was our first example of PPA, right, through delivery. So it is, and with Clark, and it's going really quite well. So again, we do pursue these things, one of the biggest ones in the state. Ballston West, we are doing a design build there for such a complex project, and probably the second biggest, most complex project beyond Crystal City East. So where we're pursuing that, and hopefully we will have an initial construction project to the board contract, or I should say the initial phase, this fall. I think on CC2DCA, we're a little early on that one. But trust me, I don't know... anyone on staff who wants to build our own metro station project on our own with an ITB without some sort of partnership. I mean, we would be fools if we would do otherwise. So Sarah, if you want to chime in.

Sure. Just a little bit more detail on that. The metro station projects are obviously ginormous, as was mentioned, and incredibly complex. And that was the issue that we ran into with some of how long it has taken to get us to this point right here. We've been very conscious of how that impacts cost, but I think we have a really good path forward with the procurement mechanism that we're moving forward with now. Just to add for CC to DCA, we've been working closely with VDOT and FHWA on requirements for delivery method. We're hoping to do an alternative delivery method to provide greater flexibility both for control for the county's perspective, but also hopefully for innovative design and bringing a more comprehensive, sophisticated team together to deliver that project. We did receive concurrence from VDOT and FHWA that we can choose an alternative delivery method. We are talking about actively about how we will sequence that with a design contract and then a construction contract. So that should be coming within the next six to nine months or so.

Great. And I hope that helps kind of bring to life the work that's happening inside the building.

Yeah, that's very helpful. And I just wanted to reiterate what's been said before, that the presentation of the transportation capital budget was really excellent. It's very, very complicated. And you guys have the risk measures in there. That was just very helpful for us. A lot of gratitude to you guys for doing that. And really appreciate that you tried a bit of a different presentation year over year. And hopefully you've gotten the feedback that it works. We definitely thought that that works. If anything, the one thing we would say is it could have a little more information about funding sources. And then we think that maybe that could be a model for other parts of the capital budget. Maybe not an exact model, because different parts of the budget are different. But the stoplight sort of risk grading and stuff was really, really helpful. So thank you. That was really great.

Thank you for the conversation and the questions. Great. Ms. Burgess and Ms. Crawford, I think you're off the hook for now. And Ms. Burgess and Mr. Pedowitz, if you're able to stay, that's great. I'm mindful that there are other things in the summer to be doing. But we will switch gears now to a discussion of CIP amendments. And Mr. Kushner, I'm going to ask if you might... eventually share mr. Spain asked for a kind of a review of The CIP amendment topics and proposed guidance. We are not at a stage I believe listening to and trying to get every Consolidate everything that we are in a place for most of the potential amendments to I don't think it's useful at this stage to get to precise language in most cases, but I do think it's useful to talk about concepts so we understand and have some alignment on the concepts. So if you could put the list up, it will also help for those following at home, which there may be some who don't know There may be a few particularly interested in particular topics. What I'm going to propose to do, colleagues, and it's really open to your will, is that we try to work through the potential amendments on a get the concepts basis and shift to trying to get to 115 when we will have gone through all the amendments. Then I'll propose that, and I hope staff, this isn't too much of a problem, who needs to stay for all the guidance. You may not want the glory of all the topics of guidance that we'll go to. I would propose to take a 15 to 20 minute break because not all of us actually, we just need a minute to take a breath. And we can skip that if we need to, but I would propose that approach. For awareness, we do have a three o'clock deadline by which we need to have mostly finished because we have a couple of staff who have equally important commitments believe it or not as the County Board and they need to step out by three o'clock that doesn't mean we have to hard stop at three o'clock but it is advisable since key key folks have a three one of our key folks in particular has a three o'clock commitment so we'll try to work through that the and I'll I'll just go through these in order the fur of the amendments and so I would guess that the guidance pieces of this One slight tweak to that list is that the Lee Center piece of things, and we have a moderately interested member of our audience who is here on that topic and has been here three or four days of the past month. So the Lee Center piece, I propose that we pull that up into the discussion of third spaces. They're not the same, but there are some links. So we'll go through the Lee Center, I hope, before 1.15, 1.20, and then we'll come back. The first topic is Quincy Park. And I'll go to you, Ms. Cunningham, in a moment on that one, mostly to filibuster and give you time. I will... sort of first go to energy unless you're fully ready. If you're all set, we'll go to you there first, and then we'll go through the rest of the subject.

Yeah, I think that we've talked a little bit already about the discomfort of the centrality of that site, the importance of that site, the value of that site, and the pouring into a very tired building additional capital improvements in each year, the last couple of years. So I would like us to consider asking staff to come back with a initial kind of pre-planning effort on Quincy Park that would include potentially seeking an outside partner. And that could lead us to move faster on stopping the bleeding on the existing building. and using that site more intensely.

Got it. Thank you very much. We'll open the floor for some discussion, and we'll try to work toward sort of to see where the concept is and whether it, how it lies. Go ahead, Ms. Coffey.

Yeah, I think I have kind of two preliminary questions that, you know, should not at all misrepresent the fact that conceptually I'm with you, and I think that this is, to me, and I've conveyed to the manager, one of the biggest public space priorities for me is finding a way to get you know, on the metro corridor where the heart of our population is true community space. And I think ideally doing something on this site that includes, you know, the continuation of the library, but also an expanding community center opportunity and affordable housing or market rate housing even. I'm certainly open, but I guess kind of Those hopes and desires aside on the more practical elements of this, my two questions are the Quincy Park planning process is moving forward at some point, and I see we have DPR here if they want to come refresh us. And that will include some degree of... thinking about the central library facility. And so I guess one question is, can someone refresh us on what exactly the timeline and what is included in that planning process? And then the second question is more of a, I don't know who this goes to, but thinking of a facility on the scale without having done the pre-planning or programming, engagement that would be required to know exactly what would go here. But do we have, I guess, even a ballpark in terms of what a facility of that magnitude would cost?

Why don't we start out with Eric talking a little bit about what it is we have in the proposed CIP, and then we can walk back to those other questions, which are, there's a lot in there.

Yeah.

Good afternoon. So the parks portion of CIP includes $930,000 in 2030 to start planning. It follows that in 2031 with about $4.2 million for design. Our planning process was basically to look at, the entire park site of Quincy Park, so all the facilities there, as well as the parking. Because one of the things that we've been looking at there is, is surface parking the best and highest best use of asphalt, right? Because you may be able to combine that into some kind of structured or semi-structured parking that you could then expand recreational opportunities for. So that is sort of a holistic planning process for the park amenities. We are, we have the, we understand the library's there and we can coordinate that planning with any kind of direction we take with the library. We can use the existing site and then coordinate as far as access and parking needs and things like that. Or if there was something else to proceed, we could do that coordination, that planning with any kind of holistic like look at the library and any other facilities that would be there as well.

And I think that would be our intent, that we would look at overall amenity placement, smartness of the park, of course the library or a future library, plus, plus, plus, how that might all work together. We would never invest in parking only to deal with the park needs when we have broad uses there, of course, so there's that. I would also just, because we always forget about this, I think, part of the Quincy site is owned by APS. Really weirdly owned, how that is, and of course, as you know, they have varsity baseball there, so they are a partner. That sounds small, but how that amenity would be factored in, so just another partnership area that we need to work through. In terms of, quote, replacement costs for Central, We did do a quick and dirty on just taking the existing program square footage and just replacing it. So like for like, with the exception of parking, using Grace Hopper costs, which are our latest, largest public facility. The largest, latest public facility was Lubber Run, right? Think about it, right? And Fire Station 8, that's a very different type of facility than a community center. But that is like in the range of 60 to 70 million. Now you'd need to think through, I mean, again, that's like for like, that's not anything new, no community space, no other spaces. Swing space, parking, and then any other, like I said, other possible use. So in my mind, I think when you lay all that out with swing space, I think you're easily talking in the $120, $150 million range. Even look at the TJ addition that they're talking about. Just think about that scale of investment. And so even with a partnership, I think it's hard for us to figure out. It's still going to require a pretty significant public outlay. But I think we are all with you. We want to tackle. We've had Quincy and Central and the CIP for like four times. We are interested in getting to the point of tackling it in some way. But does that answer your question? Or not?

I mean, it does. It answers the question. And I think where I'm a little stuck, and that is more of a us problem than a you all problem, is I think There's agreement that it's a priority. Those numbers are big, big. And I don't know how we manage the rest of our capital desires to get to a point where in the next decade, 15 years we realistically have debt capacity for 150 plus million dollars of a new facility and like I don't I think squaring Squaring that kind of fiscal reality with also our desires and hopes and dreams for this is really hard for me because I don't want to never, it's never going to get cheaper to do. And I don't want to never do it, but I just don't know how we make room for that. in 10 years, 15 years to have something of that magnitude into the CIH.

So I want to see if I understand the amendment piece. And I'll be brief because I know you wanted to jump in there. There's a planning component to this, and then there's the capital within the 10-year piece. If I read what you shared with us, is that there are two components to what you would like to be in the amendment. Is that right, Ms. Cunningham?

Yeah, I think what's in the CIP right now is for the park only, right? So with the awareness of library and sort of illustrating, I think, the discomfort of how do we break the looking at parks, looking at libraries, and forgetting about all other third spaces. So I think the invitation here would be to say, particularly on the library side where we are sinking cost fairly significantly. I don't know how much we've poured in in the last five or 10 years. 30, 20, it's significant. Under 10, so 10 so far, and then there's another five or 10 to come. So I think, to me, there's a question of, you're going to be spending money here one way or the other. Do we work on getting a couple different options for how one might think of the whole site? And you might phase it. You might leave the library there, or you might take the library away and have it be in other spaces for a while. But I think to get it right and to get it most cost efficient and to get to it ever, we need to start with that planning work. And I think parks is stalled as long as you could. It's on the park side. You've got to do something. So that would be the proposal is to accelerate some planning on one hand. And then alongside of that, an invitation to external partners to bring us ideas and see if we can get a little farther or decide that we're not ever going to be able to get farther, in which case it might be stop trying to preserve that particular building in that particular way and think about those services going to another spot.

Sure, so for my part, trying to synthesize all the, and I'll go to Mr. Schwartz, there's analysis of the cost that we're sinking, and then there's planning. Both of those seem different for me than advancing the capital infrastructure to get to the $160 million in this CIP, if that makes sense. So you've added a little bit, fleshed out for me at least, the capital analysis in addition to the planning of the library as opposed to the park all of those for me I'm interested in I'm just what I worry about is I simultaneously don't want to plan forever to get to the space but I also don't want to over promise that we're actually going to build the you know to to have the 160 when I feel like their concepts moving Mr. Schwartz and I'm not expressing a view one way or the other but when

When Michelle answered the question about libraries, she said plus, plus, plus. Okay? And so if you're suggesting that we move ahead with planning, then I think you're going to need to think about what those three pluses are, how many pluses you want, and when you want us to consider the pluses or, no pun intended, whether they're going to be additive. We consider the first plus and then we look at another plus. That's all just to lay out, and I don't think you need to answer that right now, but those will be the questions as we launch into it, because I have a number of letters from community members dating back 15 years saying they want this to be like Central Park. with no buildings there, or they want it to be something that will help the county pay for it by including commercially owned condominium units on top of a library or affordable housing. I mean, you can go down the list, and that's without even scratching the surface on what Ms. Coffey had talked about, which was a community center type of function. So there's going to be, I'm just saying, those will be additional questions, and I don't know if you wanted to add anything to that.

No, no, and the only other, well, you just can't reach out to partners without giving them some vision. I mean, there's just not, we don't have a list of five people who are going to say, hey, would you invest in this area? They're going to want to know. They're all in different businesses. It's difficult. We have to think through. We have to give them some scope, and they will want something in return. Dedicated programming. signage, maybe not a big deal, but sometimes a big deal. Certain hours, access. So we have to have, be willing to have that conversation, which involves community trade-offs, I think. Which we can do, and we've done it before. It just takes time and clarification on what we're looking for.

I want to, for sure, to expand the conversation, Mr. Karantonis, I also eventually will want to learn and understand We would need an amendment to add to the 930 K in planning in 2030 for the library space Even if it's an out year not in the first four years. I think we would still need an amendment on that and So I'm just trying to eventually I don't know that we're gonna pin this we may want to go through all topics and then come back Mr. Cantones.

Thank you I really appreciate the thinking here, Ms. Cunningham. And it really rhymes with the discussion that we have about how much of a priority are third spaces and what are these spaces doing, right? The plus plus plus is a discussion, actually, it comes naturally or it emerges organically from the fact that we have seen in the last 10 years maybe that libraries are more than just libraries. a lot more, and that the neat distinction between community center functions, service delivery, buildings, and libraries, this neat distinction begins to be more of a gray area, and we have multifunctional buildings that do many things at the same time, which is an opportunity for efficiencies, actually, in service delivery. The only issue that I have is that I would like to see that more embedded in a more comprehensive revisiting of our entire library system. We have, and I will go back to Arlington Mill, actually, where there was a very reasonable, in my opinion back then, in my opinion today, you know, proposal to actually stack a library there.

It was rejected by the board.

And it was rejected by the board.

But it may have been a really good idea from staff. So not this board.

I just want to be clear about it. We're so much smarter than transport.

