Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Laughter] All right, it is now 6:34. We are going to ask that uh Miss Leuk, if you could give us a roll call. [Music] Okay. Thank you, sir. [Music] Sorry. All right. Roll call. U Mr. Dakota here. Mr. Fox here. Mr. Williams here. Mr. Kendrick here. Mr. Matet here. Miss Flattley here. Uh Mr. Myers did let us know he was going to be absent. Mr. Nicely here. And Mr. Palota here. All right. Thank you. We have a quorum. All right. Let it be recorded that we have established a quorum. May we please stand for our pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We bow our heads. Dear Lord, we thank you for bringing us together in this place and providing us an environment where we can focus on the business of our county. We ask for your guidance and shaping our hearts and minds to make decisions that serve for the best interest of our citizens. As we conclude and depart from this gathering, we humbly ask for your grace and mercy and grant us safe and mercy in our in our travels from this place. These are the blessings we pray. Amen. Amen.

All right. First on the agenda, we have approval of the minutes. I ask that um each member take a look. Okay. Are there any corrections? I make a motion we approve the minutes from April 8th, 2025. Second motion has been made and seconded. All in favor with a show of hands and I are there any abstensions? M show Mr. Fox uh has abstained and minutes have been passed as approved. Okay. Next uh is our citizens public comment period. Comments will be limited to 3 minutes per person to afford everyone an opportunity to speak. If comments relate to a specific specific public hearing item, please offer them at that time of the public hearing. Um, let's see. Do I have a list? I do. Thank you, ma'am. All right. Thank you. Okay. First on the list is Mr. James Shaw. This would relate to PCO525, 0625, and 0725. Is is that appropriate at this time? Um, yes. Do that. We do have a public hearing for that. So, no, sir, if you can wait until that. Oh, Mr. Chair, um, the only public hearing tonight is for ordinance amendment 08-01-25.

So it it would be appropriate if he spoke. Very well. Thank you. Uhu. I apologize, Mr. Shaw. I apologize. That's why I asked because I knew it was kind of Okay. James Shaw, James Monurro, District columnist for the Northern Next Sentinel, citizen journalist, KG Media. Speaking both in my capacity as EDA member and as King George taxpayer. It is not a perfect world as much as we might wish and hope it would be. No matter how you vote this evening, someone is going to feel infringed upon. As a member of the EDA, I and the rest of the board of supervisorapp appointed members are on the lookout for businesses and developers like these that have minimal impact on the lean infrastructure of our rural county. with a statistical for 75% of the county's $136 million revenue stream coming from residential property taxes which don't pay their way. We need other sources to make up the difference. The dword landfill has served us well for a number of years, but in a decade or so that resource will end and Mount Trashmore will remain. No more noisy methane reprocessors. The EDA put a deal together before my time around 2017 to put a bunch of solar panels in and around the Birwood power plant. In looking at the revenue, that would have been a low revenue and tax project when compared to a data center which is now slated for that property. Our county has three sites appropriate for data centers. 800 some odd acres, 300 some odd acres uh this project and 500 some

odd acres to Algrren West. That's enough for our 179 square miles as guided by our comprehensive plan. I recommend passage of those uh three previous mentioned uh uh overures uh because I have seen these folks work hard to meet reasonable expectations and come up with facts and creative solutions. The noise issue will be a continual challenge. The cooling technology continues to advance with blow noise blade designs, various liquid cooling techniques, and some stuff still in R&D that I can't talk about because of non-disclosure. We can do this, and we can do it with a forward-looking view that keeps taxes low and the majority of the county rural and agricultural. May God bless the King George Renaissance. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Sha. Uh, next on the list we have Mr. William Taylor. I'd just like to say what Mr. Shaw said is absolutely correct. We need the revenue. I'm sorry, Mr. Taylor, if you can state your name and Taylor. Yes, sir. And your address? Uh, 10359 Ridgeway Drive. King. Thank you, sir. I just like to state Mr. Shaw's exactly correct. We need the revenue. It's low impact. Um, I think it's a great idea. That's all I have to say. Very well. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. All right. I have no others on the list. Is there anyone uh else who wish to u come up and speak at this time? Right. Seeing that there are none, public hearing uh session is now closed. Okay. Uh board, do we have any discussion on what we've just heard? At this time. All right. Seeing that there are none, we're going to move on

to our next um item which is our community planning liaison officer, Mr. of Naval Support Facility, South PTOIC Dogrim, Mr. Adam Lynch. Mr. Lynch, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so missed the last meeting. I apologize for that, but plenty of material for this month. Um so recently uh the base was a participant in George Washington regional commission's uh regional economic development uh strategy meetings which is going to be an 8th monthlong consultant project uh that is going to deliver recommendations to the George Washington regional commission for regional economic development strategies. Obviously uh the military influence in the Freredicksburg and King George area is significant. So, um, questions came up about what is the economic development and workforce outlook for the Navy, especially here related to Dogrron and, uh, I can report some of the, uh, information that we provided for the contractors and for the GWRC staff. Um, our outlook is in the short term, uh, the base was affected by the recent round of deferred resignation and early retirement opportunities. This was a voluntary separation policy that was announced by the defense department. Um we were uh uh affected by that here at Dogrren lost uh somewhere in the hundreds of employees. That's the the best information I can give you. Uh p affecting specifically the civilian workforce which represents about 60 to 65% of the uh folks that are on base at Dogrren. And so, um, you know, what does that mean here locally? Uh, certainly one thing we're we're anticipating is a continued need for the products and the services that the Navy uh provides here at Dogrin. Combine that with a reduction and we think a a

cooling in federal civilian employee hiring. What that leads me and others to believe is that there's going to be a continued and an increase in reliance on contractors uh to perform a lot of the work that the defense department does and requires as we uh continue to see uh activity in in foreign theaters. So, um, here in King George, that provides potentially an opportunity for those contractor, uh, contractors to be located and do their activity here in the in the county. uh hard to tell, you know, and read where this goes in the future, but you know, certainly the availability of proper facilities, things like office space and flex space um is a continued interest in the is in the continued interest of the Navy and our industry partners as well as uh looking at other more comprehensive factors including uh workforce availability and infrastructure. Um so both of those are are and informs our outlook on the future economic uh uh outlook for the base. And then finally um the Navy continues to consider uh participation in the repy program which is the readiness and environmental protection integration program. that is a partnership and a funding program that the Navy and the DoD administers that provides cost share money for private land conservation in mission critical areas. So, give you an example, the Navy makes available funding for uh open space conservation in areas that are affected by noise here in uh the King George and West Morland County area on the Northern Neck. very very uh happy to see that we've had some really good candidates for land conservation in those mission impacted areas to help uh incompatible development away from uh those uh noisy and uh potentially in

some cases uh safety impacted areas of the counties. So that is my report. Happy to take any questions. Thank you sir. Are there any questions for Mr. Lynch? I have two quick question two quick questions actually a question and a request. Do you know if the reductions that happened with the DRP is there going to be a permanent reduction in the allowed uh staffing at Dogrren or is this a temporary reduction that will eventually we will it will grow back up over the next few years with with rehiring. Do you have any idea on that at this time? It's a very good question. I can't anticipate really what things are going to look like in the future, but I can tell you that the DoD is currently still under a hiring freeze for any positions that are not uh authorized in writing by the uh Department of Defense uh leadership. So, that puts a a cap on that hiring in the short term. Can't tell you what it's going to look like in the long term, though. Certainly understand. I've been there associated with the base for over 45 years. So, I've been through multiple hiring freezes. I was just curious exactly how this is playing out currently. So, there is a hiring freeze until that gets lifted at whoever's discretion. Uh, my second question is actually a a request. Could you give us a general idea of the percentage of the of the people that work at Dogrren that actually live in King George County? I've always wondered that. I don't know if you all have the statistics. I don't expect you to give me something off the top of your head. Yes, actually it would be very interesting for us to know if there's x number of employees, how many of them actually live in the county? Yes, that we actually do have that information and that was some part of the um the materials that we provided for the contractor for GWRC's contractor in the neighborhood of 32% of base personnel um live in King George County as of 2021. Thank you.

All right. Are there any other questions? um the joint land use survey process. Uh would you recommend postponing that until after the GW George Washington regional commission? So meets or my answer for that is you know a JIS a joint land use study can be undertaken does not necessarily relate at all to an economic development study. Those can happen concurrently. Um, however, that's a a a process that may not be compatible with the comprehensive planning process. Having those two things happen concurrently may be a challenge and not something we would necessarily uh suggest. Great you. And I want to say the oysters are doing great. Good growth over the the winter in my waters. And so now we know. We're glad to hear it. All right. Are there any others? All right, Mr. Excellence. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. Next is uh old business uh which is um an action resolution on PC-04-25 application Z-2024-0000239 TWWR marine reasonzoning uh which was deferred from April 8th of 2025. Yes, sir. I was just going to give a brief update. Yes, ma'am. Um, this resoning application was before y'all at your meeting last month and public hearing was held and after discussion, the applicant agreed to the deferral of action in order to come back to you all with a proposed voluntary profer statement which can be found in your packet. Just as a reminder and for the public listening and watching tonight, the application was to reszone approximately 2.39 acres of land from R1 to C2 general commercial. The subject property is located at 459 James Madison