But your decisions will last forever. And that is, for me, reason enough to be more comprehensive about that. For me, the Central Library site, that includes the Quincy site and all its recreational, even Marymount students play there, all its recreational offerings, et cetera, is the central part of a service delivery of Third Place++ on the Orange Line corridor. There is the huge blue line and yellow line corridor that is completely underserved compared to this right now. And I think we need to understand that Crystal City and Pentagon City need consideration. So for me, my question to staff here is, is it a good idea to, I mean, is it workable to include in guidance language that you know, kicks off a process of an assessment of the system of the library slash, primarily library system and see, you know, where are our assets? Who are they serving? How do they relate to the population density and needs around them? And then start a more organized methodical thinking that gets us to actual decisions on money a little bit later down the road. Is that a good idea, or is it too much work, or is it too fuzzy of a scope?

That lives in guidance, I believe.

I would live in guidance. This wouldn't be an amendment.

Yeah, and I think we can talk about that in guidance further. I want to give the staff the chance to answer, but I'm also trying to move us towards concepts that we can then follow up on in the amendments and come back to. But go ahead.

I'm not sure I have an answer for you right now. I would just say that given the conversation we've had where you have so many hopes and desires poured into this central piece of property. I just wanted to explain where it was, why we started with our proposal. We think that at least identifying what some of the recreational needs are that fit on that site as the first step, is one of the pieces of the equation. There are plenty of other pieces. So it's essentially blowing my mind here. It's seven-dimensional chess, so we started with one or two pieces that are more knowable. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do a library analysis, and we did one two years ago talking about the kind of system we wanted to have.

Yeah, sorry to jump in. But I think part of the challenge is they are interrelated. And there's opportunity cost that's being created. So we need to update that field and playgrounds and stuff like that at some point. But when we do that, we then won't be able to come back for 10 or 20 years and dig them all up and put geothermal for a new library. So there's a chicken and egg problem, I think, as the chair said earlier.

But giving hope, at least for me, I think what you probably heard and you can evaluate yourself, and I'm trying to synthesize concepts here, is at least for me, I don't know timing, but aligning the park planning with the library planning is of interest. And then your point about sunk costs, even if the sunk cost is way lower, I think some analysis there could be of interest. But what I think I hear from Mr. Karantonis, Ms. Coffey, and at least my own view is that advancing the capital piece, that part of of the proposal feels to me like promising more than we currently have planned. And so I'm not inclined, could be persuaded otherwise, to support that piece of what you originally brought to us. But we would still, it would still be in the nature of probably an amendment

Where you were we to try to plan and do analysis and I'm not closed on that we may have to think it through more and Back to you to sort of see if we can take a sense of the board and then go to the other items, too So we have about 38 million dollars in the CIP for the park Which does include the construction and improvements I assume right it's two phases though so I guess yeah to your point like at least having a the conversation on how libraries and parks and other third spaces want to interact in the future when we do invest in them. I think we need to have that conversation before we are digging on the park. And we have only so long before we have to be digging on the park or dealing with some major disruptions. So I think it is planning dollars earlier. It may then lead to, in the next CIP or the one after, saying we're ready to go. We need to. Or it may lead to we need less of a building at some point. But I think some of that thinking, and to Mr. Tkarantonis' point, it is countywide. We have the same issue in Aurora Highlands and Virginia.

And Columbia Pike, yeah.

We have this issue everywhere, right? And so we are doing a good job in the old world, but we need to think really hard about the new world and what it will look like to do a great job and how we can get started on it.

Great. So I think actually there are two topics. One is Quincy Park planning and another is third space, which we'll come to, but they are linked for sure. But Ms. Coffey, maybe you can help synthesize.

Maybe, maybe not. I guess one question. and this is not for us to do live, would be what more it would take for the fiscal 30 planning around Quincy Park to be a bit more expansive on, I think, even just defining what those potential plus, plus, plus things would be. Because it does seem like the number of pluses and what those things are probably have a pretty significant impact on what a future building footprint would need to look like. And I think that that is something I'm certainly open to, is at least in the master planning of the park, figuring out the broader vision maybe not the design of the facility side as much as just a are we talking affordable housing are we talking expanded library are we talking market rate housing like i i think even just including that level of engagement and planning as we do the park master plan will help set us up for success. But I would not be ready to go so far as to do the facility planning because I agree with Matt. I think that sets us up for expectations that we probably can't fulfill or follow through on.

So I don't know where we're headed. Planning 930K is in. I don't know whether that is staff time or consultant time. This could be... I think you're headed towards an amendment. I can manage that. I'm not so thrilled if we go over a million in planning dollars at this stage in 20. So I'm kind of thinking somewhere less than that. I have no idea how much by 29 is the sort of amendment I'm open to. I also could be open to guidance. And I'm just speaking on behalf of me. I just am trying to synthesize us. But if that aligns with where you're headed, we could ask staff on that or you could, then we could work over the coming days to get to language. And I think we'd all want staff input too. Ms. Cunningham.

Yeah, I think that's doable. We can work it a little bit more offline. And in some senses, we may want to kind of push on the language as well. It's maybe even pre-planning or concept or opportunity analysis or something to that effect. But it's really get our head straight about what ways we might go and what ways we really aren't going to consider going. And then we can talk about delivery methods and phasing and timing.

Yeah, because I think you both are right that we don't know the plus plus plus, and we don't know the scope yet, so there's some thinking there that's a public process. I guess we've laid enough out there, we will probably, Ms. Cowan, eventually want to learn, at least you may know already, I do not, whether the 930K is staff time, and For me, I'm agnostic on whether it ends up, you know. Go ahead.

So the 930K that's allocated for 2030 does include some staff time, but it is based on fees for outside consultant service to do the park master plan. There's also survey fees and some other studies that go along with being set it up. But that is the fees that would cover sort of the park master planning, community process, and engagement. That does not, would not include a, like sort of a use combo architectural program study of a much bigger effort than, well, I shouldn't say much bigger, it is bigger than the 930 would allow.

Great, so maybe Ms. Cowan, we have different approaches in different departments as to how we do prospective planning. Maybe you can help Ms. Cunningham and a couple of us through as we work on this. Do you have initial thoughts as to whether that would be set aside or within staff? Do we need an amendment, or is this guidance? I know that's a hard question to actually ask.

Yeah, because I'm not sure what we're, anyway, to advise on that. I mean, I think part of this, too, is just, I think, a conversation about timing. We laid out the timing in 30. The first two years of the CIP are generally firm if we're considering a referendum question. I would ask that we talk through if this is an amendment to begin timing of planning, like really soon, that we actually talk about that and what expectations are for the next year. We are following up on a lot of budget guidance from you all on facility utilization and other things. And this type of process will be really complex. I don't want us to let our community down. by doing something really quick that is not, as we just heard, with a lot of engagement from FAC. And so I think that's part of my question. Like, is it an amendment or not? Are we really trying to accelerate this for right now? Or are we talking more, this is a 29-30 kind of conversation? So that would be, not to put it back to you, Wal, but I think that's kind of what it is.

Sure. Ms. Cunningham, I mean, for me, there's enough, I could range from, like, a multi-story affordable housing place to, as some might suggest, an arts center. I've been told I should be mindful of that. But there's enough lack of clarity that I'd be interested in... I'm not saying we can't do it. When you put something on for a bond, I like to know a little clearly what we're doing. And But that doesn't mean I don't want this to happen and sometimes making sure boards in the past see through what guidance is into reality has not been always easy. So over to you.

Yeah, I mean I think at minimum it would be pulling the planning dollars to the beginning of the next CIP. So right now it's the third in 2030 to at least pull it to 2029 and then increase it to allow some conversation about other spaces. I might couple in guidance with doing some internal work around that, which is not external consultants and usually not bond funded, to prepare for that, to begin the conversations. Perhaps as we get back to Langston, it could be a smaller version there that then kind of gets us warmed up for a larger conversation.

Great. I think we've got as much, I know there's a desire for more, I think we've got as much as we're going to get in this moment. We'll have to come back to it. Mr. Spain, thank you very much.

Yeah, I just want to, I've been kind of solid, of course, not saying we all need to chime in on all these areas, but I just want to recognize the moment. Ms. Cowan, I just want you to know I hear you. And I think... Given the complexity of the ask that we as a board, my colleagues, we need to be very mindful about the direction that we're asking so we can set realistic expectations in this endeavor, right? That's all I'm going to say because it sounds good to put all this out here and say we can do it. I'm not really there on accelerating this process right now. I think staff has made a really sound recommendation, but I'm ever so cautious on just this year, ask, ask, ask, and the reality is can we really, can staff do it without clear direction? And I don't think we've presented that right now. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Spain. It seems to me that we have a good chunk of work to do on this in the next 24 to 36 hours. The deeper you get closer to Tuesday, the harder it is, as we all know. I see Mr. Karantonis' light. I'm eager to go forward. Mr.

Chair, just to state, with all respect to all approaches to that, it's a difficult place and it's a very complex thing. But even if we approach the athletic and recreational part, Immediately, things will come up like, where are the bathrooms? What does the transportation need to the place? So the master planning of this will include we will include functions that the building will be relevant to, or the function will be relevant to the building. So one way or the other, we will come very, very close to having to think about the future of the building and the site. Willy nilly, I mean, I think that this is already built in, honestly.

Got it. Thank you, Mr. Caritonis. We're going to put a pin in this one. I think we've got enough, and just thinking about all five perspectives, I'll engage with Ms. Cunningham and colleagues to try and work towards clarity on concept, whether this ends as guidance, whether it ends as amendment, seems to me unclear. Folks, it's 1.25. We thought we'd take a break at 1.15. For our staff who is getting the glory of listening to us, I want to try and accelerate without causing challenge. We can come back to it. and if there's a need. So energy efficiency and solar. We have a question on that one where there's a million proposed that could be moved forward. As I understand it, there's sufficient bond premium that could result in doing this. But there are two buckets, if I read that question correctly. And eventually, this will be a question to you, Ms. Cowan. There's a bucket on... energy efficiency measures and a bucket on solar. Each is 500,000. There's also some discussion of roofs. Could you describe this area? This is candidly an interest of mine, but I do think there's an amendment here. I do think colleagues are aware of this. I'm not sure that there's opposition, but that doesn't mean the same as that there's actually support.

Yes, so I think in response to what we heard from you all at the DES work session, that you were interested in sticky investments in climate that we could advance. And so in one of our work session follow-ups that's posted, we summarized this, but let me recap it quickly. An additional $1 million, and I'll talk about funding source in a minute, that could be accelerated to the first two years of the program for one roof replacement that would accomplish, allow us to accelerate one solar PPA, right, working with Dominion, We don't need any money for the solar. I'm bottom lining it, right? Because that would be through the PPA process. Some lighting retrofit projects, finishing them up, which have energy impacts, as you know, at Fairlington, I think, in the Justice Center. And then finally, accelerating some of our retro-commissioning work on our existing buildings to make sure that they're being maximally used for energy, energy efficiency, yeah. Anyway, so that is what our proposal is, a million dollars. So, you know, we sold bonds in June or May, whenever it was. We wrapped up the books on that. We have $1.8 million in bond premium that is available, and we could use that to fund this. And I would view that as an amendment. That way we can work it through the CIP report and get it into appropriations at closeout or whenever. But that is what our proposal is there.

Great. Thank you, Ms. Cowan. Colleagues? Ms. Cunningham? Thank you.

So I'm trying to get back to the question. I think when I read the question response the first time it seemed like the lighting retrofits and the retro commissioning were slam dunks, that the accelerating the roof had potentially a staffing bandwidth concern and potentially you're throwing away a couple years of a still good roof. Did I misread that?

I can let DES speak, but I think the two facilities we were looking at were not, they were getting really close.

So there's a couple that are low-hanging fruit?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. If you remember that 16, you know, when we did the screening process, they were like, if it's a five-year-old roof, we were not going to throw away that five-year-old roof, but it's a 15 or 20.

So without... Gentlemen, here come the dark blue shirts. I just want to see if Jason or Adam are going to go first.

I will just touch briefly and then let Adam speak to the roof part of it. The piece that on the bandwidth in terms of just all the things that have to happen to get it into the agreement pipeline work with Dominion and all that. So that's one piece of it to accelerate that and do more of those PPA agreements. There's just, you know, overhead and process that goes with it. And then I'll turn it over to Adam on the roof part particularly.

Yeah, for the roofs, when we were evaluating different options within our inventory. It wasn't so much that we are throwing away a roof early. Some of them require structural upgrades to allow for the PPA to be installed, so it does depend on the location. Some of them might be maybe a year before the end of its useful life, but it's not much earlier than that. We try to be very diligent with not wasting a good roof because as long as it's not leaking, I'm very happy.

Right, right. Well, and I know that about you also. I was just making sure the board was not pushing you beyond your great professionalism. So I think with that, I could be supportive of all of it. I think if we have to do partial, I'd start with the retrofits and the recommissioning.

Great. Thank you, Ms. Cunningham. I mean, I think that there's a separate and additional question, which I don't mean to add to our work, but I think you said bond premium overall was $1.8 million. This is $1 million of that, so we're not creating a debt burden with this action and not trying to create a scramble for the other $800,000, but I don't think that there's other significant disagreements and not seeing a light, I'm gonna move on. EV charging climate action fund, Ms. Cunningham, you brought forward, just being transparent, a little bit of a touch base with Ms. Cowan on this today. I think the amount of money is relatively limited, but I'll send it to you and Ms. Cunningham may have thoughts. And it was just a function of trying to get ready for this.

Yeah, I think this is just part of our journey on public EV chargers. And when we first set the rates there, we were very conservative. And so we really just did the pass-through of the operating cost. But there are capital costs to invest in those, to maintain them, and then, again, opportunity costs, because you could be doing other things in that space. So I think it is, at least in the question response, it was a pretty modest amount, under $100,000 each year to match surrounding jurisdictions, and that would roughly cover our capital costs. But I would recommend that we do that, and to the extent possible, earmark that to the Climate Action Fund so that we begin to repopulate the Climate Action Fund. It's not enough. We've got to look for some other things as well. But I think that just seems like a good idea.

My takeaway from the conversation this morning is that This shouldn't be too difficult. The question is whether it's amendment or guidance and miss Cowan I won't try to keep characterizing your actions It is guidance in the end, right?

But there's work to be done because we we have to change the rates I think it's guidance we come back and fall with the ordinance amendments and then I implement the, yeah, the increase and just you go every about 30 cents a kilowatt hour is what the increase would be. But we'll, we can execute on that.

It would increase to 30 cents, right?

Oh, yeah, yeah, sorry. Yeah, just so.

Great, so the plan is to just do that and that means you've got the pen, at least if it's okay, or your team has the pen or the folks are out there. We can do that. Yeah.

And I don't know if that revenue shows up in the CIP at all. Can we count it as PAYGO funds somewhere, or that's too complicated and too small of a rounding error?

Well, maybe in direction, is it Climate Action Fund or PAYGO? I would recommend either. And then I just think, and then we do the ordinance update. If you say it in guidance, and then we can just do any appropriation or whatever, then I wouldn't worry about quite the numbers quite yet.

Great. Thank you both. Thank you for following the detail there, Ms. Cunningham and Ms. Cowan, for the expertise. Next is the detention center and courts. We have a significant investment here. Thank you, gentlemen. Really appreciate it. And you... You may have to stay close. Detention center and courts, we have a significant investment here. If I remember right, $19 or $17 million in HVAC. You raised some of the questions, Ms. Cunningham. And I want to just sort of follow up. Maybe it's best to try and go, if it's OK with you, Ms. Cowan, if you're able to provide a big picture sense. And then we come back to you, Ms. Cunningham, on this one. of we have a lot of different buckets of investment here in both the detention center and the courts building. And we simultaneously must have functioning and good working environments. And we also want to be efficient with taxpayer resources. But over to you.

Thanks. Maybe we start with the detention facility first, and then go to courts of police just so we're not mixing them together. Although I would note, and Dylan, Adam can talk, there are some improvements that cover both facilities, if you will, like the security system. It only makes sense to have the same approach, contractor, all that. So the detention facility, and there is a work session response that's posted. We'll always start out by both buildings are 325,000 square feet. They are huge, and they are very specialized, in particular, the detention facility, which is residential in nature, obviously, but building code requirements like for HVAC to have, there's just, it's a really complicated system and not a lot of flexibility there. It is a 32-year-old building, right? And so it's at the point where these major systems need to be renovated. So what, and this was, I think we discussed this during the work session follow-up and we were briefing you. As part of the last CIP, we said, and we got some direction for you, study the detention facility in Courts Police Building. That's what we did. and we not just looked at, well, what do we need to do to maintain what we have, but we did do several different options of analysis of what do we do with unutilized space, or how do we rationalize the programmatic operations that the sheriff would like, whether medical or otherwise. Those analyses were other options than, well, the total were 75 to 105 million, give or take, right guys? But it was another 50 or 60 above what we included in the CIP. So what the managers proposed CIP was really focused on continuity of operations, maintenance, just keeping the building going. There's such risk there when we have failures of systems given the nature of that facility. And that's why we prioritize those. So you see HVAC for $17 million. We've already designed it. And there's a proposed contract action in front of you in this July where we actually have bids. And it's costing for, Adam, help me out. So $8 million for floors 5 through 12?

Correct, yeah. The first phase is $8 million.

I mean, so that is a... We know what it costs, and we got four bids, so that's why it is 17 million, and then we'll do floors one through four at a different point in time. So there's a variety of investment there, fire alarms, facade ceiling, sprinklers, everything like that. There are a few modest improvements, like design preferences, reconfiguring the lobby, but that's for security, other things like that. So I'd be happy to answer any questions, but that was our approach. on our recommendations, really keeping the building operating, if that makes sense.

Thank you, Ms. Cowan. And I see both Mr. Karantonis and Ms. Cunningham's lights. Maybe we start with Mr. Karantonis, if that's OK with you.

And I will be very brief on my question. I know that this is not a straightforward, I mean, typically you cannot slice and dice this kind of work, you cannot, and it's kind of risky to tell you here, oh, I see the jail not being completely occupied all the time, and that we have been now, several years in of not exhausting the 800, it made capacity of the building and hovering around the 50 to 60% mark worst case. Does this have any bearing in the kind of capital planning?

I think, and I'll let these guys speak, these are such integrated systems. You can't just do the fire alarm system for the floors that are occupied. You need to do the entire thing. I mean, and that goes to like certificate of occupancy. We would not be meeting building code requirements if we don't keep those systems functioning. I mean, seriously, that is, Char here would come here and say you cannot occupy that, and I don't know what we would do. This is why I'm asking.

I mean, we cannot mothball a part of the building and just reduce the investment.

No, and I think that Adam, Adil, Mike, and team can talk through what the vacant floors, their residential housing unit floors, where they have internal access, external access, and just we have over the years talked about what could we do with those floor, some really random ideas, to be honest, on occasion, where I think we were losing our minds on what we were thinking about. But I think you should talk to me, because the bowling alley with the firing range. There was a question about putting juvenile detention in, the adult detention. I appreciate the creativity, but really difficult to understand co-location and co-services there. to get access to the fourth floor. You have to put an external elevator on if you want to use it for any public-facing use. We've talked about a lot of stuff, but why don't you guys chime in on... Sure.

Yeah, we... And can you just remind us, like, if you do first, second, third... It's third and fourth that are empty. Yes. What's on first and second, and then...

This is in the detention facility, yeah.

First floor is admin offices and the lobby for entrance, and the second floor is the medical unit. And third and fourth are, again, vacant.

Third and fourth are vacant.

Yeah. And again, it's a single pod, so it's a one. They're all coupled above three. So three and four, five, six, and so on and so forth.

So I think it's to you to describe, and then back to Ms. Cunningham.

Yeah, we have over the time, as Michelle mentioned, evaluated, you know, we do want to maximize our buildings and try to utilize the buildings as efficiently as we can. And we have looked at the detention facility, those two floors being vacant, you know, we do want to utilize them if we can. But the challenges are basically what Michelle mentioned. It is a secure building, and there are very few uses that are kind of compatible with that. When we've looked at that and it would require a significant amount of capital Investment to make it usable so we could get compatible uses in there and in the CIP basically we focused on Really the bare bones of maintaining existing operations in the building So we didn't propose any major capital projects with that like Michelle mentioned the study looked at and the study ranged in options from 76 million to 105 million And really we focused and scaled that back significantly to basically focus on continuity of operations.

Ms. Cunningham. And you do have Mr. Spain if you want to collect your thoughts. Over to you, though.

Yeah. And so, I mean, I think the challenge, and Mr. Karantonis was headed here, I think. We've had a third and fourth floor vacant in this building for how long?

32 years. It's never been built out.

And meanwhile, we're hoteling staff. We're aggressively trying to get people out of buildings so that we can reduce our carbon footprint, so we can reduce our cost for our community. We can operate most efficiently. I appreciate maybe all the thoughts have been had already. It's just not everyone's had them. But it doesn't make sense that we have, for 32 years, two floors of a building vacant above a metro center, above a metro entrance in Arlington. Is there really no other way to tackle that? I mean, it's a good problem to have that we don't have more jail needs.

We can lay out what it would take to get external accessibility. I think it would be a risky proposition to have, it is a detention center, so I think we need to think about the compatibility of use. What specifically, I don't know that office space would make sense in that use. We talked a little bit about storage. That was difficult. So I'm just happy to engage in that conversation, but I want to be realistic about the blue sky of what that is and what the investment would need to be.

For example, and this is, you absolutely have a valid point. We also see the same need, right? And we want to try and utilize the buildings to the maximum of their ability. We've looked at other sheriff type of uses as well that may be more compatible, but even those type of uses, because of the security reasons, they have to be separated. And so, yeah, absolutely, we hear you on it, and we'll continue to look at it. And I think the bottom line is it would require a significant capital investment to redo some of the first floor access basically.

I think you've asked a good question and on juvenile detention I think that there's law that you can't have them in the same building, but I'm not certain of that and you guys might be able to. And then, you know, thinking of the other uses, we both have all wanted to provide good care to those in the detention facility. And I could envision, you know, you ask, what other office space there? Or are we hurting in the courts building with respect to the administration? The sheriff's office itself is in the courts building. But at the same time, I can understand, you know, that piece. I think we should come back to it, and not globally, I think, You may have additional questions now. I also want to get Mr. Spain in as well. So we'll go to Mr. Spain, and then we can come back to you if that's okay.

So, yeah, thanks, Mr. Chair. I won't dwell long on it. I will tell you that I share a concern of both Board Member Cunningham and Takis Karantonis. You know, for me, I'm a bit, I'm in awe. I understand the building's 32 years old, all right? But when I see the line items of $17.9 million in HVAC systems, Yeah, that may be the cost, but I need to understand also, is this the first time in 32 years that we've put in a new HVAC system in? Probably not. And then to the vacant space and then thinking about being creative, I think the chair, someone just mentioned, how do we use those two spaces, those two floors that have not been used? I think we're spending an enormous amount of money into a facility, quite honestly, that in all accounts, we should use it for its purpose, but we should also look at ways to use this to its fullest extent possible. And if that means movement of people, even those, I think the compatibility argument is one, you want to make sure folks are safe, but I think you can also find proper use of vacant space in that building. And for it not to be used, It may cost us some money, but I think it's something we need to look at. And then we're looking at elevators, and there's a whole host of things here, $10 million in upgrades. I'm just wondering, right, is it some of this good to have, or is it like priority red light, green light? Red light, we need to do this now in the next five to ten years. And I'm sure you've done due diligence, but it's just a lot of money.

No, I understood. So to the first part of the question about the HVAC, so this is actually the first major modernization and replacement of all the systems. And this building is unique because it is, similar to only a handful of others, run 24-7 in full operational mode. Most of our other buildings go into setback mode at night, so our systems get a break, so to speak, in the off hours. That building never gets a break because it has to constantly provide the required temperatures and comfort for the residents. And then for a lot of the other systems in there, that's why they are spread throughout the course of the CIP. So some of the earlier ones, those are the red lights. Those are the ones that provide and present a potential operational risk for either the infrastructure or for the sheriff's office. And others that are further out, we have a little more time. Those are those yellow and green lights that we have a little bit of time. And we are performing minor targeted corrective maintenance tasks. to make repairs, but eventually the whole system does come due at one point or another.

Yeah, so I guess I'll leave it at this. Mr. Manager, there's something to consider. And I'll be open to this down the road. Those vacant floors, what is the art of the possible? What can we do, potentially? And what would that look like? And how much would it probably cost us? Because we just can't continue to have empty floors not being used. I think we can be creative.

I would just add, and we're more than happy to do that, I know the team would be willing to do that, but I can tell you, in the 20 years I've worked in the county, this has been a thorn in my side. Literally every time we have made an investment, we have asked the question, could we use this space? You don't think I was joking before, when we invested with EMWA at a firing range out at Dulles, We had an extensive conversation about how well it would be received to have a firing range next to the jail and mechanics that we spent a lot of time looking through alternative uses. We'll continue to do it because you say the art of the possible. There are things we probably haven't thought about, and we will be diligent in doing that. But for right now, I think that we weren't here 32 years ago when the jail was designed, and we didn't know what the capacity needs were going to be. It's a challenge. I don't have a clever answer for you.

Yeah. And I just want to leave everyone with one. I want to make sure that that facility right that we have the essential elements in place to ensure not only staff is feel safe, but also the inmates that are there. Right. Are somewhat in a comfortable position. We don't need. We need people, you know, residing in heat zones. I mean, I understand it can get kind of nasty. All the other stuff I think is appropriate, but worthy of questioning. And we haven't even gotten to the courts area where there's some, you know, reconfiguration designs, large amounts of money. Some would argue that, yeah, we need to upgrade. We need to do a refresh. But it is a lot of money. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Spain. I see Ms. Coffey's light. I guess the one thought, just a real quick question, having, you know, it's tough because we used to have 600 inmates. Now we have 350 or so, and that is a good thing, but we are still investing in the full building, and that's just a hard reality. In the proposal, is there almost nothing for those third and fourth floors? Because that would help me a little bit. Because I've walked in and looked, and it looks like something that hadn't been built on in 32 years. However, we've got to have an HVAC system. It doesn't make sense to say, OK, let's stop it. So I guess that's a question. I see a deal, but also miscount.

No, just the system improvements. There's no build-out dollars assumed for the third or fourth floor, but we can come back with options that would require infrastructure and moving things around and consult with the sheriff.

Got it. I guess I feel, and you brought this forward, I'm glad you did, but multiple board members have interest. I feel like this could be heading towards guidance. However, I don't know what the guidance is if we don't have ideas on the third and fourth floor. Personally, I'm willing to sign on to guidance. I do feel, having worked, my first job was in a school that felt, my parents told me when they visited my classroom, like a prison. Having worked in, and no disrespect to our inmates, physical, so the lobby is of interest to me. And then I don't know about the capital on the court side, because you can save a lot of ongoing money if you have police officers watching instead of having to come to the court.

So I don't know what court's going to... Let's not rule out you're looking at various forms of government. If the county board were to expand to a sufficient size, this could be a potential location.