Parkway just west of the intersection with PTOIC drive. There's a revised PC resolution as well as some draft motions in your packet. And Mr. Whitaker is here tonight if you have any questions for him or and you could invite him up to speak if you wish. Okay. Um, I'm I'm going to give you the invite, but I'm um Huh. Yeah. Come on up, sir. If if you if you wish. Only if you wish. Yeah. Thank you, Taylor Whitaker. Uh, thanks for having me again tonight. Um, as Kelly mentioned, I I don't really have much more to offer. Um, but thank you again for having me tonight. Uh, I appreciate y'all's time and, uh, your your consideration and helping me drive this forward in the way that kind of makes everybody happy and benefits the community. Um, uh, that being said, uh, I'm here to entertain any questions you have. Um, that's all, right? But thank you. Anyone have any questions for him? Mr. No. Um, I have a general question. With this rain, how how when will this fishing get better? My my son's out right now. I'll give you a report as soon as you Sounds good. Yeah. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. Okay. Okay. Next is a is the public hearing. No, no, no. Sorry. To take action if you would take action on this. Um, can I get a motion? Well, first let me open the floor for Mr. Chairman, I I was reading, so I'm not sure if Kelly said this, but the profer statement that they

submitted, all of those things that you see on that are uses that they have profered away, which some of the uses were concerning to folks. So, they have voluntarily said, "We can't do this here. I I'm ready to make a motion to approve if there's no other discussion. Could I make a comment? Yes, sir. I I'm still just philosophically opposed to reszoning land so far in advance of any actual activity going on it. Uh I don't think that's a smart move on our part. things change over time. And so, all due respect to the applicant, I have no problem with his proposed use, at least for the boat sales and servicing portion of it. But I just think waiting a year or two years until he can acquire the necessary funding to proceed with this is not a good move on our part. Um, and I realize that he's profered some things that that go along with the approval, but I still just don't believe philosophically it's a good thing to do. Secondly, I'd be a lot more I'd be a lot more inclined to agree with the profer and this resoning if it didn't have that four unit rental property on it because that makes it not just a boat sales which everybody seems to be concentrating on but a commercial property that is open to anybody who wants to come in and occupy it and perform. perform whatever business they have. I appreciate that he's hit the high list of things that we typically talk about not wanting in our in some of

our areas, but to me it just seems too open. So, I'm still not in favor of reasonzoning at this time. All right. Thank you, Mr. Kendra, for your uh comments. Does anyone else request the floor? M flattering. So, I I appreciate your concern and I know sometimes we've gotten caught um opening the door and not knowing what's going to come through. However, uh especially with a a small business owner, um there's barriers to entry and you know, one of those is um he he may not be able to make this happen any other way. And and of all the the businesses that I think we want to support, it's locals and veterans. And um and I think that we have to rely on our ordinances and um trust that you know they're going to serve us well. All right. Anyone else for the question? The floor. Yeah, I'll just I had I had a quick comment just um Sean and then then we'll go with you, sir. The the comment is it's it's surrounded by commercial property. Um, nobody's going to build a house there and it's um, pretty much across the street from Walmart. So, um, I think um, reszoning this property is the highest and best use for this. No, nobody's going to build a house on it. Um, it had a trailer on it that's been abandoned. Next door is an abandoned house. Um, and immediately next door is commercial property. Thanks, sir. You had a phone, sir. I I respect uh, Mr. Kendrick's point of view and his caution, but I agree with Stan and M. Sean and Miss and Miss Flatly that um it's quite common for someone to pull permits, get a reasoning, and then go look for financing. This is not unusual. is actually more typical than than not that if we

condition, you know, we that we require available financing be disclosed prior to a a decision like this that that's standard that we we need to apply broadly and I agree with sadly especially on the barriers to entry to small businesses and frankly creation of additional space for for small businesses um in a commercially zoned area. I don't see as a downside. Um I am prepared to support this application. All right. We've heard uh both pros. Um Mr. Fox, you have the floor. Maybe just a quick question. Uh in in deference to some of your I guess your fairness argument a little bit, Mr. Kendrick. uh if the property were reszoned today, when would there be an a tax assessment done on the property to know uh what the new taxes would be on it? Would that would that also be, you know, a year or two out in the future or would that be relatively soon? Because if that were relatively soon, then maybe that that negates some of that fairness argument that I think you're rightly making to some degree. Uh do we do we know when when that would occur? When would the if the property were reszoned now, when would the next assessment be done on the on the tax value and so on? I can speak a little bit to the process. So once the decision would come to the board of supervisors, they would have to pass an ordinance to reszone the property which would have to go through the process of getting recorded and then updated by GIS and commissioner revenue. Um, I don't know if it would it would immediately change the land use classification. Um, Mr. Stewart might know, but it's not it's not just has to wait for the for the

5-year regularized process or could it be done on a bespoke basis? Commissioner would sign a new value to it based upon the comps as I understand it in the county and it would then be reassessed at the next reassessment whenever that is. It's not always 5 years. You actually can reassess now every two or three years. I think I know there was a bill that passed regarding that. Kurt, just for my information, if you guys know, is there a different taxes based on the zoning for the land because the businesses won't be there for a while. So, it it doesn't matter. Once it's commercial, it's taxed differently. Well, it's taxed differently. So, and then sometimes even depending upon how it's classified, there are roll back taxes that have to be paid if there's land use on it or something like that. Oh, I mean it seemed to me logically that if it changed its zoning, the next tax bill should reflect the current zoning and it would be taxed at that level. There's no assessment needed. It's strictly, you know, the land. As I understand it, the commissioner will sign assign a new value based upon comparables to reflect its commercial zoning, but he was asking about reassessments. The county reassesses every 3 to 5 years, and it won't be reassessed until they actually have a reassessment and hire an outside organization. I I interpreted Mr. Fox's comments about when would the tax revenue change and and it would change at the next tax year is my guess. But is that incorrect or it it once it gets the new classification it will be taxed as such.

All right. Uh we've heard both pros and cons uh for our support of and uh against uh are we ready to take a motion or can I get a motion? I move to adopt resolution number PC04-25 to forward application Z-2024-0000239 to the King George County Board of Supervisors with a favorable recommendation. A second motion made. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Palota, did that recommendation include the voluntary profers submitted by the applicant? It I would amend the motion to include the the voluntary profers. Absolutely. Right. The motion has been made and seconded. Um, Miss Leuk, if you can. Yes. I'll do the role. Mr. Dorta, Mr. Fox, I. Mr. Palotto. Hi, Mr. Kendrick. Mr. Mat, I Miss Flattley. I Mr. Nicely. I and Mr. Williams. I. Motion carries. Motion carries with a recommendation of approval. All right. Thank you. Okay. Next is new business uh which is I'm sorry public hearing on resol on resolution PC-08-25 ordinance uh amendment 0 I'm sorry 0 A-01-25 so uh during your comments we ask that you limit your uh comments to three minutes per person so that everyone one is

afforded an opportunity to speak. Uh, and again, this is on ordinance amendments 0 A-01-25. Sir, you have the floor. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening and board um, planning commission members. I'm going to try and try my best to be very short before you tonight. The board of supervisors on an April 1st meeting initiated a tax amendment. They wanted to the the King George they wanted to change the King County code and industrial district regulations. I believe this was to enhance the economic development and industrial district for building height. It was directed to staff to prepare a tax amendment for the consideration of the planning commission and the board of supervisors. The planning commission shall hold held at least one public meeting and forward a recommendation to the board of supervisors. In doing this, they could put up the put up put up section 47 industrial district regulations. I think you also have this on your packet, too. This is where you have all the the regulations for everything that's in the eye district. What's going on is that if you look at the bottom, there's a footnote at the bottom that says buildings may be erected to a height of 50 feet provided they are required front side and rear setbacks and minimum standard shall be increased one foot for each foot and heights over 35. So what we did was we added a we want to add another footnote saying buildings may be erected to a height greater than

50 ft upon the iterance of a special exemption for the board of supervisors. This way in industrial districts it doesn't matter who comes in but you will have the opportunity to see if that's warranted or not. And it gives everybody an opportunity. Right now the ordinance has nothing in it. So if somebody was looking to locate here and they didn't have the building height, they might pass us by because they could not do it. This gives you the opportunity to have something in your tool belt to be able to say yes, we can do this and this is the way you go about doing this. And I think this also would help the economic development in this county. And this is only in industrial. No other districts, just industrial. Do you have any other questions for me or can I clarify something? Sure. You have the floor, sir. Yeah, I I have one quick question. Uh, in the original footnote, it it talks about that the setback should be increased one foot for each foot over the 35. Yes, sir. Is that going to carry with this additional extension? Nothing's changed. Yes, sir. Okay. But the one only addresses you can go to 50. I didn't know if we needed to put the additional language in this. Someone goes to 200 ft and they get the board to to agree to it. Continue to with the special exception, you can always have conditions. And so um that's sort of pro-forma that that footnote number one. When you go to the process of a special exception, you can establish conditions that that could be beyond that one foot for every foot of height or increase screening or there are number of things you can do. you get

the ability to would it would it be required to to meet this ordinance that they increase it by one foot with the two separate only if you all impose those conditions. So So they could do it without anything which is unlikely but but this gives the planning commission or the county staff the zoning administrator the ability to say well if you want to go to 80 ft we think you should do this. we think the setback should be this much. We think your screening material should now have to be mature cypress trees or whatever it is. It allows you the flexibility to actually set those conditions um to accommodate their request and to to mitigate what they're doing. Sorry, sir. Is that something that we would have to add then in the special exception or would it be required because it's in the ordinance that they at least as a minimum have to do the 1 ft additional for every foot over 35? The the language that's in there under footnote 2 is sufficient because you always have the ability to add conditions when you're hearing a special exception. Got it. If you added language to it, you actually would be limiting yourself, limiting your ability at least a foot. But you're saying at this point it's it is does not necessarily apply, but it is something that could come in as part of the special exception process. Correct. Correct. Thank you. Right. Yes, sir. You had a floor. I think I think there's um something to the 50 ft u with the fire department being able to put out a fire or maintain our property at that height. Do we have new capability that allows us to go higher than 50 ft with the fire department or does anybody know what their capabilities are? But my understand I I know that there have been