Well, we could join you there as well. But I guess I think this is heading towards guidance without trying to be somewhat efficient with time. But I also want to give you last, because you brought this forward.

Yeah, I think there's a question I would have, and we can follow up later, but is there anything here that if you were going to study and identify ways to use some of the excess space you would wish you hadn't done? I'm looking maybe at the reconfiguring lobby, because you might be moving the lobby up so you'd have ground floor stuff. Is there anything there that is going to be sunk cost that you'd be undoing if we did find a solution?

No.

Okay. So even the lobby has to be, like the sheriff's lobby has to be on the first floor. You couldn't come in and up to third and then?

No, right now the configuration that we have in there is to provide security for the sheriff's folks that are in the space. In exterior security apparatus for the building itself.

If we were to evaluate some options for putting some uses which are not compatible perhaps with it, and then we wanted to reconfigure the lobby, if that's your question, then yeah, you'd want to look at that before you redo the lobby or anything like that.

Right. OK. And then is all of this, so some of it's actually contracted already or kind of imminent. Maybe that's on the court side. That's on the court side. When does this work start? How much time do we have to study?

Adam, can you talk about the HVAC? Yes, the HVAC one, again, as Michelle mentioned, that's on the agenda actually for this Saturday. And that will be the first phase. Other ones, the design's already underway, or we have it on the shelf. I'm waiting for the capital funds to hit for the construction. So it does depend on the different projects.

And to be clear, the lobby, if you're specifically talking about that project, that is not, the design for that has not started yet.

Is that in a third or fourth year or not in the two years? Is that correct? Correct. It's in the out years. I think 2032. Great. Ms. Cunningham, I actually didn't see Ms. Coffey's light, but lost my train of thought. Over to you because she also was going to jump in there. Go ahead, Ms. Coffey.

Yeah, no worries. And I'll try and keep it as short as possible. I think as much as I am displeased by the size of the numbers that we have here, it doesn't seem feasible to me to not do this work. And in particular, given the nature of the facility, I really worry about frankly, like the humanitarian problem that we would get into if we defer or delay any of this because it has to function. We have requirements from DCJS and others about how the facility needs to be able to function in addition to all of the building code. and other things, and so I too wish the numbers were smaller, but if this is what we've got, I do think that we need to do it, and we need to keep it to planning. I think one of my questions really is thinking about the 32-year span and whether there were opportunities to perhaps have spread some of this out previously such that it wasn't all hitting at what feels like at once, and whether we're thinking about that kind of doing this mass turnover of systems all at once now, whether there's an opportunity going forward to maybe break this up so that it doesn't keep hitting us all in one lump sum.

No, absolutely. Again, I wish I had my chart of sadness with all the diamonds that showed the different systems all aligning for the end of useful life. So a part of that is, unfortunately, correct, that they are aligning at a similar point. But a lot of these are being done in various phases as well. So we are trying to spread it out. So the HVAC in particular is being done through two phases, the upper floors this year and then the lower floors the following year. And same thing with the facade and sprinkler systems. They'll be done in various phases throughout the project.

Thank you, Mr. Adam. And I think we're moving towards guidance on this. And there's work to do to figure out what that guidance should be. I am mindful with full respect to our former sheriff who, for the first five years I was here, said we need to build a whole new detention facility. And every time she said that, just like her, she's a great person. She's in my neighborhood. don't want to build a whole new facility because I think that would be multiple factors times more expensive. Mr. Spain, to close this.

Yeah, just a question. Listening to all the conversation. It's just a bit. So two years ago, I was not here, right? And there had to be a discussion about courts and jails. None of this came up.

No, it did. There were investments before this in the detention facility, multiple over years. Then we chose to do, in conversation with you all, to do a full-blown study to make sure we weren't being as ad hoc and had the full picture of what was needed at the facility. So that was the result of the study. And then at the same time looking at, well, could we be smarter about how we're using the building, meaning from a programmatic perspective.

And I guess finally, I guess just in general, you've done your homework on this. None of this per se at this moment is elective, meaning this is work that needs to get done in the next 10 years. That's what you're telling me today, telling us today. None of it is elective.

No, if, as I mentioned, we try to do those targeted minor correctives to make them as minimal as possible when they come up. But at this point in time, these are not ones that I can say are elective.

Thank you. Mr. Karantonis.

That was vestigial.

Okay. Vestigial. We wrestled with that. I'm going to snatch victory from the jaws of additional conversation. The three of you, make haste. Arlnack. Oh. Oh, courts.

Yeah, so I'll kick it off and then we can... Ms. Cowan, go ahead. Yeah, so we actually, the study for courts police, I think it was, we talked about it originally with the board, largely at the Instigation is a wrong word to use but the initiation I would say of the judges in particular circuit court judges about the condition of the courthouse how it wasn't meeting modern standards I think there are other courthouses being built across the state that they were comparing themselves to So we agreed to do a study that study was in 2019. Wasn't it Michelle? I think Michelle counting 2018 2019 initiated and so that study then laid out this ten-year plan of for how to improve the courthouse. The first priority was GDR, where we were having some real, very serious issues where victims and those who were being charged were interfacing and that's, you know, it was just the design was not well done 32 years ago. So that was the first priority was fixing that and then gradually working through like in the second and third floor, the layout for where like the common law attorney was waiting and just some of those same interactions when people were waiting to go in front of an adjudication or a hearing It just didn't make sense where, you know, attorneys were conflicting with, you know, you can imagine. So I think that was the first priority. And those investments were made as well as some technology investments. And then we had this whole plan to lay out improving every courtroom, looking at the improvements to the lobby, which we've deferred. And then other things that I think you all are aware of, expanding space for the Commonwealth attorney, moving the ASAP program. Remember, that is a fully occupied and utilized building. So it is not quite like, in order to move ASAP, then you have to move GDC first. Do you follow? A lot of it is just so many moves up and down the building, and so that's what it is. You can see in our response, there are maintenance, all the continued operations investments that we still think we do need to make, the security system modernization that needs to happen. I would say that on those other more optional things, which are what the judges, I think, and the users of the building want, those are decisions, and those are decisions. And if we could have a conversation, and I think we need to have a further conversation with our partners over at the courthouse if we want to delay any of these. I would also just note that some of these are later in the CIP. So just to that same point, not all of these are programmed for like the next two years. They're later and we can continue to have discussions about whether or not we should be making those improvements. I don't know if that's helpful, but that's like a high-level overview. And then if you have specific questions on each thing, I think the DES team can help explain.

What if we tried to, on this, open to colleagues' thoughts, but what if we tried to get a conversation specifically about what's the next two years and what's after that to see if, you know, several have asked the question, what if that is our follow-up and we sought to do that in a short break between the amendments and the guidance before three o'clock? That's what I propose in the interest of seeing if there's question there. And so not seeing any new lights, that's how I propose to move forward. And so we'll get space, and we have to come back to it. We can at that stage. And I don't know how often the colleagues are over in that building. All of us are over there. Some have been over there a month, every two or three months because of CCJB. But we'll keep going, and we'll ask if in a short break between amendments and this, we can get there. ARLNAC. There's been discussion of this. And yes, you guys are wise, make hay while the sun shines. So we had discussion with our commission chair, Mr. Lightman, and we've had emails that have come in. The question is, there's a question on process, whether we could move faster In a in investing these funds in the cycle in the funding cycles for all Mac, and I know mr. Karen Tonis you had some questions on this too, so First I guess for my own sake Maybe you can share the impediments we have to my recollection maybe six million dollars in the fund, at least above four, and we have challenge in, we have projects, and there's a lengthy process for ARLNAC, but what is the, How quickly, what are the capacity constraints on moving forward with projects at a rate? And that seems to impact whether there would be any additional funding that we might need. I think Mr. Schwarz.

I'll start and then other people can weigh in. When we were looking at this, there's $20 million of funds that haven't been painted or touched in any way. And I heard what Mr. Lightman said, and I think that I recognize that he was reflecting some of the challenges we had probably eight or 10 years ago, where we skipped around and it took a while to get back on. The process is working, I think, very well. It's just that over the next two years, we didn't see given the current process, that they were going to be able to work their way all the way through that money. Now, traditionally, every two years we have allocated additional funds to replenish that bottom line. So there isn't anything inherently wrong with adding money there. It's just that in a year where we need to make choices, we thought this was something where we could pause for two years, and again, I'm leaving aside the process piece, and that also you and I, Mr. DiFerrani, you and I have had a conversation. If for some reason the process sped up and we found ourselves a year in where there were a serious issue about not having funds for a follow-on round before we get to the next CIP, I'd committed to coming back to you with some potential solutions on the PAYGO side, or we do have a small amount with the way we've set up our bond premium, an unallocated chunk of a million or two that follows in the next year. We could do that. At the same time, It has been the board's preference over years to continue to add funds to keep the fund going. So I just wanted to explain why we made the proposal, why I understood what Mr. Lightman was saying. And I think that the process will, as currently configured, will go along fine if the board doesn't add any money. It will also go along fine if you do add money.

Thank you, Mr. Schwartz. For my part, I just want to make sure that I heard you right. $20 million is the sum that you believe is in total in the project. Because Mr. Lightman was talking about we would be down to only projects of a million or two, which could coexist with what you said. I have not shared with colleagues on the board, because of the pace of things, that guidance... The history of the program was existential eight, ten years ago, I felt. And so guidance indicating that we would, you know, take some of the steps that you've just described, I have not shared with Mr. Karantonis or any colleagues that, not because of intent, just because life's been busy. Mr. Karantonis, could you live with guidance? Do you have thoughts? And I'm not saying that adding money, I'm not per se against. I just am mindful of the perspective we've had with respect to the whole CIP, which is not new money for most things. So, Mr. Cantone, it's to you.

Thank you. My preference is clearly, I mean, and I share that with Mr. Spain, who has been working on an amendment here. My, if I may say so, my preference is to keep the pace, not at the level that our NAC partners here stipulated or projected, but at the lower level, but still going on. There is a lot of value embedded in this program. The value is both the agency and the engagement of the civic associations and also the deliverables. I think that the program is in a very good pace to produce things that otherwise it would take equal effort to do. A lot of intersections with... Vision Zero, a lot of work on sidewalks and lighting and even tree canopy work. I still think that this is a place where we have, where the core value there is the active engagement of this community. And this is kind of reciprocal because it supports us in other choices that are difficult as well. So this is why I think that we should make an effort.

Thank you, Mr. Karantonis. Mr. Spain.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. County Manager, when we received a brief, you came in on the CIP, I remember, and we started talking about our NAC. I remember one of the first sentences you stated, which is, our NAC is this great body of work basically that's been around for a long time. And I appreciate that as the liaison. And to what we've heard from the community, I wholeheartedly believe we need to keep putting into this kitty and showcase our commitment to a very robust program where we have a number of folks all across this community involved in. Now, there's also an argument about, you know, how we tie this into Vision Zero and kind of overlay that. But if we're really serious about our sidewalks and traffic calming and safer bicycle improvements, you know, these investments, what we put into our NEC, I believe it's just one part of the bigger scheme of things, and it allows the community, right, to be involved. You know, so I am one where RNAC has come and asked for around 7 million. I think, you know, we may not be able to do 7 million colleagues, but I've heard directly from our residents, our civic associations, our community leaders, and they want to address, I know there's a backlog, but they feel confident that they can, you know, they're going to exceed that and move forward. I understand we have to make a choice here, But your last comment a few minutes ago, Mr. County Manager, when you said, well, I promise to come back and if we run out, we'll give you some pay go money. I'm much ready to have the money in the kitty. Like all boards that have gone this way before us, it's done. Honestly, at the end of the day, it's a decision we have to make as a collective, and we can rationalize not doing it. But I believe that the citizenry, the ones who are part of this program, are eager to continue and keep moving forward in a very smart way. we need to empower our communities. And I think this coupled with Vision Zero, neighborhood, streets, all these things work in tandem. And they have been honestly vetting a lot of their projects through Vision Zero lens. So I would hope, my colleagues, that we can find a way to put something, maybe not all, into this program and show our continued commitment to our NAC. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Spain, Mr. Karantonis, Ms. Coffey. I'll just say for my part, the sentiments have merit. And I also, perhaps if there were strong enough guidance language to lead to a dollar amount that was in the range that Mr. Karantonis and Mr. Spain have kind of indicated to me, I could be open to that as well. But I haven't foreclosed and I'm still wrestling and thinking it through. Ms. Coffey.

Yeah, I pulled up the presentation from the original work session on this so that I could get back in tune with all of our fund numbers. So there's $21 million in authorized but unissued bonds at this point for the program. And over the next three Three fiscal years including the one we're currently in it's an average of about Nine million dollars a year that they would have available to them to spend What is there? I don't this is this is off the top of my head, so I apologize to staff, but What is the average of like the last year or two that they've been able to expend in a single year?

It's about three point three million 3.3 million.

Okay. So in order to spend the average-ish of $9 million a year for the next three fiscal years, they would have to 3x what they've been doing currently?

Yeah.

Basically. Okay. And then I guess also looking at the slide, it seems like The mid-years, so fiscal 30, 31, and 32 are actually where there's a dip in the funding because it's 4.4, 5.9, 5.9 relative to the 8 million-ish in the out-years. I guess I'm just trying to figure out from my colleagues where the concern is in terms of, is this about the next two fiscal years? Is this about the out years? Where are we worried about not having the money for these projects?

It's a fair question, at least from my, I mean, Mr. Spain and Mr. Tones can share. The history of the program and the desire to close it is, the apparent desire. There is also Vision Zero, it seems to me, does not conflict with in any way. But Arlnach and Complete Streets, I think you could argue there is some overlap there. And so that's what leads to the interest. Your point about the dip in subsequent years seems relevant. I think there's also a question of capacity that's raised by it. Right now we have to my knowledge, a smaller staff. I don't know if you could bond for one additional person. That's a separate question, which we haven't analyzed now. But Mr. Karantonis, maybe you can answer.

MR. Yeah. Ms. Coffey's right in pointing out the burn rate. which has been always restricted by, A, the ability of the staff, and also about the funding sequence and how funding is projected over the, so there was kind of a natural restraint of spending more, or trying to take on projects that are a little bit more complicated. And that has actually consequences because sometimes it's a difficult thing to take a project that's a little bit more involved and needs more money, and then you don't have it, and then you have to reshuffle, et cetera, and that is what I believe the ARNAC leadership here wanted to to accomplish so that they don't, that they're not in these dire straits and they can just evolve the program forward. To your specific question, I personally see, I mean, the way I read the materials is I see the ARNAC wobbling financially on year four to six, rather. I mean, it's not an immediate thing. There is a balance forward of seven million. This is enough for what is right now on the... on the docket but the financial after that is not clear and that may again produce a restriction because there's a long waiting list and so people are extrapolating. They're used to wait like a decade until their project materializes and the deal is that they keep their engagement during this decade. So we're basically putting a carrot at the end, a credible carrot at the end of this trajectory and say please continue working with the program and on the program. And this is why we are, Mr. Spain and I, We're not insisting on the full replenishment, but into a replenishment that keeps the carrot where it is. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cantone. Mr. Spain. Yes, thanks. And thank you for the points there, Madam Vice Chair. Let me just say this. One thing I'm not for is, you know, here we are going to establish a precedence. and a precedence which, quite honestly, can be defended because in the out years you may have some dips. But we are consciously making a decision now. And we're making this decision at a time when quite, you know, what I believe, had we had a conversation with ARNAC well in advance in the critical stakeholders, we may not be having this conversation right now. And it causes one to think about the process. And the cost of projects in and of themselves are going to increase over time. There's a queue of projects kind of teed up over at RNAC. They want to move faster, right? So I don't know what's going to happen in the next year or so. They may far exceed expectations. And I want to be right sized and prepared for that. So I can understand how we can take a pause, don't put no money towards it, come back a little bit and revisit it. I don't want to take that risk. In fact, I don't want to take, you know, establish new precedents. I think we continue to do what we've always done and it's working. And we can actually do a better job at it, put more money at it, and tell them to work a little bit harder because they're ready. Understanding there's perhaps some staff issues, but they're ready to get to work. And we heard that from the chair. We've heard that from a number of folks across the community. Our job is to deliver that, but at the same time being fiduciary responsible. I got it. Those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. So what I believe. Mr.

Chair, if you allow, there's also the equity focus which had to be introduced at a lower, you know, percentage of overall spending because it was already a very long queue in other projects that were not so equity sensible. And now we want to definitely see that and we have, you know, impressed a lot on ARNAC to enhance this part of delivery.

Thank you for making. Mr. Chair. Yeah. Just last comment. Mr. Tak has brought up equity. And the timing of this, as soon as we get through the, you know, we focused on equity within ARNAC. The timing can't be the worst. to now when you have communities in our community, communities here who are now looking at ARNAC as a vehicle to do things, and then we're going to signal taking money from. The timing just doesn't, it doesn't, it just doesn't feel right, and it doesn't even appear right, given what we just went through in focusing on equity and ARNAC. So thank you. Thank you for raising that, Mr. Takas.

Sure, so what I, colleagues, what I propose on this is I think that there's definitely a ceiling that is on this that is not the, sorry to break news, but not the 7 million. And Ms. Coffey's point, you know, I suggested Mr. Carantones, Mr. Spain, work on an amendment. There may be an amendment. I haven't figured out where I am. I do think the listening piece is important. The history of equity in this particular program is important. circuitous in the sense that I believe it was started to address a lack of sewers for the Halls Hill neighborhood originally. And then it morphed. You could easily argue that there's a period in the 2000s or 2010s, and even I visited, when the program did not appear quite as well driven towards equity as it might. And then we did this analysis, as you know, Mr. Spain and Mr. Carantone, as all colleagues. And there's a renewed focus with an additional component to it. I might work with guidance with staff and then there will also be an amendment at a dollar amount that's less than, you know, two to four million, the top that I've heard for context. Nothing is decided. We will work this with staff. We won't surprise staff on, DMF staff on the numbers. We're good on that one. I just propose we work those two tracks. We see where it ends up, where the majority of the will of the board is. Next.

Can I just add to Mr. Spain's point? There is money there right now, so while we wouldn't be putting more in the bank account for at least a year or so unless asked for it, and then we might find it from PAYGO, we're not taking the money away. So I just wanted to be clear. I think it is, you know, we're finding value in the program. We're just trying to figure out how to have a much smaller CIP than we've had in the past. And this is one recommendation that I think is reasonable. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Cunningham. And we're trying to both. balance the fiscal responsibility, restraint, and also investment and listening to our community, as well as the different components. Last piece before we may have to do a short break. I have been informed by a colleague that the need for a lunch break is not there. If you are about to be a grumpy board member, please let me know. But otherwise, at least we'll get through the amendments. We have Langston Boulevard third spaces planning. I would like to ask that we also consider the Lee Center in that context, because they are not the same, but they're not totally unrelated. And so I guess what I would say is I am open to colleagues' ways of approaching this conversation. I guess, I think, and I know there's an email in my inbox. It may be that Mr. Spain, you have a specific amendment. What I propose we do is Ms. Cunningham, you speak to the third spaces and the Langston Boulevard, and Mr. Spain, you speak to the Lee Center, and then we try to work through both topics organically as you guys have presented them. But first, maybe Ms. Cunningham, if you could speak to the third spaces planning for the Langston Boulevard.

Yeah, I won't belabor it, because we've had two conversations on it already in this meeting. But Langston Boulevard is our newest plan. And envisioned in that plan were nodes of activity, but not a specific detailed third spaces, public spaces, meeting spaces plan. And so as we've talked about in other areas, I would suggest that we get the ball rolling on that sort of plan, perhaps focusing on areas two, three, and four, which are the center, you know, not on top of metros, that currently has some varied county assets and school assets, and there are lots of dreams and desires. I would suggest that we try to invite the community, maybe through Langston Boulevard Alliance or a competitive process to begin a pre-planning process there about what are the priorities. Do they want small spaces or small gathering spots? what kind of programming by others, et cetera, that we get going on that. It's sort of similar to the Central Library point. We have a similar issue down in Virginia Highlands, but I think Langston, you could argue, can go sooner on the planning because they're already in planning mode, and they also have a building that is shuttered right now that might be part of the mix to be considered.

Great. So let me just see if I understand. I think from the emails, the relative dollar amount here is $200,000 or less, is that you were thinking for an amendment. But I may have misread, and so do I have ballpark?

Yeah, I think it's a little bit of a fictional number, right? But you would put something that's six figures down as a planning grant, essentially, pull it into ideally fiscal year 28 so that you know before you're doing some of the heavier lifting on capital improvements, you know what the priorities are.

Thank you, that's very helpful. And so I see Ms. Coffey on this, and then we'll go, you know, maybe we get a couple of questions. Ms. Coffey, Mr. Karantonis, I do know we also want to get on the table, the Lee Center, Mr. Spain, but first, if I share coffee.

Oh, I guess I always head to Lee Center.

You were headed to Lee Center. Mr. Karantonis, you ready to go to Lee Center?

Happy to do that. Just a question for Ms. Cunningham. The deliverable of these 200,000 would be a kind of a master planning of these, you know, a pearl string of space, of third places.

Yeah, it would be a first attempt at a third spaces plan for a small area. So just as we were talking about with FAC earlier it would be instead of trying to do that countywide to ask the community that's been thinking hard about that kind of what are their priorities it would not come with a commitment of either operating funding or capital funding you know you probably dream big and then you'll carve back and I would very much you know share that it would we can't dump tons of operating funding in to every one of these places so we need partners or we'll need you know have them be low-cost potentially Great. It's not a blank check, I guess, is what I would say. But it is an invitation to set more detailed priorities and to envision.

So it's a higher granularity interpretation of the Langston Plan by creating kind of a pathway to delivery for these public spaces first and probably some consolidated third places. Okay, that's fine for me.

Thank you, Mr. Karantonis. I'm on board with that. I see Ms. Coffey's light, and I know that also, Mr. Sping, you may have an amendment on this. Go ahead, Madam Vice Chair.

So I think this kind of gets me back to the chicken and egg problem, because I worry a little bit. I mean, I think when I was thinking about guidance on this initially, I had worked myself a couple steps too far down the road in terms of envisioning guidance that would you know, be pretty directional on Lee Center because I think we have a general sense of what we may want there. And I am struggling a little bit with planning processes without the board being ready to commit at least directionally what we want because I think you know, there might be some people who are aiming big. And I think there might also be some people who are aiming for fast. And those two things are not the same. And I just, I don't know what it is that our vision as a board and as a county is as far as what we want out of these sites and thinking about the trade-offs both in time and cost, but also in terms of physical space availability, I don't feel like I have appropriately grappled with those questions such that tasking our community to tell us Pie in the sky what they might want us to do or think about I don't know. I just I'm not sure which of those things needs to happen first I worry about a planning process that is so Open-ended that it brings something back that isn't in alignment with the county's needs or the board's vision and I don't know, I'm really struggling with this because I think that I wanted to be able to make more of a salient commitment, and the more I worked with staff through some of the open questions on the Lee Center planning, the further I got from being ready or able to make any of those commitments. And so that's just where I'm at, and I think I would struggle to support any kind of fiscal amendment at this stage because of that. And then there's an interrelated question of now we're talking about a lot of different facilities planning commitments across our portfolio. I highlight that Ms. Cowan highlighted for us our staff will also be involved and occupied with the TJ facilities planning and that whole process, which will be, I'm sure, very intensive. Even though it is owned by APS, our staff are in that too. And so I'm trying to think about how all these things line up together and how capacity is working both on a community level and our staff level and our board ability to participate level. And so I'm just really struggling with accelerating and committing to anything on this right now because I just feel like there's so many open questions.

Got it. So I set up a, thank you, Vice Chair Coffey. I set up a construct that included Lee in this discussion. I think that's appropriate, but I also could be critiqued that we should wrestle the third spaces first. I guess I just suggest we go to Mr. Spain to hear your thoughts on Lee. That's how I'd like to proceed, but we will be thorough on both of these topics before.

Yeah, I appreciate it. And I know this is the only thing that holds us between a break. Well, I can appreciate the thoughts, perhaps many, and the uncertainty, quite honest, of what is there to be at Lee Center, right? I mean, it's in the eyes of the beholder, many may say. And how we haven't given clear direction, right, Mr. County Manager? This board has not. And you've asked us to do so. and also the community, quite honestly, desires us to do something. And I don't think any of us have the right answer, the board or the community right now, what that may look like. But what I do know is that waiting until, is it FY2035, 36 to do anything here is just a bit too long. And maybe answer this for me, Mr. County Manager, there's nothing in the chute, there's nothing planned right now for lease center. What set risk is we do nothing?

So for sure, you are correct. It's in the last two years of the CIP. We have, they didn't leave, they were told to leave. We do have, a deal has sat with the folks from Langston Boulevard talking about What we do to maintain the building in a mothball status, and we also have had, I've had conversations with the Langston Boulevard Alliance, but while we're continuing to have this conversation about what happens with the outdoor space, that is kind of a space about sort of keeping that active and as an element for something for the Langston Boulevard Alliance to use. So that's not a capital conversation, so I hope that answers your question. Jim? Did you want to add anything to deal about how you visit it five times a week and then stop at Jean's house and say hello?

Well, I can't discuss Adil's travel habits, but for the maintenance of the Lee Community Center. So, yes, right now, I think, again, we use the term the temperate dark shell. That's what we keep in at the moment. We have the fire alarm system operating, and we talk about building maintenance codes. So those are all requirements that we have to maintain and keep running to ensure that the facility stays in a non-hazardous state. Again, some of the systems, or many of the systems, are aging. We have our HVAC system, which has older refrigerants that can't be obtained or are very difficult to obtain. And of course, just we keep it in a state that, again, avoids any further deterioration. But it's still kind of upright.

So, Mr. Chair, and I think you're asked, what I hope we could do between now, because I think there's a demand signal for us to do something next year, working alongside not just LBA but also the community, and build this inclusive planning process, similar to what we've done before in a host of projects. to see if we can speed up the timeline. And we'll see what happens when we, I think, come around to the next CIP. But I think doing nothing right now is just perhaps not the best approach when there is this, again, demand from the community and what their needs are. Again, I fully understand that It could be just about anything, right? But we need to start somewhere. And I'm not asking colleagues for us to put any capital, money into this right now. I'm thinking about guidance and a process, which I think also ultimately needs to be scoped out, right, Mr. Chair? But for something to start next year in FY28. And that probably will come by way of guidance, whether that's you know, working with, you know, analyzing our facility conditions again. What does the future of Lee Community Center really look like? I don't believe that it's incumbent just upon the five of us here to tell people what it needs to look like. I think the community needs to tell us what they want. and what they desire, right? So I don't know where that may lead us, but I want to help shape some guidance to get us started next year with the community center and see what that may come, what that may yield. And then something, Mr. County Manager, You need something from us, but I just don't want to leave up this moment, right, for us to come back in two years and say, well, we had an opportunity, but we just didn't put the time and effort into it to shape something out for you, because the same line will come. Well, the board didn't give me direction. That's not, that dog's not going to bark, or that cat's not going to meow. I want to, is that what you're looking for? Mr. Manager? Yes?