discussions between um certain um applicants and the the chief where based upon certain profers um the chief would be able to get to about 80. Is that right? 80 85 ft. Not with the current truck he has but but with profers that are being offered they are going to have to have new equipment. I don't even know if they can get to 50 feet right now. But um I know he said they cannot get to 65. All right. Matt Matt has information. You want to use my mic? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, if I understood the question was with fire suppression and building height. So, this has been discussed. We've had some discussions and um not speaking for Chief Moody, but it was my understanding in her conversations. You know, a 55- ft building or an 85 ft building are really one and the same. Um there there comes a point in time where if you have a ladder truck a lot has to depend on how far that truck is away from the building itself. Um you know and again this comes to a certain point where you look at this look at the city of Richmond city of Richmond doesn't have fire suppression equipment that can serve all those buildings yet they continually approve them. Why is that? you know, this, you know, there's there's that is not a a deciding factor on on building height of whether or not you can get a ladder truck up there. If that's the case, you know, we wouldn't see what we'd see across America. That makes sense. So, you know, think of it that way. But, you know, my general understanding is 5585. It's it's really one and the same. Um, from a fire suppression standpoint with a ladder truck, I'm pretty sure that when you exceed the ability to rescue somebody, then you require specific and very specialized fire suppression systems for the building. That's right. There there are different there are foam systems. It depends on what's inside, what sort of combustibles are inside. You know, take for instance, you know, a distribution

center. Sometimes you're going to have your your flammables in a certain area and there are special sorts of foam suppression systems. um you know and and and think about some of these structures. You may have a data center or a warehouse that comes in at 90 foot. You're not going to have people on the roof typically all the time. Typically in in a distribution center, everybody's on the floor with racks. So So your occupancy is on level one. So, you know, getting up on the roof, that's that's, you know, generally not the the first plan of attack for a fire department because there should not be any people up on the roof of a a 90 square foot 90 foot uh warehouse. Yeah. I don't I don't think the issue is getting on the fire. The issue is allowing to the rescue of individuals inside the building. These buildings are going to be very tall. Let's talk about data centers for a second. these those kind of buildings, which is the only thing we're talking about in the current agenda. Well, the these are for all industrial uses and they're going to have people on those floors. I I don't have an objection to this. I just don't want my fellow commissioners to be misled. It's about rescuing people. Currently, they only have a truck that can get to basically the window height of a two-story building. That's the reason we don't have threetory, you know, residential buildings. Now, if somebody were to profer a truck, that's great. We go to this and I don't have any problems with that philosophically. The only concern I have, and maybe it's not worth it, but you know, once somebody does profer to purchase a ladder truck or provide funds for the purchase of a ladder truck, still going to take a year and a half to two years

before the three three time before they can actually have possession of that. So, um, the only concern here is that, you know, we recognize that. Yes, sir. And Mr. Chairman, just to Mr. Kendrick. Um, that's that's largely why we came up with a special exception process because you all if you decided to approve a request to go to 80 or 90 or whatever it is, there could be a condition that says you must adequately um prepare to rescue people from the top of a 100 foot beating. You know, submit a plan, submit something that could be a condition to the approval. I appreciate that you said that so that it goes into the record so when it goes to the board of supervisors they have a better full understanding of what they're trying to do and what they approve and when it comes time to do one of these exceptions that we understand that it's not about fighting the fire it's about getting people out of it. Does anyone have any other any questions other than um the letters the equipment used to rescue? Is there any others? I have one I have one simple question here possibly and maybe it's just because I've had to argue with uh people in contracts laws and requirements many times. Do we have a clear definition of building height? What does that mean? Is that to the top of the roof? Is it to the top of the floor? Is it you know we we've seen in with the upcoming uh item on the agenda their building height did not include parapets and equipment on top of the building. So what is building height? That is the definition. It's to the roof line not the parapit.

So, so um I'm looking here article 11 def uh section 11 11-4 building height the vertical distance from the average grade to the highest point of the roof structure of the roof structure. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Right, Mr. Kenneth. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So, all right. So, so at this time we're going to uh I don't have a list, however. Oh, wait. Maybe I do. Just a second. All right. Thank you so much. Okay, no one's okay. So, uh the list that have been presented has no names. However, um the floor is now open. uh for public comment. Again, anyone who comes up to speak, limit your uh your speech to three li three minutes so that everyone has an opportunity. Do we have anyone who wishes to speak at this time? Sir, you've been recognized. I'm standing up. Thank you. Uh if it's possible, could we uh put up slide six on our presentation because I think I've I've given everybody handouts, but this is this is public this is for public comments at this point. That's correct. Yes. But I but slide six, you have a hard copy, but for the people in the audience, I thought it might be good to reference if that's a possibility. This is this is for the text amendment. For the text amendment. Okay. It's only relevant because it's about the height. Great. Thank you very much. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Madame Vice Chairman, members of the planning commission. My name is Hobie Mitchell

and a managing partner at Green Energy Ventures. We are pleased that the text amendment providing the opportunity for additional data center height in the industrial zone is now being considered by this planning commission and the board of supervisors. The current ordinance allows for a building height of 35 ft or up to 50 feet from the allowed 35 ft standard if additional setback is required or provided. The data center industry is very extremely competitive and many jurisdictions are incentivizing data center users as they provide significant revenue versus minimal demand for public services. The current height restrictions are simply not competitive and will not attract the proper data center development in King George County. If the counties don't attract data center development, it must allow increase of building height when an applicant presents a compelling attractive application package. By allowing the board of supervisors at discretion on a case-byase basis to increase building height for data centers in the industrial zone, you are providing the opportunity for smart strategic growth. And I won't get into this paragraph, but this illustration today shows you what your ordinance allows today. So this cross-section, this is an example that you'll see in our application. This is a cross-section of what it will look like from the rideway. 50ft buffer, 50-ft uh setback for a 35- ft tall building. I added the parapits just for a sense of people understanding what a paraprit might need in addition to the roof line. So from a site distance 100t away in the other side of route three, this is what you would see in a building. And this is with required buffer landscaping that the ordinance has. This is if you go up to 50 feet with that additional one to one setback. So this is the site distance with the parapit. So you can clearly see with the

buffer requirements, this is what you'll see on the building. So by allowing this on a case-byase basis like we have proposed with increased burm heights which we increased from our comments and a and a highly profered landscaping package with in this case a 65- ft building. This is the site distance that you might see, but you get greater level of development and a and a marketable data center development because this is the height you need. So here's an example. We'll go through it later in our presentation, but this and then you'll see in the second page the buffer requirements that we're proposing. This is what the special exception process that you were just discussing lets happen. So thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Are there any others who wish to speak in this public hearings uh session now? All right. Seeing that there are none, uh the public se uh public hearing session is now closed. Um do we have any do we have any further discussion from the planning commission? Sean, you had the floor. I was just going to mention that this allows us by special exception to do something. It doesn't require it. So I think I think it's healthy that we have an option. It's not not an permitted use. It's a special. So they got to come to us to get it. Mr. the quarter. Well, the the start date for this particular project, and I know this doesn't apply specifically to this project, is 2027 is when the revenues to begin, and if it takes three years to get a truck, and this is 2025, the the math doesn't work. Um, I'm reluctant to

support an initiative that we haven't heard from Chief Moody. And um secondarily, this seems incompatible to me to the maintaining the rural character of the county. It's large structures. We're not Richmond. We don't want to be Richmond. The whole point is to not be Richmond and to keep our structures within the existing limits, I believe, are consistent with the comp plan and the county community's goals. All right. Anyone else requesting the floor at this time? It's nice that you have the floor. Um, so one of my questions is, uh, anybody who comes with a project, it's my understanding they can ask for an exemption and with or without us adding that. Is this is that correct? For variance. No. And and I I do want to correct one thing, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Decoy was talking about this. This is not tied to their project. Mr. Mitchell chose to speak in favor of it. This is an initiative of the board. Um, and it may benefit them if it passes, but th this is an economic development tool for the county in case there are things that come through that county believes are attractive and it needs to get beyond 50 ft. But they did it on a case-by case basis so you all could impose conditions that you think mitigate the damage to the rural character or the scenic view or something like that. No. So I'm a little confused because I thought with the Birchwood power plant that the stack was an exception to our maximum height, but that anybody could come and ask for something like that. You're saying I'm

and I apologize. I am not as familiar with the old ordinance and and I don't know what the old ordinance said that was approved under the old ordinance and then a month or two later the board that board adopted a brand new ordinance and so what the new ordinance says is 50 ft. So my second question is is how is this compatible or is this compatible with our zoning ordinances specifically for data centers? It's not specifically for data center. No, I'm asking you if it's compatible or incompatible with our zoning for for uh data centers that says that the maximum height shall be determined by the zoning district due to firefighting equipment limitations. The maximum height allowance shall not be increased. Now, does that mean we don't have um a zoning district maximum height anymore? It means you do. And so in industrial it's 50 ft is what the current zoning ordinance says. But our zoning ordinance also says in section 7-6-5 data centers that the maximum height shall not be increased. So I'm wondering how this is compatible. This is this is for any industry that comes into King George County. It is not just for data centers. So my question is does this still stand? No, you can that. So we do we amend this as well? If the board if the board approves this and they have initiated this and asked you all to review it and then it goes to them. If they approve it, it would allow any indust any use um in these categories which I think is just industrial right Kenny um to ask for a special exception to exceed the 50ft height. I'm not sure I know any other way to explain that. Okay. I'm just

wondering because one was the chart and the other is uh section 7-6-5 black letter that specifically deals with just data centers that we have a limit that says we cannot increase the maximum height for data centers in industrial zones. That's the only place they're allowed. So I'm just wondering does this also need to be amended? Denise, can you please repeat the paragraph number for me? I'm sorry. Yeah, it's section 7-6-5 data centers in our zoning ordinance. I I I think that this is sufficient, but if you feel better about amending that, then we can look at that as well. My question then would be, do we have to have a public hearing to amend this? You have Well, we're not there tonight. Um, what we're on now is this text amendment. So if you believe we need to look at that, then we can look at that and bring that along as well. Yeah. I just want to know that if we if we pass this, you're saying we're also scratching a line through this. Is that is that what I'm understanding? No, that would be a separate that would probably that would have to be a separate modification, a separate action. Correct. It's so so so then it so then it still stands. though it still stands. Does it supersede the the data center ordinance or or not? Basically, there's no No, they have to stand stand alone. Yeah, Denise seems to have found a contradiction. We could pass this if I understand it. We could we could recommend approval of this. The board of supervisors could do that for everything but data centers unless that is amended language. I I don't know if we want to That was my question. Um, are these compatible? That was kind of what I was saying.

As far as I'm concerned with the ordinance that they're asking us, it just opens the door with communication that says, "Hey, we're open to special exceptions." I'm not opposed to opening that door. I'm not opposed to the ordinance. I just want to know if it will apply to data centers as well. Mr. Chairman, I I I believe that this would trump that section, but because that is not this is not specific to data centers. This is any building in the industrial zone. Um I'll look at that further and if I think that we need to bring something else then I'll suggest that. But I I think this would override that performance standard section. So I I feel that um my commission my fellow commissioners are are have asked a legitimate made out of legitimate point. Um um your guidance is valued. Um, so I want to give I want to grant you the opportunity um to be 100 to be as close to 100% as you possibly can be on on guiding us on this. So uh if if you agree on our next meeting perhaps come with the information that we need uh in order to make the the best uh informed decision. Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to look at this further, but again, the the board did not initiate this specific to data centers only. The board initiated this as an economic development tool for King George County if they have an opportunity. Now, data centers may take advantage of it. And if and if we need to have another provision specific to data centers, then we can do that. But but what the board has now asked is that you all just entertain this text

amendment allowing for a special exception. There could be a number of other things that um would not a data center that would want to exceed the height um restriction in the in the ordinance. So that's the only thing I would say. happy to look at it and make a determination, but I wouldn't I wouldn't hold this up for something that is not the basis for which that text amendment is before you tonight. Again, they may take advantage of it. It may benefit them, but they would only be one thing that may apply for a special exception. There could be a number of other buildings that apply for it that would not have that performance standard section. So if if we um I understand what you're saying and you're you're you can even take just take data center out, right? Just take that out. However, um um Miss F has has made a valid point in the contradictory uh of what she's what she's if I could just comment. Sure. We we over time have done, you know, amendments to our ordinances to clear to clear up these kinds of inconsistencies. If I don't have a problem with this as long as it's limited to the industrial area and that the board of supervisors understand what they're doing when they grant the special exception, which unless I'm misreading it, they're the ones who are going to grant the special exception, not us. Okay? As long as they understand that it's, you know, it's about people and property, you know, the differences there. So, I mean, if the board approves this, then we know that our next action is to go in and make an amendment to the

zoning to the ordinance. And and I would and I would suggest that while we do it, we also clarify what building height is because, you know, I consider the parapit wall part of it, not an exception. Now, if they don't want to count the rooftop equipment, I could live with that. But, okay. You know, if you got to go try to get somebody off a roof, you got to get over the parapit wall. All right. I'm going to take I'm going to take uh three more comments and we're going to move on. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, as I understand it, the current language in this performance standards, any project, any data center proposal project does not meet that standard at this time until that is changed. Any project of any kind, no, no, no. I'm talking to Kelly does not meet that standard whether it's this data center or another data center any any data center with buildings over 50 ft do not meet this standard and I don't know if we can consider applications that are out of standard [Music] second I think that uh reszoning A1 to industrial And then raising building heights for even a more obstructive visible structure is the wrong direction. It's inconsistent with maintaining the rural character. Existing industrial land perhaps uh former industrial land like like the quaries like the gravel quaries across the street. Um but to take prime A1 reszone an industrial and then

increase the building height I think flies in the face of community resistance. I mean we're do we really want to go there? And secondarily, um, we can't guarantee if we can't rescue somebody from, um, a workplace or a repair place. Um, you know, I would want to have the the the police chief tell us what I'm sorry, the fire chief, Chief Moody, tell us what are the ramifications of that. So at this time I I until this is addressed I don't Right. Thank you Mr. Dakota. Is it Yes, sir. Mr. M. So fundamentally in to Mr. Dorter's point today's industrial district I'm not fundamentally opposed to this. What I'm fundamentally opposed to is the Pandora's box it opens with reszoning other land to industrial and then this would be that would be grandfathered in effectively. And does this open a Pandora's box from industrial to commercial where all of a sudden you have giant hotels. I mean 50 ft is tall. Going even to 50 ft but certainly above it is fundamentally not in keeping with the the rural aspirations of this county. Plain and simple. So, I I don't know that this is again a Pandora's box that we ultimately want to open because once we're all gone, if people are up here who think differently, they can do a lot more damage with it than what we're talking about potentially today. All right. Unfortunately, sir, I think that's the way. Okay. So, so what we're um I don't no actions or Yes, sir. Go ahead. Mr. Chairman, let me quickly as zoning administrator, let me my determination. If you look at the

sentence that we talked about the maximum height, you said that maximum height shall be determined by the zoning district. So if you change industrial, then you this would change too. Very well. They are related, but it says clearly the maximum height should be determined by the zoning by the zoning district. So then my question was, is there a maximum height? It's still 50 ft right now. It's still into unless they decide to change it. Yes, ma'am. It's special exception. Yes, ma'am. All right. You would have to get a special exception. Is there any action required on this tonight? There is. Yes, sir. But they can take action. All right. Take action. Um you've heard you've heard uh testimony in support and uh against um go ahead Sean. Sure. Yes sir. The the comment the comment that I have is that it's a special exception. So that means they can't do it but it's something that they could ask for. So, I can't think of the use where I would say, "Yeah, I want to go up to 100 ft for whatever, but I imagine that someday there might be a good reason to do it." Right now, we can't do that. So, the um the data center that you're looking at, it says the maximum height allowance shall not be increased, but it's what what we change it to in that article. So, we we say it can be. So essentially we we still have a bit of control is essentially it only just gives us an option. It doesn't give anybody permission to do anything just you know maybe maybe there's a hospital that needs to be 60. Right. Right. You know but we couldn't approve that the way it is but this would give us an option to approve it if if it made sense. Right. So it doesn't mean we're giving anybody that. It just means that we could if we wanted to.

Well, I'm all for economic development and I don't want to shut the door to opportunities, but we do know that uh the justification for project three, 2, three, four, and five are you did it once. Um, so I think the special exceptions would still have to go through us before they went to the board. So, we would be able to uh to give our a recommendation, right? I'm not opposed to it. I just like I said I'm I'm a little I was a little confused and gonna think on it some more about whether or not I understand uh how that would affect the you know one of the things that I understand is that if we pass this it still if we recommend it it still has to go to the board of supervisors. I think we're supposed to take action on new business for the the profers which are asking our next agenda item are asking for profers for higher building requirements and so I feel like can we even do that before it's passed by the board of supervisors and so it's it's a little bit conf confusing to me. All right so um it is again it is an action Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I I think you're going to get a request from the next project to pause their project until this text amendment works its way through just in clarification point. All right. Um so with that being said, we still need to take an action on this. All right. Do I have Mr. Chairman, I assume we're still in the discussion portion of this. Um, yeah, I my original comments were designed to draw out the comment that, you know, building height and stuff has to do with life safety. It's not about fighting the

fire. All right. And that that seems to have gone into the record now. So, I'm happy with that. I don't have a problem with this ordinance because it allows us to in industrial zoned areas only to review and approve on a case-byase basis depending on what the other profers are and all kinds of things that we could bring up which goes back to my desire not to reszone property. not may not apply to the one we talked about earlier, but but it's it's part of my philosophy of that you shouldn't reszone property until you have a request to do so so that you can get profiters and get it the way you want it for that parcel and that particular project. So I don't think any of us have problems philosophically with data centers or big warehouse complexes or you know other at least for me light industrial type things going on in the county. It's good for the tax base. It brings a lot of stuff but I I don't want to I don't think we should get hung up on which comes first, the chicken or the egg. You know, if we send this to the board and say we recommend doing what they've suggested, then if they pass it, then we know that our next action is to go into our zoning ordinance and clean up whatever we need to clean up. you know, be it the statement that it's a max 50 feet or a definition of what roof height how roof height is measured or if it's the things we want done as part of the exception process. So, very well said. I guess I'm suggesting that this is worth going ahead and sending to the board. I agree with um I I hear what you're