I mean, I was just going to stop you after those two, because you could keep going. So thank you, Mr. Spangler, at least for my part, just to be, I'm interested in guidance that moves things forward on the Lee Center. There is a real challenge, I believe, because just being transparent, guidance, you know, we both want to have a public engagement process, but If you don't create a scope, you don't even know what you're talking about. But if you create the scope too narrowly, then people are like, you never even considered this thing. And so at least for me, I kind of have done some thinking in the last two weeks and remembered my visit to the Lee Center a while back. You know, there's both, whether there's the historic piece, and then there's what to use, there's a park in the back, there's how tall, public-private partnership, do we want housing there, do we want arts there? There's a lot at play, and at this stage, I'm not in a space, and I don't think this board could be in a space to clarify the scope before next Tuesday. I think that would be a fool's errand. But I do think that we should try to commit to a public engagement. I'm ready to commit to a public engagement process that moves forward. What I am not in a space to believe is appropriate is to move forward the spending that is in the last two years because I believe that is, that would set expectations about what imminently might occur that I'm not ready to pay for at this stage. And so that's sort of where I am on the whole topic. Mr. Spain.

Yeah, so the guidance, and I appreciate it, I think I'm there with you. You know, whether this facility is going to be, you know, renovated, expanded, preserved, replaced, you know, I understand we don't want to commit this board right now to any future perhaps course of action. I think what I also want to see is, you know, have our staff kind of really evaluate some of the reasonable kind of options and provide us with for these future decisions we may have because we need some alternatives I think and and that kind of I get it Mr. Chair and that's kind of like where I'm headed okay not not not fully to commit to a finite moment but get the you know let's get the train leaving the station here

Thank you. And there is, of course, tension, right? Because we cannot plan all things at the same time. We cannot do, in the same fiscal year, we could not thoroughly and perfectly plan TJ, Central Library, and the Lee Arts Center all at the same time. And we also have to look at use. So there is challenge. But that is, at least it sounds like there could be movement towards guidance in that area, but there is not appetite for amendment. Is that a fair characterization of the colleagues' who have not spoken on this that you at least wouldn't be in a space to support fiscal amendments to changing the CIP. There's one, I don't see light from Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Karantonis. Did you have thoughts or is that vestigial?

No, it's not vestigial. On Lee, on the Lee Center, that name needs to change. In my opinion, anyway. It is a matter of guidance. I think it's not a very good, I mean, not an optimal thing is to mothball a play.

We're having trouble hearing you a little bit. Right into the mic.

Sorry. Oh, no. There is also an issue there that mothballing a building for 10 years is a very long time. And we should challenge ourselves to be able to give more specific guidance on that. I mean, the community has their opinions on that. There is a variety of this. I think that it's just not a good precedence to say for 10 years we are going to put, shelve it and visit it in 2036 or so. That's literally a very long time. So we should be able to produce some... some options closer to today, in reasonable time. So that's a guidance issue for me, clearly. On Ms. Cunningham's idea of putting some money into planning better for the public spaces or third places, that's a new neologism right now. I find some value in that and I hear Ms. Coffey very clearly that the board hasn't articulated a particular vision for that. The plan actually has a vision but it's not very, the granularity is not there about where and how and what the delivery pathway for these spaces should be on a very long corridor with a ton of residents. I should say, you know, we have other corridors who have better granularity in that, but we still are very behind in delivering third spaces, and that's both Roslin, Boston, and Route 1. But per se, I find the thinking about an amendment there not completely, I mean, I'm supportive of that thinking. On Columbia Pike, I have to tell you, this is one corridor where we had, where we pressured ourselves and the community and staff to articulate exactly where these places would be and from zero public spaces and in the 2000 where we have to day four. for plazas, for places that are used by the public as third spaces, and that's an accomplishment. I think that this is very well received. So based on that precedence, I'm friendly to Ms. Cunningham's thinking.

Thank you. I think we're arrived. Yeah, go ahead, Ms. Coffey.

I think the comparison to other corridors is a salient one. And I do wonder about prioritizing this for Langston now when we have the Crystal and Pentagon City neighborhoods, for example. begging us to do something for them and thinking about the community benefits that they're not realizing the way we had hoped because we are having to pivot to the adaptive reuse. And I think we've all had conversations with neighbors down that way about how desperately they want some form of public space and what's possible if they're not getting the community amenities from site plan projects that had been envisioned or hoped for, or at least not getting them for the next 30 years, probably. And so I do struggle a little bit with making an amendment to really directly communicate that this corridor, we are willing to do this for but other corridors were not. And that makes me a little bit uncomfortable. I understand that there is envisioned future development along Langston that will make this Important, but when I think about Crystal City, it's not just envision development There are people living there who you know, we we built out parts of that community already those people exist the needs exist right now and we're not accelerating it and we're not talking about it in the same way and so That also is a struggle for me on this Got it.

So I think We're clear that we're not at lee, we're at guidance. And there's work to do there. And we want to hear everybody's thoughts. On the third spaces piece, I don't know if you have additional thoughts. You have to be thoughtful when you speak and you will see in our summary of emails today that I had to be accountable to Ms. Dunlop for indicating that there was some merit in a creative thinking which I was incorrect because the six million that we've set aside for a library in the Crystal City, we also want to get to our other library in that area, but it's not serving Crystal City. So that's an example of how do you synthesize all of this? And she had an accurate, that six million needs to stay dedicated to a Crystal City library, and we have work to do there. But I simultaneously am keenly aware of Extended discussions in Langston Boulevard Alliance on third spaces in particular as a high priority And I think it's the the plan it does that is a salient piece, but I just struggled to see how pulling up in addition to all of the competing needs, and there is a relevant argument that we have been investing capital in Columbia Pike, but not as recently in Langston Boulevard, but I still struggle to see on third spaces, I'm not in a space for an amendment there, and I struggle with the constellation of expectations again if we were to say third spaces on Langston and not some of the other neighborhoods that Ms. Coffey mentioned. But I'm not dogmatic, I guess I'm seeking if there's a line, if we could align towards guidance that might maybe make me in a better space, but I think the conversation now goes probably back to you Ms. Cunningham or others.

I guess I would just say it is not intended to be to the exclusion of other neighborhoods. We've done work in a lot of neighborhoods. They have a sector plan, a specific plan that is further along, particularly in National Landing, particularly in Columbia Pike. But the thought was actually to make it a small enough area, because this is a new way of thinking about going across those silos and thinking about the future that we want to have as a community. getting away from one definition of community center and an expensive operating definition and thinking through how to do that. The Langston Boulevard Alliance has been planning for 15 years. They're just hitting their stride. And so it's a small enough area. It's defined. The work hasn't been done in their plan because it was at a higher level. So that was merely the idea and the thought that perhaps they could do some of the heavy lifting. to get us started as a broader community, so then we can replicate that in other places. And it may be other communities would want to get started as well, but that's one particular one that's also brought up in the CIP because of the the challenge of an empty building at LAC that we are going to need to do something with in this CIP. And so, again, back to the before you do big things, do the thinking and the planning so that you can get it right for a community that's continuing to evolve.

Got it. That's helpful. Mr.

Chair, by the way, just as a reminder, with our regular budget, we appropriated $50,000 this year to the Langston Boulevard Alliance in addition to their regular appropriation for implementation, right? So I would... I mean, this is still not scoped completely, so I would... I'd like to see that in conjunction. I mean, it's only $50,000. It's only for this year. But we could figure out a pathway of repeating or committing to this appropriation again and again until we get there. But this is also money given only to Langston Boulevard Alliance for that. So I would like to calibrate that a little bit.

Thank you for that. That's helpful, Mr. Karantonis, in adding. And I think there might have been two components, right? $50,000 for planning. And I thought we also increased the ongoing, ultimately. But I could be mistaken in that one. Mr. Spain.

Now, I'll just close back to when we think about this new kind of way of thinking, the third spaces plan, Ms. Cunningham, it's my first time kind of really a few days ago looking into that. But When we talk about equity and we talk about whether it's libraries, community centers, I think we all need to really put it all on a map, right? Think about what's happened with Madison. Think about what's going on at Langston. who's missing, why, why it matters. Langston Boulevard corridor, we want that to be, you know, it's gonna be more dense in time. And to the point you made, Ms. Cunningham, right? They have been working on this for 15 years. It just fumes to Mockball League Center for 10 years. It seems like we need to think creative more out of the box. And I think in the next two years when we come back, there may be additional conversations. But this is where I want to go. And I know we're talking third spaces, but we can't wait. And whether we're talking about Crystal City with the library or all our Highlands and all these areas, people expect us to deliver. And so I hope that we can move a little bit more with a sense of urgency because it's easy to kick can down the road. It's a little bit harder to really take the time to figure out what right looks like. And I'm willing to help with that. But again, back to that whole corridor to Langston. Am I just saying this because I'm liaison? There is Halls Hill. There's a whole host of communities up there that are looking and need additional facilities and infrastructure built out, okay? So thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I'm confident that we're towards guidance on the Lee Center. I'm not entirely clear as to where the will of the board is on the Langston Boulevard third spaces planning. And I'm, you know, compelling arguments on both sides. I guess I would say in the interest of time, I suggest that we take a break of not too long. Before we do so, I just want to see if we could take a minute, because we are going to lose for the afternoon. Sorry, Ms. Cowan, but you have a very important other thing to do that thankfully may not involve the county board, but it's important at 3 o'clock. Can you, so we're putting a pin in the third spaces in Langston, and I don't know where we resolve, but we can take it back up in the second half of this. I think we all have an interest in this meeting not going on too long, but what I'd like to do before we leave is of the other proposed guidance sections, colleagues, can we look at those together with Ms. Cowan to see if her expertise might be particularly useful in any of those areas? Housing. I think that there's consensus loosely among the board that this would be guidance. The manager spoke to it. We'll have work to do. And yes, guys, run while you can, gentlemen. The W and O and D trail, I don't actually think that's likely to be to its guidance, and it's not likely to be too controversial. We know we do not, we need to have a public process. This refers to past work with Nova Parks. This will be a discussion. I haven't had a chance to connect directly with Ms. Cowan, you, on the residential program center. There's VDOT issues. I'm not even certain that there will be guidance there. I just, you know, the equity piece and the past work we've all done, we've all done on homelessness is what leads me to ask that question. But it may not be ready for such guidance. The water sewer main replacement, Ms. Cunningham, you mentioned that. There are some questions and answers. I don't know if there's pieces. The Columbia Pike Library and the APS parking facility is more just making sure that we're staying in touch. Columbia Pike Library is important to a number of us. I don't actually know transportation. uh these other topics is there any let's start with perhaps you Ms. Cowan is there anything that is particularly key that you might want to mention where staff has done some thinking that we ought to know that is in that sort of bottom half ish of these sites um that you know keeping in mind that we can always ask Arielle and we we can always come back to you but So we can have a decent conversation after we have our short break. Is there anything that no?

No, I don't think so I think it depends on the specificity for each of these I would note on water sewer just big picture You know in addition to what I think we have really solid programs for water and sewer main system replacements some of the big rocks facing us in terms of our water and sewer delivery services. Remember, we have regen happening at the water pollution control plant. We are also working on a bunch of water redundancy and other issues as a region that are in active study phase but will hit us at some point later in the CIP. We have investments being considered and made at the Washington Aqueduct for drinking water quality and other things. And those are as, and we look at this from a risk-based approach, right? And so when we're thinking about how to allocate or move things around, there's a lot of work that's gonna happen over the next three or four years that will determine the trajectory of those priorities. And I would ask that we all just be open to a small acceleration on something in one of the systems may not be as important as a big project for water redundancy. just let that kind of play out I guess is the only thing I would offer as just for your back-ahead thinking on stuff.

Great, with that, I'm mindful that there's, yes, we'll go to all colleagues before we break. I think, let's go to Ms. Cunningham first and then Mr. Spain, if that's okay.

I was just gonna say on that point, if there is guidance, it would be pretty far out and really just supporting the great work that the team is doing already. I felt it was important to ask the question because many in the community had raised particularly intense concerns. about water and sewer infrastructure. So, you know, our superheroes in the back are making it all happen. And we do have a very specific risk analysis that is very, very strong. So thank you for taking the time to walk me through it. And I think the invitation will be that as we get through some of the regen in particular and the relining that we're doing now, next CIP, let's talk about is there anything you need to go faster on? Because that is an absolute core, core interests to our community, but we are doing a great job on it, so it would not impact the first couple years. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Cunningham. Very helpful. Mr. Spain.

Yeah, Ms. Collin, thank you for your leadership. I just want to pull out an area, and we may be able to do this after you're gone, but Chair, you put down libraries and community centers. I just wanted to kind of tease out Cherrydale for a second to see if there's anything you want to share with us as it relates to the next CIP. There's been some testimony that have come to us about investing in Cherrydale over the next 10 years within the CIP. Any thoughts that you want to lean in on there before you leave?

No, not anything immediate in the near term, to be honest. I think we need to regroup a little bit as part of some of the other guidance you guys have gotten us. So I'm hesitant to say anything until we get through that, but I understand your interest in wanting to be responsive and understand whatever investments we might be wanting to bring to you for ideas and any other, yeah. So I think we're on the same page.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Spain. Colleagues, I'll suggest we just take a short break. Can we start again? Is 3 o'clock okay for everybody? I'm mindful that county's work comes first. 4 o'clock is also the semifinals, so I'll just say that for the record. But we will start again at 3 o'clock. We're recessed for a few minutes.