saying. Um, and with that being said, if I can uh whether you in support or against, uh, if I can get a motion from you. With that being said, um, and I make a motion. We defer further action on this until we hear from the fire chief. Motion has been made. Has not been seconded. Therefore, it your motion is failed. Do I have any other motions? Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward the uh forward action PC-08-25 ordinance amendment uh to the board of supervisors with our recommendation for approval. Second. All right. Motion has been made and seconded. Roll call. Moo. Okay. Yes, sir. Mr. Dordo. No. Mr. Fox. I. Mr. Palavota. Hi. Hi. Mr. Kendrick. Hi. Mr. Mat. Hi. Miss Flattley. Hi. Mr. Nicely. I. And Mr. Williams. I. Motion carries 62. All right. Thank you so much. All right. Okay. Next is new business action on resolution PC-05-25 application Z-2022-000021 green energy ventures reszoning. Uh this application was

deferred from April 8th of 2025. All right. Applicant if you may. Let's how about let's let's clarify what we're doing. Okay. Yes. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Hobie Mitchell. I'm the managing partner Greny Ventures. Uh just to clarify, we're going to do a presentation tonight to answer the questions that we heard at the public hearing, but we will defer uh action until this other matter catches up with it. So, they have the ability to get feedback from the board and so you have a good a direction that you're able to utilize. But we've agreed to the process, but we've had uh we'd like to answer some of the questions to give you some further information and you may have some other questions as well, but it'll be short and sweet if that's all. I appreciate your your time. Um, next slide. We had multiple questions. The first question we heard at the public hearing was the sufficiency of the fire and rescue contribution of 2.1 when the cost of a ladder truck that Chief Moody has said is 2.7 and the ability to access these taller buildings. We've now modified the profers so that it's 2.7 million at the first building permit so you can order the fire truck right away. So zoning and then uh when we get to the building permit stage, when we file the building permit, it's paid. So that gives Chief Moody the ability to get expedited uh purchasing. He could explain more of his process uh sooner, but uh but we've agreed to that. Second comment or second page expressed concern that the GEV wells that we're using for potable water

initially may affect neighboring property owners wells. So we've modified the profers which run with the land. that says failure of an adjacent property well after installation of well wells referenced above in the event of failure of an established well and adjacent property can be demonstrated they have been caused by installation or operation of our applicant's well the applicant agrees to repair replace the well as a sole expense and expense of connecting property to public water supply by the service authority so we're taking on full responsibility for that uh next slide One was uh expressed a concern of visual impact of Kings Highway and Route Three in Bloomsbury Road. Uh there was a concern about the height of the BMS and type of landscaping. So we looked at it a lot and we've now increased those BMS from 12T to 16T. We're still maintaining the landscaping that was uh profered to do that. If you go to the next slide. So as an example, this is your typical type C county requirement for the buffers that you might assign on the cross-sections. We then increased it to a type C buffer enhanced with the additional material, but we went beyond that and we were going to buy and install bigger caliber material right up front. So at a 5-year growth, this is about what you would see in all cases. And so we've actually working with some people right now because it takes time to get this stuff. It's a lot of material and uh so we're already working with some nursery growers with looking at local species to help identify that because it takes time to get all this. You can see on the next slide this was the example I was using as a typical that you have the ability

in a special exception process. And this is how we we show that the difference in 12 foot and 16 foot does increase it but you can see what uh what it does for a 65 ft building in the front and then a 90 in the back which you never see and you'll see that in that process. The next comment, there was questions of storm water management, quality, and protection. And so I have here Andy Gerki with our engineer to explain the next thing and how we're mitigating that. Thank you. Good evening. Uh uh Mr. Chairman, vice chair, members of the commission. If you go ahead and go to the next slide, and I just have some bullet points. Um so if you've been at the site, you've seen aerial pictures of it um through parts of our presentations before. Right now it's farm. Most of the area is farm. There's small areas along the stream that uh kind of bifurcate the back side of the property and the far north side of the property. Um that also has a required 100 foot buffer. So the first thing that we would have to do is reforest that portion of the hunter feet that's already been disturbed through um the regulated uh um what's the word I'm looking for as far as agricultural um by right use that it already is. So we'd be held to the standard that you have today. So first is reestablishing that 100 foot um repairarium buffer which creates protection from the stream to to our site. Then as far as uh DUQ regulations, there's really two things you look at, quality and quantity. So right now you have the existing farmland, they have minimal protection. There are some requirements as far as where they can spray. Um but with the proposed development, we'd have to meet all DCR requirements to treat the development. So from a water quality standpoint

whether that is from holding water like a sistern which is called rainwater harvesting if you go through their spreadsheet um DQ actually went through created spreadsheets so you can actually go through you say okay I'm going to hold this amount of water with this type of facility and you have to go through and all the iterations until you meet their requirements. Um so we're held to that standard. Um I could certainly go through all those different options. Each one's a little bit different. Each one has a different purpose. Each one has different credits and values, but at the end of the day, you need to hold or meet the requirement for phosphorus um from the requirements per the state as well as King George County, which also goes through and reviews erosion control and storm water management um plans from a quantity standpoint. Um and actually one thing as far as quality, that quality goes for the first inch of rain. So that first flush, that's typically where you'll have any containments from any type of rainfall. Um that's the area that gets controlled first, held and released slowly as the um whatever device you have, whether it's filting, hydrodnamic separator, bio retention, um they'll filter through the uh the sediment and the um the trash and whatever else is in there from contaminants. Quantity standpoint, it's all about holding your water um over a period of time. And we're actually required to hold the water um at the site which is called pre-development conditions. And on top of that, the requirement is for your one-year storm, which is more than your 1 in. It's give you an idea. It's roughly 2 and 1 half to three inches of of rainfall is your one-year storm. Um, just to give a little bit of perspective, the requirement is to hold that water back so that it is a 20% reduction of that flow. So, if you think of it holding a water jug and it's got 10 holes, that's what's going out today. We're required to plug two of those

holes to hold that water longer. So, downstream, first flush, less water. It's released over time. And then as you get to bigger storm events, there's still requirements to meet what the site is today until you get to a 100redyear event and then you used to have to stay within the floodway. Um, with that, if you had any specific questions for me, I could certainly answer those. Um, but we can go ahead and move through the presentation. Yeah, let's we we'll hold them to the end. Okay. Thank you, Andy. Uh, next slide. question was about noise attenuation and so not only do we have to conform to the code, we actually consulted an additional noise engineer does these kind of facilities all over the world and so we added some additional language about the testing procedures so that it can be done uh based on the county. We will at the site plan stage work on some details about how the county like to see the process but we added additional profers about how the measurements would occur to meet the county ordinance standards. Next slide. Question was about lighting. Um King George has a dark skies ordinance and so we have to comply with that ordinance. So all of our fixtures and photometrics will have to comply to that ordinance and that'll all be done at the site plan stage if there's some other considerations have to be done but we have to comply the ordinance which is a dark skies ordinance. Next uh slide. This came up several times about Dominion Energy that this development is going to increase everybody's utility bills. And so we did a fair amount of research on that. And whether you live in King George County or Stafford County

or Northern Virginia, Richmond, everybody pays for this infrastructure. It's in your bill. whether it's a data center is in your county or not in your county, you pay it. It's in your bill. Now, there's some discussions going on uh at the SEC about modifying that so that there was a bigger obligation on data centers, but I don't know where that's going to go. It's a very complicated process. I'm sure Senator Stewart is well aware of it. But, uh right now, whether you have a data center in the county or you don't, you're still paying for it and it's in your rates. And if you look at the little details, you go to the website, it explains a lot of stuff, but that is a correct uh that's a correct assumption. We pay for all of our materials, substations, and upgrades to our property, but the grid, power sources is all uniformly paid by everybody. Next slide. That's kind of explained this one already. Just I just explained. Let's go to the next slide. So, one of the questions came up about uh economic development and how it's explained and the process. I think Commissioner Kendrick's brought it up multiple times. So, we have uh when we did our economic evaluation, we first went to Davenport, which does a lot of the economic uh evaluations and and consulting for the county. And they recommended we go to Munichap, which does a lot of these evaluations all over the United States. So we contacted Munichap years ago and they did the economic evaluation which is what you've seen before you. So I've asked uh Emily Mezer from Municap to explain how we came up with our numbers and the process about how that's derived. So I'm going to ask Emily to come up to the podium so she can explain it and then if you have any questions you can ask it.

Thank you. Good evening. A little shorter, sorry. Um, yeah. So, my name is Emily Metsler. I'm with Municap and, um, we frequently work actually with Davenport. And I'll just give you a little bit of background on Municap. We are a municipal adviser. We commonly prepare economic fiscal impact analyses and um, other analyses for municipalities such as yourself and also for developers either for bond issuances or profers, reasonzoning, and the like. Um and in this case we were asked to prepare an economic impact analysis and the estimate of jobs both permanent and temporary for this proposed redevelopment. And so my understanding is that you've been provided with this um economic impact analysis that we prepared an economic or executive summary that was attached to that and had some questions. And so I'm going to walk you through the work that we've prepared in doing that and the assumptions and research and all of that methodology. I'll do it quickly. Um, but I do want to make sure that I give you enough details on the uh research and and the thoroughess that we do in preparing that because um we do believe that it's important when resonings or bond analyses or any type of this type of work goes into um a package like this, it's important that it has a lot of details and those assumptions are thoroughly reviewed um so that the um information is understood and that information is out in the public for them to understand as part of package. Um so first when we go through this next slide please we are it's very important for us to understand the development assumptions as it's the baseline assumptions that go into the analysis and so the executive summary and the economic impact analysis before you that we provided we received the development information from our team and that included the 7.2 2 million square feet of data center development as well as the water treatment plant and then the start and completion dates of the development. And I did hear um the

commissioners mentioning that time frame. Those become the underlying assumptions that are very important to us for us to include in our analysis because they're going to drive those economic impacts, the construction period jobs, the timing of those jobs, wages and output that flow through our entire analysis. Next slide. So then we go through all this methodology and once we have that development density and timing which will also impact inflationary assumptions it's going to impact our fiscal uh year impacts when those revenues and uh are going to come into the fiscal coffers also when the job creation will start flowing into the municipality. We then need to start looking at the budget and we will go through every single line item of the general fund budget and we say okay if this is the development that's going to be created will it impact this line item this line item this line item and we will call in to the county and we will ask questions of the staff. We'll try to understand what that line item is. We review the budget descriptions and we do a very thorough review of that. When we do a review of the line items in the budget, we're looking at two different approaches of methodology. One is what we refer to as a case study approach and a second is a service factor approach. So if you reviewed the thorough economic impact analysis that we provided, it's the packet that's like this many pages. Um there's uh you can see that the analysis projects out the economic impact over 30 years. And there's two different approaches that we take in estimating those revenues over time. One is where we actually project the tax revenues using the actual tax methodology of the county. So for example, real estate taxes are calculated using assessed value times the tax rate and an inflation factor over time. And we're looking at a revaluation period. Earlier um it was mentioned that the county revals

property every 3 to 5 years. it's revalued on January 1 approximately every four years by the commissioner and that's accurate and so we try to emulate that process and use the same and then we're looking at an actual assessed value and we're projecting that we're either going to look at comparables we're going to look at net operating income the cost approach which these are all things that the assessor is going to do and valuing it. So we're trying to recap capture that exact methodology that's what we refer to as the case study approach. Then there's the service factor approach for revenue line items in the general fund budget that maybe aren't as detailed of that methodology or just the juice isn't worth a squeeze because they're really tiny small line items from the general fund. We're going to um calculate them and we think that they're impacted on a per service factor. So per service population, per employee, per resident, maybe per student, per road mile, whatever is the most applicable basis in that case. And sometimes that comes out of discussions with particular departments or maybe we just gather that information from reviewing the budget. So we're going to look at each again line item and is it impacted or not? And if so, can we uh replicate the approach for methodology and if not um does it make sense to impact it on a service factor approach? Then if we need to impact it um we're going to make sure we have good baseline assumptions. We think it is very important to have good data and baseline assumptions. We don't want you to be arguing with what Municap said. We want good third-party source data from industry reputable standards. So, you're going to see lots of footnotes in our studies that are coming from US Census data, implant software, which is an industry acceptable standard. You're going to see um tons of footnotes in here from um other counties, economic development factors, staff within the county that we call. We have lots of phone interviews because it's not what Municap said, it's what industrywide

data says. And then what we do is we pull together that data and we're going to follow that methodology. Um, and then the comparable county source data I'm going to come back and talk to because the real property and personal property tax data um, really is the underlying source because royal property and personal property for data center is really a huge um, output in this case because the data center is throwing off a lot of that. So I want to really focus on that. Um but these underlying assumptions, baseline assumptions were really important for us to research and make sure that we had good solid data which went through um in our analysis of being able to prepare the methodology that went into the calculation of the economic impacts. So um in doing that um we were able to calculate the results of our analysis. Um I'll just quickly walk you through the results and then I want to just drill down on a few of those revenue streams a little bit more in detail. Um in particular as I mentioned the real property and personal property on some of those assumptions which I think you might have some questions or might have piqu your interest as you reviewing our analysis and then I'll sit down let you get through the rest of this because I'm sure you want to do that and then if you have more questions at the end I'll certainly come back up and be happy to answer them. So in the results of our analysis, we impacted temporary construction period jobs. Um to calculate the construction period jobs, we use implant data software. And the way implant software works is we have it's let me back up. Implant data software, if you're not familiar with it, is uh census data that is compiled from census tracks and you use codes from that census data. very accepted um data but you can only put into it either jobs or revenues. It has to take that input and then it gives you an output out and so when we put into it we put the output in for this which is construction cost. So we get

construction cost for the data centers. We input that and it tells us the construction period jobs which are temporary jobs over the 10-year construction period. And it tells us the construction period jobs. Direct will be on-site approximately 16,000. And then indirect and induced are the temporary jobs that will occur offsite outside of the direct site here um but occurring because of the project. And then um indirect induced and direct output. So those are construction materials, other um wages, and just economic um benefits. So that will occur over the 10-year period. Those are the totals. And then on the next page, you have permanent jobs. These are the jobs as an estimate from the data center and the water treatment plant once the data centers are up and created. Now, these are estimates in that we don't exactly know the tenants that will be in the data centers. So, I will say that each data center type is um a little bit more unique and we're basing the um this off of a standard metric for data centers and so it could be significantly more jobs. Um and we tried to be conservative in our estimate so as not to be um you know basically put a high number out there and then it come in lower. I tend the way that Munichap tends to do any of our estimates and you we'll talk about this again when I talk about the real property and personal property values is reasonably conservative. We don't want to be too conservative and we definitely don't want to be aggressive. I'd rather come in reasonably conservative on any of our assumptions. And so for the data center jobs, you can see the direct at 1,228. That's at full buildout. And then indirect induced at 1440. And then the

um income, wages, and output. Um you can see the data center at 102 million. And then the indirect and induced at 78 million there. And the water treatment as well. We're assuming that the water treatment plant is exempt uh as far as rural property taxes go, but it will still have economic output and create jobs. So, we'll have some outlay as far as those other benefits and um outputs are tied to it. On the next page, it go slide, apologies, it goes through the key revenues. And I apologize. I know these numbers are really small, so I'm going to read them off to you, but we did want to just make sure that we are able to summarize this. The numbers on the left show the revenues, key revenues over time. And then and right, you can just graphically see from a pie chart, the real property tax revenues are creating the the most significant amount of revenues with personal property and additional revenues, recordation and bold tax revenues. Royal properties 428 million over that significant period there. That's including a 2% inflation factor. B pole business professional occupation license taxes that's the second or well technically third column from the left. We're showing those on a fiscal year period so that you can understand when they're coming into the fiscal coffers. Recordation tax revenues. We're assuming that um each uh building as it's uh constructed, it's recorded in the land records will pay recordation tax, personal property taxes, additional tax revenues are really tiny. Um those are really just those small line items in the general fund budget that I mentioned, you know, on a per service per capita budget. But again, just showing that we do go through each line item in the budget and arriving at your total estimated revenues over the 30-year period that we were reviewing. So, I want to just take a few minutes and talk about the real and personal

property tax revenues. Um, for real property tax revenues, there's an assessed value and the assessor will come up with that value based on there's three approaches to value property and the assessor is going to follow a statutory process to value property for tax purposes. Income producing property, they're generally going to value it based on NOI. Um now unique forms of property um they can also use the cost approach to valuation. Um for these properties it'll likely be cost maybe NOI but if they're going to sell the pads uh the data center pads they'll probably use cost for that reason. But what we're trying to do is look at how they'll value a similar data center in the county but there's no data centers here. So, we're looking at a list of other comparables uh as close as we can get, but we also looked at other counties and we found um in our analysis that there was a range of valuation anywhere between $1,000 per square foot all the way down to $100 a square foot. We narrowed it down to some key comparables in Chesterville, Col Pepper, Meckllinmberg, and we took the lowest kind of average that we felt comfortable with some properties that were as close in 2014 because again, we felt that that was more conservative at $274. I can tell you that um in other districts that we work, Frederick, Prince William County, Frederick, Maryland, Prince William County, Lowden County, um some others, it's probably closer to the $500 um assessed value. Um but again, this is a new market and you know, we're the there's a lot more data centers up there and we don't know the exact tenants. don't know the build and you know I don't know exactly the fit out and what that's going to be

reasonable conservative. So I would rather say to you this is my economic impact analysis and I'm not being aggressive if it could get better but I'm not going to overestimate and then have it come in lower on the personal property values. We assumed $300 a square foot and similarly I think that's reasonably conservative. We did a study in um Frederick County, Maryland. They were evaluating and you can look it up if last year they were evaluating whether or not they maybe wanted to impose personal property tax because they actually don't have very many data centers, but data centers are evaluating whether or not they want to move to Maryland because Lowden County is somewhat getting overabsorbed and they're about to put a bunch of power lines underneath um the PTOIC and so that's going to open up the opportunity for data centers going there. So we assisted with evaluation of what a personal property tax could be there. But that started with having to understand what the real assessed value for personal property value is there. We did a considerable amount of research there and that ranged anywhere from $400 a square foot to almost $700 a square foot depending on the level of fit out inside a data center because it can really range to be very simple and a bunch of shelves to very complicated, you know, detailed technical um electronics, powered shells, things like that. So, it just depends what's inside the shell and the personal property value. So again, we went with conservative, reasonably conservative at $300 a square foot. So whenever the tenant moves in, they could have something very complex. It could be higher. Um so those are what's driving our um personal property and real property taxes, but we see those as the most significant taxes in our economic impact analysis. There will be um a considerable period of uh temporary construction period jobs. And overall, the basis for our assumptions and our methodology are detailed in all the pages of our analysis. And I'm more than