Well, I think.

You did do a reel. I was like...

I wanted to try something before.

I don't know what... You just can't be afraid.

Thank you, colleagues and staff, for coming back. And I actually have hope and hope that we can wrap up with alacrity. And so I don't, looking through the proposed guidance, I don't think, we got housing check, we're figuring that, just make sure it's in enough time so that we can all see it. Residential program center, I'm gonna talk with Ms., I will own that one, we will either not have guidance for your all's consideration, or I will bring it to you in enough time this week so that we can get there. So timing wise for colleagues, the current plan had been by tomorrow at noon on guidance, send your language or detailed enough concepts that someone could put it into language. So I'll pause there, WOND trail, Ms. Coffey.

Great. Yeah, I just want to say this out loud for all of our many listeners at home. The W&OD trail has consistently been a topic of conversation around the capacity and particularly since East Falls Church did their dual trail expansion which allows pedestrians to be separated from the cyclists on the trail. The idea of doing that in Arlington for our section of the W&OD has been a hot topic of discussion. It had previously been a project on the table. It was taken off the table for the time being. And I really would like us to put it back on the table as someone who uses the trail and also as someone who is the recipient of our transportation-related constituent services messages. I can tell you that the conflict points on the W&OD are increasing. And particularly as e-bikes become much more common, the combination of pedestrians and cyclists is getting less safe, I think. You have much faster moving bikes at this point that are all being compressed into the same amount of space with our pedestrians. I don't think anyone wants pedestrians to not be able to use the trail or not feel comfortable using the trail. But as things have developed really over the last three, four years, I think we are heading to a point where I don't know that the existing trail capacity really is serving everyone's needs and so I would like to add guidance that does not commit us to a specific project plan or even a timeline necessarily, but really that just puts this back on the table. It would have to be a partnership with Nova Parks and ideally using some of our our regional bike and pedestrian funding sources that are available to us. But there are a lot of detailed conversations to be sorted out. This is in no way directing the manager to come back in the next CIP and put it in specific years. We don't know any of the answers to that yet, but I do think based on what we see in the community at this point, it does need to at least be a project that's on the table.

Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair Coffey. I really appreciate you mentioning that because there's plenty of public engagement that has happened on this topic and there will need to be more. We need to give our community the added awareness of this particular issue. I'm on the hook for if there's anything on residential program center for awareness colleagues. There is a piece of the facility that is a kitchen. It's not large enough to currently be operating. It's near VDOT land. I want us to be able to efficiently deliver services. I'm gonna work with Ms. Cowan on that and it will be in time so that I can explain to you the rationale should there be any language. I'm not confident. or certain that there will be. We talked about the sewer and the water main. Anything to add?

I can just read it. It's a sentence. It would be for the fiscal year 29 operating budget and fiscal year 29 through 30 CIP, provide options and risk assessment for further acceleration or replacement of infrastructure that's over seven years.

Got it. Okay.

Mr. Chair? Yeah, Mr. Chair. So... I fully appreciate that. It's a good thing to look with a critical eye on the replacement pace of sewer and water mains, et cetera. What I miss is kind of a... measure for that. So, as, I mean, we have heard here very detailed, Mr. Manuel is here, very detailed, you know, narrative about how the system is evaluated all the time, how, you know, what decisions are made when we are lining the sewers and how all this is playing out. And The question for Ms. Cunningham is, are you concerned that we are behind a little bit or that we are not at the right pace? I mean, my, I kind of share a, you know, we have the duty of care that this is really basic infrastructure. It should be in very good shape. But we are, I mean, I would love to see in the future CAP this also measured somehow, so.

Yeah, I think we are doing a great job, but we also have a system that's sort of hitting its age, right? So we are prioritizing that work and we're doing a risk-based analysis for this year, as Ms. Cowan shared before she left. it wasn't laid out in great detail but the the work had been done in detail so this is really just asking when you come back to the board after two years so for the next two years is really focused on regen and we you know we would have to add people so we're not going to think about that but in two years when you come back there could be the preferred option but is there also what would it take to do a faster one because that was the top feedback from our community is we want the water and sewer infrastructure to be adequate, to be in good and strong operating order. It is, and some of it's quite old.

Yeah, it's also the issue of efficient replacement. Sometimes, you know, replacing one after the other or, you know, doing many small replacement is far less efficient than doing a big one and, you know, have the economies of scale.

Sure. Thank you. So the sentence, so your interest there and the metrics. I'm fine.

I'm fine. Yes, I'm interested in metrics, but this is a natural, you know, this would build in naturally if we are really going to give that.

So I don't have an objection. We'll want to make sure that Ms. Cowan doesn't have any tiny edits. I don't know if she's seen that guidance, that sentence yet. I don't have any objections. But that's, we'll hope that there's engagement between you, Ms. Cunningham, and Ms. Cowan on that. And then we'll, I don't have any, you've covered the gamut. I don't have any objections. I just want to make sure, because I don't understand other than the reports we got from our... Generally on water and sewer the good space that we're in with aging definitely there so APS parking facility Columbia Pike library I think that this might have been a an interest of Mr. Karantonis, Mr. Spain at one point for guidance. Are you actually?

It is. The question here is we don't know what APS wants to exactly do there, right? So we may have to decide that. The mentioning of the Columbia Pike Library was just to include in guidance so that we signal to the community that being out of the 10-year scope doesn't mean that's out of the 10-year mind. That's one thing. But the APS, the exchange between the APS facility, the parking facility for APS is a significant one, but I believe that this, I mean, I don't know whether this really belongs into guidance per se, or it is a kind of a smart and strategic response when we get to the bifurcation of having to decide that. And for that... Hoping that APS will consult us.

And for that, I... Is that a question for the manager? It's also a question for Ms. Cowan. But I also want to, I am confident enough that there'll be the interaction, but I'm also open to guidance. Mr. Schwartz.

Now, I'm just going to share what I've heard, and maybe you have in talking with your school board colleagues, which is they still are committed to building some sort of parking facility there. The question is when do they need to build it and whether this would provide more time and that gets tied up with their construction timelines about whether they do additions along with the garage. So I've read this, and we had the conversation during the work session, is our signaling to them there's some additional flexibility that they can include in their planning, and they should consult with us. I think that's a really good thing, but I have not heard that this offer has been grabbed by the schools and said, therefore, we won't build a parking garage, but I don't know what you've all heard.

There's not detail to, this is not one of the subjects I've gotten into detail on. Ms. Cunningham.

Yes, I think we just need to make sure someone on the board is having that conversation because there would be an opportunity to save on debt service and save on debt capacity for a couple of years. It's not going to be a permanent solution, but that school is still growing, so they may not need all the parking right away. So just a consideration.

What I guess I would suggest is, is this one, Mr. Karantonis, you can take and work with Ms. Cowan?

Yes.

All right, so for the ears of God, Mr. Karantonis has got this one. And we may end up not, but if there is no guidance, then we still need to be persistent in following up in this area because there are policy implications behind paying for the parking and the debt service, et cetera. Transportation, I do not know where that came from. Can someone probably enlighten me?

Yes, Mr. Spangler. We stress Columbia Pike Library. We're not discussing anything with that. I don't have a question, but it's not an overlook, right?

Yeah, so what I... It's all together? That whole thing, I guess I would suggest that, Mr. Karantonis, as you're working on that guidance, you could add a sentence that indicates that we do have that interest because I can tell you exactly where I was in the Columbia Pike facility when I said that we would get a library done eventually for the Black Heritage Museum. And that doesn't mean life changes, but that is a promise I have not yet fulfilled. And so it is keenly on my mind. Thank you. Is that work as far as Mr. Karantonis running it to ground and then him mentioning our interest in the Columbia Pike Library without saying we have a grand opinion on the exact time because that's a little tricky. So that's what we're gonna do with that one if that's okay. Transportation, who's got that?

How did that get there? There were a couple of topics, so I think it's a category to make sure that we hit it. I think the one that was most important to me was that we direct staff prior to the next CIP to provide an analysis of the three different ways we do sidewalks and street improvements, so Vision Zero, ACS, and ANP, where they overlap. what the time frames and the costs are, so that if we might better direct projects through that, we can find some efficiencies down the road.

Great. Well, for that one I'm interested, and I didn't get to, I know you shared with us, there are other transportation pieces. I think that we have been and should be more thorough on guidance and I don't know if there are other categories they wanted to lift up but that on sidewalks we have asked for guidance on I believe on that in the past I would support it again Mr. Schwartz has gone through our systemic analysis of how we're working to get to all sidewalks but it's like a 10-year horizon because there's a lot of county and we're way better than Fairfax because We are in general, but we also are in the area of sidewalks, but sidewalks is good. Is there other areas in transportation that you wanted to lift up?

The other two I was tracking are really just nice to have. One is to note that we have finally completed the Columbia Pike project, hooray, and that we are now turning on the transportation. Front we're turning towards Carlin Springs and Langston and so sometimes when you look at the CIP You forget that ten years ago. It was all Carlin Springs in ten years from now. It may look like it's all other things So just noting that and then an ask for staff both in the operating budget and in the fiscal year 29 CIP to identify What transportation funds are fungible? You know that we are? We could, in theory, use them for a library or a park or for some other use. It's not many of them. It's counter-intuitively a small number, but to do that so that we all can have that conversation in the community without understanding every one of the buckets. So, that's it.

Great.

We had some climate-related ones, but they got addressed in a question.

Yeah, so... I'm game on, I have a less, you've been thorough on guidance. And in this case, I don't have a, I think that's a useful statement to be at Carlin Springs and Langston. There may be other areas. I don't have a problem. I also am mindful we have to track all the guidance and make it happen in conjunction with staff. So I don't have a, It may be useful to to share those with Michelle and way and and miss Crawford Just so we work those and make sure that staffs all there that you may already have done that But let's so those are the three that we consider maintenance capital deferred maintenance I think that's back to you again miss Cunningham, but I'm not sure I

Yeah, and that also is pretty simple, just highlighting that we want to continue to be briefed on the predictive analytics that our team is doing, and that we'd like in the next CIP to have target maintenance funding and estimated deferred maintenance beyond the CIP. So we talked about that in the work session, that we were at 15%, which is a little higher than what we mean to be. So just so we know how we're tracking year to year.

great for me it's going to be useful to track what we're tracking to have a reference to the number and or potentially even the page number just so that to make it sticky for me you've tracked it I know but I don't have a problem with that but I also want to make it so we can see that through, if that makes any sense. And so I'll leave that to you. I think it also, that's also one where engaging with probably Ms. Cowan would be best. Library, if that's okay. So any other comments, colleagues, let me know. Library, community service centers, this is one where I think that both, Mr. Karantonis, you had some interest.

That's true. Since we have so much conversation about third spaces, we now use a lot of new terminology, right? So libraries, et cetera. The question was whether it is possible to ask staff County Manager to provide us with a, you know, status assessment or a condition assessment of the entire library system right now. As, I mean, we have that mostly from DPR, but the library system we just you know, we have a partial view of that. So that would connect, that would say something about the condition assessment of the buildings that are involved because we have a, you know, we have a sprawling.

Just so I understand, just to understand, is this something that you have talked with Diane or Michelle about?

Yes, we did. Okay. And Ms. Cunningham was part of this conversation. So we think that this is a, it gives us a good handle of how, where to go with the system. I mean, we have struggled also as a board here, I mean, with appropriations, operating, operational burdens. We had a very long conversation about the Charity Library. During the normal budget, you know the operational budget discussion and so forth so having a more structured Approach to the assets of the system their location their use and how they with a stack up With with regards to how they deliver on the strategic plan. That's already three years old is a is something that would help us a lot to plan.

Got it. So just so I understand, because I think there was language included in what you shared, Ms. Cunningham, but I'm not sure. And I would love to... I always feel like having ownership as to who's going to run to ground. So, Takis, you're on running this one to ground with Ms. Cunningham's support.

That's right. I sent some bullets for you to consider, but Mr. Karantonis has the pen.

You got it. You got the pen, Mr. Karantonis, and you're going to talk with Diane and Michelle and maybe copy Mark on one of these so he knows. what's coming, but there is an email that's needed and maybe you can get a little help from our policy lead if you need, should you need. So, Public Safety Services Support Facilities, the Quincy site, Ms. Cunningham.

That one is the board needs to give direction. The capital improvement plan has a bucket of funding for mitigation, which perhaps someone other than me should explain what that is for. And as the liaison, I've heard some of it, but can probably defer to the team to share the options that have been considered. I think we as a board need to give some direction whether we want to build a wall acquire properties, or maybe there's a third option. But I think where the community landed was the wall didn't seem awesome, and some level of acquisition strategy over the long haul might be a better buffer.

So I actually would love a little clarification. I did hear that and wanted to engage just a little bit. on this, and this seems like a significant bucket of work, but Mr. Schwartz, do you have perspective? Is this one we need, Ms. Cowan, or what's best?

No, and we've worked pretty closely with the community and briefed them on some options about walls as a mitigating measure, and it's received mixed reception on a good day. And then, but, you know, we So there's that. There's also the alternative, which Ms. Cunningham put out there, which would involve potential acquisition of, I think, a few properties. It's really, at the end of the day, it's a policy decision on the part of the board about which direction you want to go in. And you could also tell us that you don't want to go in either direction because, frankly, that's where we've been. And you can evaluate how that's worked out, so I'm not sure and I'll let somebody on You don't have to come up a deal, but you can raise your hand if you have another solution Okay, it doesn't have another solution So those are sort of that's sort of the menu of choices we have at the moment And I think this is meant to try to get some guidance on that my concern is making the decision on which properties and when and

by Tuesday?

No, no, that's... So I think the direction would be, the guidance would be to direct staff to proceed with planning and a strategy for how, if and how acquisitions would serve as a buffer. So they've played out the... wall version quite thoroughly with good math behind it. And I think as these land acquisitions go, you kind of figure out a framework of what you might be interested in and then you're going to evaluate each of them as they come to market, which might take a long time. But my sense was from the manager and from the team that that might be is likely a much more cost efficient and operationally supportive option for the long term.

Totally open to that. My question is whether we're going to get as smart as you and the manager have been by next Tuesday, and so I might end in the exact same space, but I think maybe a couple of conversations would educate, but you know more as liaison, but I think when there's the stakes of property acquisition being considered, I want to know a lot more before I even commit to that as the strategy as opposed to different members of different different iterations of barriers, but I'm not saying for you in the community, I'm not saying I disagree with the conclusion, I just got a lot of work to do between now and Tuesday if that's where we end up. Does that make some sense? Unless I'm missing something entirely and Mark you have said, I need a fork in the road.

I'm just going to say this because Susan and I have had this conversation. If the board wants to go down the road, I'm not saying that the board should go down the road necessarily, but if you want to acquire some properties to deal with the mitigation issues, then you also need to take into account the precedent that this might set or might not set, given the unique circumstances of the property, about whether that is the approach you want to take. And I just, at this point, and I'm just going to restate what I said, and I'm not trying to be a wise guy here, it's like, If you give me no guidance, we'll continue to do with what we've been doing, but that hasn't worked. So a head nod in one direction or the other or to do some further analysis is absolutely fine. We can do that.

Yeah, and I think the funding, it's in the two years, so that's why I feel it's... important for us to be moving towards a decision, even if we're not finalizing a decision. So to direct staff to do that analysis and come back on a fairly quick turn so that we can give clear direction and not build a wall that we don't want to have.

Yeah, I'm game to do that piece. And I think everything that's been said is totally fair. Doing nothing with no strategy is not where I'm focused. But Mr. Spain, thank you.

Sure, thank you. And thank you, Ms. Cunningham, for bringing this up. I just want to just be open. I am, tell me first, what are we trying to mitigate as it relates to public safety?

It might be best if staff want to share the thoughtful work that they've done here and how the operations on the site are going.

I think what you're asking, Mr. County Manager, is to get some direction. I'll tell you, it will take me some time to come around to understand the land acquisition aspect of this. So I know this may require a longer conversation because I'm not up to speed where I need to be, Ms. Cunningham. So I just want you to know. All right. Just some more conversation. You got it.

Yeah, I think that the best pathway forward might be some guidance that preserves maximum flexibility in terms of what our options are and then having some briefings either two by twos or perhaps a closed session to discuss the ongoing issues and you know, not saying no guidance on this, but I think just making sure. I don't believe that by Tuesday I will be informed enough to make a real concrete decision on what my direction might be, but I think we can certainly continue the conversations and figure it out. So that's where I'm at, at least.

Ms. Cunningham, I mean, I will say it's very important that we all align with being grateful for your work in helping improve communication with the neighborhood and our staff. And so that need to be very clear about. I don't know quite where Ms. Coffey's comment leads us to guidance. I'm amenable to some. And I also think that there's wisdom in having additional conversation, if that makes sense.

Yeah. I mean, I think the guidance I would propose is to direct staff to do the analysis and bring it back to us fairly swiftly so that we can have the conversation. It does not need to be on the dais. But I think the community has been participating. Our staff have done some great work both in relationship building and in analysis. And we should bring that up with the alternatives rather than, as the manager says, continuing to do nothing.

Great, that's helpful. And I'll leave to you brainstorming with Ms. Cowan and keeping the community and all of our interests in mind, the relative level of date certainness of that work being done. I do think we could use a time bound, but I always feel like when you say by X date, it can get, but quarters or whatever you think is wise. So I think we've covered that one. Thank you colleagues for working through that conversation. Climate and natural capital, I actually, I may have contributed to this category, but I don't think I'm the only one. I will say that we have had insight from our commissions regarding steps we can take on climate. I think that operationalizing a lot of the work on buildings in particular is important. We have 2022 guidance. I guess I am in a space, colleagues, where I need to get better educated, catch up perhaps a little bit with multiple colleagues, but certainly with Mr. Karantonis. But we do have, I think we're all likely to be in a good place, pleased with at least the specificity of the EV charging guidance and action, as well as the energy efficiency and solar space. and we'll take a little bit longer look, but for my part, some of the climate pieces, I'm very grateful for commission sharing. I'm struggling to align the specificity of the suggestions with whether it should live in our climate action plan, but that's for my piece of the climate. I'm not foreclosed, but from potentially bringing one or at the most two, pieces of guidance on this, but they're reflected in some questions. I'm not currently leaning towards it, and I would have to make tomorrow's Wednesday noon deadline to give you notice should there be anything on this. I may even have missed it, but did others contribute to this category? And you don't have to? Not seeing lights. Go ahead.

I think the other areas that I would put forward for consideration are something specific to the Climate Action Fund and Tree Canopy Fund, directing the manager to establish guidelines and funding mechanism or provide options for guidelines and funding mechanism. I think that's something that's been, we've talked about the last two budgets. And so that would be one I would raise up. The other is an update on the overland relief properties. and providing analysis of effectiveness and outcomes. I think that's also kind of in the queue, but to keep it all in the same document. Similarly, confirming that we are continuing to work towards updated site plan conditions to respond to climate, which I think is underway and will be concluded this calendar year.

Well, it could be concluded this calendar year if we're able to do the full engagement with our partners in the development community, which hasn't really taken off as quickly as I would have liked.

They're not returning your calls? No. And if I use an alias they return my calls Okay, we'll get you a new alias and we can help with reaching out there I think that is really really important because the our climate goals are Not we are not affecting our climate goals with really outdated site plan conditions and then the last one is just Celebrating that we are actually capitalizing the invasives work and just thanking staff in you know a nice little sentence I am going to work

to get with the new guidance plan, which is discussing a lot of things. And I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna, I'm gonna, we'll work with that. That is, whether that is action focused, I'll leave that to colleagues. I don't think I have a problem. It's certainly not harming, but if you have 15 top priorities, you do not have 15 top priorities. So I don't think I should have a problem with any of those colleagues. Do you have any thoughts on Ms. Cunningham's, those pieces? There will be yours to own, and then we will work through them. But I do not think I have concerns. I do have to look at them in a little greater detail. The only other area that I was gonna bring up, I have discussed, I don't know if I'm in time, but I do think that there's, I hope that I am, is guidance with respect to Penrose Square. I think I've talked about, This is a little bit with the manager and with several colleagues. It is not meant to be heavy-handed, but I think the concept there is if the work proceeds more quickly, the ability to draw down some of that funding.

Is that... Yeah, and we've talked about that. I welcome that guidance. We hope the work will proceed more quickly. Right now we're relying on the plans as they've been laid out, and we did move it up, and we would be prepared to move it up earlier if the construction... the private construction works out more quickly. Great.

Mr. Chair? Colleagues, yes, Mr. Cantones. I mean, my only issue, I mean, it's clearly, it's contingent to the construction because this is the whole point of having, you know, of the residential building and the piece of the square that we get to finish. The only issue that I had with that, and this is not something that we can discuss right now, is that it's a little bit underfunded. I mean, it was surprising to me that this entire half is less than five million dollars. I understand that most of the work is done in the first phase, the most expensive parts in the first phase, but still a lot of work that needs to be done to complete the square, but it will be a fantastic addition and a priority. Thank you.

I'm on the hook to going to, right now, I'm on the hook to going to and with Ms. Cowan and Mr. Schwartz for this language, and I will make sure that it comports with what you said, Mr. Karantonis. Mr. Spain.

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to kind of jump before I can get there. Sure. You went over to Penrose Square. Welcome to the neighborhood, by the way. So I was going back and looking, I'm talking about climate, and just want to get your thoughts because I'm not sure exactly. There was some stakeholders that reached out to us to talk about some priorities and guidance. Any thoughts on that? I don't want to get into the particulars, but we had some transparency and accountability at the county facilities. It was some meetings that went on last week. I was not able to attend those.

Uh, I, so, in the climate space? Yeah, in the climate space. Yeah, so, uh... As it relates to the CIP and guidance. Sure, there were a number of suggestions, and there are four, I think. There's some questions submitted. I am happy to work with all colleagues on some of the areas I did not... I think that the best way to accomplish the goals in some of the areas is actually to do two-by-twos and get us a little better educated. But I am happy to talk that through with you and all colleagues. To be accountable and transparent to those commissions, I am grateful for sure for submitting. They've advanced my thinking. I'm hopeful that some of the progress on EV charging and also some of the other pieces of guidance and the million dollars on solar and energy efficiency will be some measurable progress.

Okay.

Thank you. Colleagues, concluding comments. Other than that, and I am not, neither want to rush and I want to make sure that we're thorough. Process, we're on the hook to get, detailed concepts or language to around by 12 noon tomorrow to our policy manager, and we have lots of different buckets for each of us to work on, and I will try to find time. I have cleared Friday afternoon, but also other colleagues, other times can work, colleagues, and you will have your own individual conversations. Go ahead, Mr. Schwartz.

Yeah, so the one thing that we're very concerned focused on tactical things here. And so talking with Jason, if you want to adjust the referendum totals, which would include increasing the amounts for our NAC, letting us know that earlier rather than later makes it easier for us to prepare the materials and all the documents we need. Because once you vote, our goal is to bundle that up with the schools, and then we have to work through the whole process of getting it to the courts. So I'm not saying you need to give it to us by tomorrow, but if you're going to be adding money into the referendum or taking it away, which is always a wonderful option, just try to let us know in the next two days if you can.

Thank you. Ms. Coffey's probably got some procedural incisive thinking.

Well, a question. That is only relevant for anything that would be added or subtracted in the next two years in terms of referenda.

Correct. That's correct. And so there is a separate, we sent you the materials, and Jason can recite it, but we laid out in the initial presentation what it was that was going to be on, we're asking you to authorize, because you do the CIP, and then on Tuesday you're also going to be asked to vote on the bond referendum questions. So we need to make sure those numbers are correct and advertised in time for you to consider on Tuesday.

Got it. Thank you. But just thinking around our NAC, if we are most worried about 2030, perhaps it is not a 2026 referendum question. Is... the thought I will leave us with.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Coffey. I will eventually go through, I'll send it to you, Ms. Cunningham, but eventually I'm going to try to go through really briefly what amendments we're thinking, left to think through. And there is the third spaces piece, which we haven't all concluded. But first to you, Ms. Cunningham.

I just wondered if someone could stick the infographic up, because as we do in all these conversations, we went down into little bitty details, but the community actually loves to know. Is that even hard to do? People can look it up online, too. The one, the little Richard Scarry's Good Day. But that's fine. I can also just mention it. We've been discussing the $4.3 billion capital improvement plan over 10 years. We talked a lot about parks and recreation because that's something that touches folks every day. But the fact that we didn't spend as much time today talking about utilities and stormwater and all the road and transportation and metro infrastructure is a huge testament to our staff who are making all of that happen every day. And it's not that people don't believe it's really, really important because you sure hear from them if the toilet doesn't flush or the... flooding comes, but it's just important to keep in mind that as we make this, we as a board are tweaking around the edges because the staff has really largely gotten it awesome, and that, again, the parks and recreation stuff is a pain point for all of us because it is a small piece, and we're trying to figure out how to make those dollars go farther in partnership with our community.

Great. Thank you, Ms. Cunningham, for that. All very helpful context that I had not gotten to and reconsidered. So very helpful. So on amendments... I have a question mark next to Quincy Park, whether there's an amendment there. I'm not certain. I think that's a question that sort of lives most with Ms. Cunningham. The energy efficiency solar will be an amendment. The EV charging climate action fund, that's gonna be guidance. I believe we're headed on detention center and courts towards guidance. On Arlnach, I would like to propose that no later than Thursday at 12 noon we know the answer as to whether there would even be a possibility that there would be bond implications of what we're doing. That work lives with Mr. Spain and Mr. Karantonis. On the third spaces planning, I don't think we've resolved that yet. A question occurs in my mind, Mr. Schwartz. We now have a million of the bond premium that is spoken for. This is not dispositive on where I would end up on third spaces, but is it accurate that there is $800,000 left, or is that $800,000 already spoken for? No, there is $800,000 left. OK.

So that makes it... It's in a lockbox with a secret combination, though.

Every time you say that, I think of the debate where Saturday Night Live talked about the lockbox, that guy. But so we have to think through that. And there are policy questions that are irrespective of the cost. But I would lean towards, if we do end up there, I would lean towards that. I would propose that we close up for this afternoon unless there are objections. So staff, thank you for staying with us. I think I've gotten you in time such that you could make it somewhere to see Spain versus France, but it is still most important to be focused, as always, as we have been and as we will be.

We're all too late to get to four courts, though.

It's 15 minutes. It starts at four.

Oh, four courts has had lines out the door two hours before every match.

That's true. That's true.

I can, as county manager, I can authorize to show you.

Could you?

I think you would have unanimous, but before we continue to devolve, colleagues, we are adjourned for today.