happy to answer any more questions if you have them. Okay, I'll finish up. Thank you, Emily. Uh, next slide. We're continually meet um this is a schedule what we've done before, but we're reaching out to uh individuals or families from comments heard at the public hearing. And one particular case on Bloomsberry Road, we've already agreed with one of the adjacent owners to move our entrance a little bit further south so that doesn't align with their entrance. So it makes it a better safety condition for them. So we're going to do that. This is on Bloomsberry Road. We're moving at 550 ft, which is not much, but it's consistent. But we'll we have to check with Angela and Vita to do that. Okay. But we're we would agree to do that, assuming that they would agree to do that. So, but that's something just listening to the neighbors. So, we're going to continue doing that. Next slide. Um, we're here to ask your questions, but I just want to remind uh everybody we have never asked for a comprehensive plan amendment. Never. This is in the Route Three West settlement area. It's been there for decades. In fact, this has had multiple our site this site has had multiple potential businesses located. Not too long ago, there was a 200 acre food distribution center from Harris Teter. And when Kroger bought them, that kind of fell by the wayside. There was also a steel manufacturing facility that was proposed there and that didn't pan out. And so, but I just want to make sure that everybody understands this has always been planned as an industrial area, this site. We've never asked for a comp plan amendment. We don't need to. And so, uh, but I appreciate everybody's time. If you have any questions, we're here to answer anything. And,

uh, we defer to anything for tonight so that the text amendment discussion with the board can catch up so you can then have some, uh, options available to you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I heard Mr. Mitchell say that he was requesting a deferral. I just want to be clear. Are they requesting a deferral until the board of supervisors has acted on the text amendment? Till the next meeting after the board has acted on the text amendment. As you stated, as soon as we can get back to public hearing after the board has acted on the text amendment, we're ready to go and ask that you hold on to the applications. this one and we've got another special exception application before you. Please hold on to both of them until the board has completed its action. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I I apologize to Mr. Lming, but I've known him a long time. I just want to make sure that answer was yes to my question. You know, you're not going to He can always be He can always be evasive answer, right? It's so hard to get a straight answer out of a lawyer. Okay, the answer is [Laughter] Yes, we're happy to stay with you for another period of time. So, you you want to defer until the board has acted on the testimony? Yes. Thank you. Not a lawyer. All right. All right. Um, so you you've heard from the applicant and uh the county attorney as well. Uh the action to defer has been um voiced by the applicant. Um do we I mean do you want you have any burning questions? Uh Mr. Nicely, you have you do have the floor. Yeah, I don't necessarily have a lot of questions. I've got kind of a statement and then maybe a request. Bear with me if I'm not proper with my legal language

with all of this about how how I go about this. I am in general in support of the data centers here in the county. I think they're I think they're a great opportunity for the county to get revenue. I think they're a great light industry. This is an indust area of the county that we've long intended to have as an industrial site. But my I've got a number of concerns and the biggest one is with the size of the project and not with the final size of it is that we're sort of being asked being that this is the first data center in King George County to jump in with all three feet and approve 7.2 million square feet in a what we would consider a relatively small site. This is going to be a very compact site. I'm very worried about storm water runoff. Uh you're going to have a tremendous amount of imperous service that when you get a rainstorm, every droplet of that water is going to hit that creek. Uh unlike it is now with farmland. And I've got a little bit of experience with other property I have in North Carolina about impervious services. And I think that's going to be a real problem, especially when we compact the number of buildings you're talking about in this site. I've got concerns about the noise and your ability to abate the noise. That's one of the continuing things that people worry about. I've got concerns about water uh usage and that, you know, you're still kind of coming back going, you know, we would like to use I I think the term is purple water. if the if the county constructs that pipe so that you don't have to do air cooling. You'd love to do liquid cooling because it's more efficient. But I'm concerned about water in the county. We've heard that. There's

just a number of things. I won't go through my entire list. I would really much prefer that the county get in a situation where we come up with some sort of a phased approval process. You even talk in your in your presentations about this having a phase one at 2 and a half million square feet and then we would come back for the later phases. I guess I would prefer that so that we could see that green energy still continues to be what in all visible purposes you want to be a good neighbor. But I'm a little bit of a Reaganite and you know trust but verify. Let's give you an opportunity to prove that you really want to be a good neighbor and that you follow through with all of these things and all of the plans and all of the BMS and the con and noise abatement and all of that and then we can worry and can keep in the keep in our sites the full project. I don't know how we go about that from a procedural process. I'm not a lawyer. I'm an engineer. So, I'll leave that to you all to figure out how we might if you would even want to consider coming to us with an approval for phase one with the 2 and a half million square ft. We see how that goes and in that construction process, we start the approval for phase two. It's just a suggestion at this point. That's the way I would lean. All right. Thank you, Mr. Nicely. Um, applicant, would you like to respond at this time? Yeah, I I I think we'll have to think about what you said and get back to you. I think the the purpose of the phase was principally dealing with infrastructure improvements. Um, there's a lot of

off-site improvements, especially with uh roads and other things, and that was what drove the first phase. But we'll we'll listen to what you said and see if we have some other ideas. I I certainly understand there's certain right efficiency of scale that you have to make this financially viable and I don't know how to do that dynamics for you but just jumping in with to a $7 million project and the number of the amount of traffic the amount of things that could possibly go wrong with this. We hear you. Frankly, most of the infrastructure is going to be done in the first phase. We think frankly like the traffic signal that was out there as Matt today and there was a big semitr right in the middle of the intersection. You couldn't move. It really needs a traffic signal and I think it's not going to take much to justify that traffic zone. It was very dangerous just because of that one vehicle just blocked everything and it was dangerous for them to get out on the road on route three. So, I think uh the transportation was a lot of it's really upfront. I would say 75% of the off-site roads is up front if you include the traffic signal. And we got multiple phases for doing the traffic because we think we need it really needs to happen. It's a safer condition. But we'll listen. We listen to what you said and we'll talk to staff and see if there's some other uh ideas that can be floated out there. Thank you, sir. Um Mr. Chairman, ma'am. Yes, sir. So, I I want to thank you for the changes to the uh to the profers. You addressed several of my concerns there, and I think you recognized things like the firetruck. You know, that that would be a pretty good burden to the county to have to make up that difference, but you've done it for them. So, thank you. Um, I think the burm height you captured, which was something that

bothered me. The visibility of the project is never going to make me happy, but at least you've mitigated it some, I believe. Um, I would second Mr. Nicely's comments. It is a very dense development in my opinion. And, uh, if you phased it, we could understand that density better and what it's likely to do. the water runoff. I agree with Mr. Nicely again. So, um it's a good project for the county and I I you know, data centers are relatively clean environmentally. Um they're certainly a good tax source for the county. So, there's a lot of positives there. Um but the density bothers me a lot. Um, I wish you had a little bit more spread out development scheme. Um, you've got about, correct me if I'm wrong, you've got about 300 acres on the site. 354 acres. Okay. Uh, how many of them are you actually using for the development of the buildings? Well, we're we're at a your maximum FS you're allowed is like a 6 and I believe we're at a 0.53. So, we're not at the uh maximum that's even allowed by the ordinance, but uh and it's a it's a pretty open site. In fact, we've really spent a big great deal of effort. We've already had our uh core of engineers confirmation of wetland delineation. So we've had that. We got it in writing. Took a long time. You're using all the developable land. Uh not quite all of it. No. So uh Andy, you can talk. Um so yeah, when you look at the site in itself and you really look at that

center that is dense, but then you also look at what we did is we're going from the roadway 200 feet to where the first building is. So that's 200 feet along that whole area. that's not going to be a building. Um and then on the back side um you've got the stream that runs through um on the one so on the one side it's over 100 plus 50 feet at least on the left side. On the right side it's double plus that and we're not developing in the northern end. We left that alone. That's the other 18 acres there. So in one area it is very dense because we focused there but we also tried to be protective of the surrounding area. All that's sounds appropriate. It doesn't give me a clue how you decrease the density though because it just it's a lot of square footage on not a very par large parcel of land. So, okay, just a comment. I I understand. But we we've really been we listen to other comments about avoiding risk, uh avoiding wetland impacts and those kind of things. And uh you're asked a number of things. We even want to use sistns for collecting rain water. So we can use that for flushing toilets or humidification those things. We've calculated about almost 2 million gallons of sistern storage on the project for collecting rainwater. So but those are the kind of things we're looking at right now. Yeah. Think admittedly we heard your comments. We've come you've come a long way to meeting our concerns and I appreciate that. But like I said, very dense site. Not crazy about all the crossovers, but but I am in agreement with the one traffic light that you're proposing going in. So So we thank you. We thank you for uh as Mr. Kendrick has said, uh taking into consideration what Mr. Nicely um

suggested and uh he seconded. Um I'm gonna I think um Miss Flattery has uh requested the floor and you you have the floor now. All right. So with the density I did a rough calculation as well for the FAR and I don't know how you know when you when you do that calculation you're only supposed to do buildable um acres. And so I didn't know how much of it was wet land. I did take out the 18 acres for the uh that goes to the government. So I'm I'm wondering how accurate uh your calculation is if you are counting uh the wetlands and the non-buildable acres. But the three things that I wanted to go over was first of all air quality. Um, I I read a disturbing article about the department uh of the DEEQ that's um giving waiverss in Lowden County uh to allow diesel engines from data centers to run to take the the grid take the power load off of the grid. And so they are um giving variances to the air quality in in that area uh to allow that to happen. And so what I would like to see in the profers is that um if that ever was a situation that came to King George um that you would profer not to accept those waiverss and that the air quality that DEQ currently um expects us to abide by would not change. So um the other one is water. Whether you're taking water and putting it in sistns or you're taking water from the ground or you're taking it from the river. We're in a um area I forget the the technical ner name for it, but uh we're in a water area that you know we're we're losing our ability to pull water out of uh the ground. And so I'm concerned that you are still using an abundance of water and how

that's going to affect the future. Um and then my other concern is still with fire. Uh, I I had somebody send me some stuff that I couldn't digest at all, but it basically says that King George and the surrounding counties are in no way prepared to fight the kind of fire that uh could possibly happen um on that land. And so I want to get to a yes on this. I just I feel like I need a little bit more confidence in those three areas. All right. Um, are there any other I'm going to I'll yield only if there are no uh other um I guess objections and or suggestions based off of what Mr. Nicely has said. Is there anything outside of what he asked? Mr. Moff. So, this is a question which Senator Stewart you might be able to answer. Um I know it's very early in the process because the bill wasn't signed by the governor until the 24th of March and then the um Dominion's request the SEC didn't go through till the 31st. But if there was a rate classification change um in the way they build high yield or high consumption um organizations like data centers, would that automatically update to include those that are here or they be grandfathered in under existing rate terms? And you may not have an answer, but it seemed prudent to ask. It it depends. So, there was a bill to have that looked at. Um, and that means they will look at that and consider it. I'm not certain that that bill actually made it. A number of those bills were vetoed

by the governor. Um, but it would require legislation for a rate change. And Mr. Mitchell's right. right now um under Virginia law and the the co-ops are different. Co-ops actually charge the the data center developers for the infrastructure. But in Virginia with Dominion, um everybody everybody in this room pays a portion of the cost increased cost of upgrading the grid and putting in the infrastructure of every data center that's put in in Virginia. And there are a number of us at the general assembly level who are trying really hard to change that. I believe the legal term is getting hosed. Uh that's I think that's putting it nicely. Yeah. And I believe the residential burden is 55% just for the record. So there is no answer at this time. Not now. That's going to require legislation and that legislation would determine if if I I don't see people being grandfathered, but if they've already built the infrastructure, then possibly so. All right. Thank you, sir. Um I think Mr. Dora, a couple uh quick ones. Um would this project be viable or desirable if it was in compliance with our height standards? That's maybe a question you could answer at a future date. We know the process for getting the ordinance changed now is uh via the board of supervisors. Um so that's really up to them, but I'd like to know if it's a a viable project under those existing constraints. Um thank you for your thoroughess and your um responses taking

our questions. Still one outstanding question by supervisor binder regarding uh a similar project an earlier project which he said there are too many people in the county that just don't know about who are surprised and I agree that there are limits to what you can do but I see you haven't had another community meeting which I expected to see. Um, I also we do and I asked this several times, the county does its own economic evaluation of projects, don't they? As part of the ECD process if if the somebody requests it. I I don't know that I don't believe the county has done its own analysis on this project. No. Yeah, I I think um the county administrator may look at that and and if it's requested, it certainly is advisable, but I I'm not aware that one's been done on behalf of the county here. I know similar counties where that is standard practice. Um I understand the revenue models are varied whether you're doing storage or computing. Um do we have any idea of the end use and does that affect the revenue calculation and there's also the crypto computing cryptocurrency mining is a form of computing as well. Um but that would certainly affect the revenue model what your tenants which we don't know your tenants and which is why there's such a wide range in in revenue. Um, personally, I think that we need to have a a BP, a business license rate specifically for these kinds of projects. I don't know what they're categorized at now, but I noticed the BP falls off after 10 years, and mine hasn't after 22 years of holding a business license here in the county, and

I know what rate I pay. Um, the diesel emissions are one of my principal objections regarding air quality. I think I think M I think why can't we get gasoline? Why can't we get liquid natural gas? Yeah, I think Miss Nicely addressed that. Um Sean, you you have the floor. Yeah, just a a procedural uh thing since we had a had a public uh public hearing. Um are we bound to the 90 days to approve or disapprove? Um we would be except they have they have requested or at least agreed to defer this all three cases until the board has act on the text amendment. So the question I asked was do you agree to defer until the next meeting after the board acts on the text amendment and Mr. Mitchell finally said yes. Can you get it out of clause? Great question. Okay. So, um, applicants, you've had a number of questions, uh, thrown your way. Uh, and I I apologize. I didn't allow you the opportunity to respond at this at this time. Do you wish to respond to anything that, uh, any of the, uh, board has put your way? Uh, now is I grant you the floor. Uh, Mr. chairman. Uh there was a lot of different questions and what I think is probably best we'll look at those probably respond back to the staff. I will get some feedback from them and then they can reach out to you uh to ask you some clarifications if we need it. Um so we listened and took notes. And so we're going to do our best to respond to some of the things we heard today. And uh we want to be a good partner with the county and do our best to respond to most all the questions you have and any citizens and continue also to keep reaching out to the general public so they're well informed about

our project, what it is or what it isn't. So uh but I think that's the way we'd like to handle it. That's right. Since we have June, we have June to work on that knowing that the s board won't take it up until June. Anyway, thank you so much. I think your transparency or your your efforts to be as transparent as you can is uh is obvious to me. Some others may feel differently, but I I feel like you have are attempting to be as transparent as you possibly can be. Communicating with the county is it can be a hard hard um thing to do. And what I mean by that is people don't usually pay attention and they'll see the smoke, but they don't react until they see the fire. Uh so um um I I think the uh county administration has been doing their due diligence and making sure things have been commu uh communicated as well. So with that being said, um I think we are ready to move on to the next action on uh resolution which is uh see PC-06-25. Is that right? Yeah. All three. All three. Okay. So, you got you going to do all three is the fair. Very well. All right. So, we don't need to speak on any of this. To do the same thing for all three items. I I agree. I agree. All right. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you so much. All right. Next we're going to have um staff reports. Okay. Which is I think Miss Leoo. Yes. Thank you, sir. Um just in your packet, we have the May 2025 director's report. If you all have any questions, please give me a ring. Um also, and I don't want to steal Sean's thunder, but we do have the draft recommendations on the zoning ordinance text amendment

committee. Um, they did meet six times and did a lot of work and I'm going to be presenting their recommendations to the board at their meeting next week. So, y'all are invited to come in case they have any other questions and then I'm assuming that the board will take some sort of action to bring an initiating resolution back to y'all um for ordinance text amendment updates. So, that'll be coming. Uh right now for the June planning commission meeting, we have a presentation from the Northern Neck uh leasing resoning and I need to talk to Mr. Over I think about what we're going to do with Dogren West, but we did talk about um trying to move that forward. But now given the text amendment height action that's going to be required by the board, I wanted to talk to them to see what they want to do. But I'm sure we'll have a full agenda anyway. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I think um Mr. Clark, Mr. Lemming was waiting for you to um entertain a motion to defer the three matters. Ah okay. All right. So, we've heard the request from the applicant to defer um so we need to take an uh action chairman and I think the motion would be um as requested by the applicant to defer all three matters until the following meeting after the board of supervisors takes action on the text amendment which was presented tonight. Right. Okay. With you. Okay. We've heard the um request from the applicant to defer. Um is everyone was anyone paying attention to us to request? Yes. Yes, sir. Um motion to defer the three applications as requested by the applicant to next month. Is that sufficient? No. Do I need all

the numbers? You could say I I move the motion as presented by the county attorney. I move the motion as consented by the county attorney. Second. All right. Motion's been made made and seconded. Uh who is the second? Sorry, Mr. Mr. Nicely. Mr. Nicely. Okay. Okay. Uh Mr. Dorta. Hi. Mr. Fox. Hi. Mr. Kendrick. Hi Mr. Matet. Hi Mr. Palota. Hi Miss Flattley. Hi Mr. Nicely. Hi. And Mr. Williams. Hi. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lemon. Thank you, sir. All right. Okay. Mr. Duke, will you uh were you done with your report? Okay. All right. Next is uh committee reports. I think we have one. Well, I I think she kind of took your thunder, but we we'll hear from you anyways. We we um we we came to um an elegant solution uh to it made basically to remove major subdivisions from A1, A2, and A3. So if they want to do a major subdivision out there, they'll have to come to us, ask to reszone it to residential and then they can they can do a major subdivision that way. So without without affecting the size of the properties, you know, the density that that you could do um it doesn't hurt most of the people and the developers that want to do this or this is this is their arena. So what defines major out of curiosity? What's that? What's a major more than five?

Sean, thank you so much for your your report. Um, yeah. Okay. Uh, next is uh the commissioner's reports, which um um I would be remiss if I did not uh express um my appreciation for um Mr. Parker, Mr. Chris Parker. Uh as you have noticed he is he is not here nor was his name mentioned. Um um did every did all you get to see the letter as to if not I can get that forwarded to you. Um uh his dedication his uh his leadership um that he that he displayed um was second to none. Uh I am very honored to have served with him. I am very um ecstatic in in the opportunity that he presented to me. Uh so Chris will certainly be missed and uh Mr. Luke, will we be at some point recognizing him um in the future? Yes, we can do that at the next meeting. Okay. All right. I'll invite him to see if able to come. Anyway, thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Uh so um and I'll I'll open the floor for any other comments about Mr. Parker if if anyone wishes. No. Okay. So that's that's all I have. All right. Um other future business. Is there any done? No. Nothing that I haven't mentioned. Okay. All right. And here comes our favorite part which is adjournment. Uh, can I get a motion? A motion to adjourn to the next scheduled meeting. Our motion's been made and seconded. Uh, I think we'll just go with a vote of a hand and I I uh meeting adjourned.