It's 5 30.

I want to see I want to let everyone know that we are already recording.

And this meeting's going to be posted to the website after we're done.

And we thank everybody for their participation today.

Okay.

I can't see is Councilman McPike already on.

That's a great question.

We'll give Councilman a second.

There he is.

He's on.

Welcome, Councilman.

Cool.

Well, now that Kirk is here, I'm going to go ahead and officially call the meeting to order at 5 31.

Just want to thank everyone.

We're trying a new format.

I know online.

Virtual is not usually the way we'll do this, but we're going to test it out and see how it works.

We're also going to try a new format in going through the bills.

We're not going to go through them in numerical order.

Instead, we're going to go through them and kind of jump based on what we support oppose the ones we have no position on and watch.

I hope it'll help the meeting kind of go a little more quickly.

And so with that, I am going to turn it over to Wendy to get us started.

Thank you so much, Councilman and Mayor Gaskins.

So January 14th is the deadline for pre-filing any legislation into the for the General Assembly.

And then there's about another week or so after that where there can be more legislation introduced, but we should have the universe of legislation that we know about pretty soon toward the end of January, and then we'll know exactly the number of bills that we're looking at and know where we are moving forward, get our arms around it a little bit more.

As a close of business Thursday, like I said, there had been about 400 bills introduced, almost 100 were introduced just today.

Around 24 of them aligned with our city priorities directly.

Most of those are in housing.

So thanks, Mary, for staying on top of that and being an expert in our housing issues.

The purpose of tonight's meeting is to walk through these bills that are currently of interest and potential interest of the city and assure alignment on our initial positions that we take before we start the session.

Just as a reminder, like I said earlier, this meeting is recorded.

It will get posted afterward, and we're really excited to have everyone and your expertise here for the evening.

Most bills are uh categorized in one of three categories, which is watch, which is uh we're monitoring the legislation to see uh whether it advances or changes during session.

Uh we it doesn't seem to have an immediate impact on the city, but it could evolve over time or something we just want to keep an eye on.

We have support, which we uh are things that we are um it's gonna support uh when we were down there, a lot of them will be our priority bills, we hope, and then oppose.

These are bills that we will oppose as a city as well moving forward.

Um we also have no impact, and that's gonna be for any bill that uh we've just flagging for interest or just to keep tracking, but it doesn't appear to have any direct impact on the city itself.

Um let me see the these are all subject matter expert recommendations that we are providing to the legislative subcommittee.

So I want to just say that um they are get all the subject matter experts are here for you, councilman and mayor to help you.

And if you have further interest or questions about that bill, they're there for you to dig even deeper and learn more about the bill.

That said, bills will change as we go through session.

So that's this is the bill as introduced, and our recommendations could change over time as the bills change.

Um and with that, I'm gonna just hand it back to mayor and councilman so you can walk through the spreadsheet that we provided to you and let us know which bills you uh would like to have questions about or how we end up at the positions that we are on.

Okay, that sounds good.

Um, Wendy, as we go through the bills, did you want to pull up that spreadsheet or um does everybody on the call already have a copy of it and have the categories?

That's a great question.

We um do have a spreadsheet to put up online.

Uh Emily, can you share that screen?

And everyone should also have a spreadsheet to work with in front of them electronically or if they printed it out.

Okay.

So the way I'm gonna do this, um, I'm gonna start with the first chunks, which is in the support bucket for each bucket.

I'll first ask Councilman McPhike if he has any.

Sorry, one second.

Can you guys hear all of that in the background?

No.

Okay.

I am trying to also be an excellent mom, and I'm at hockey practice, and there are children playing tag and running underneath my feet.

And I don't know who they are, but it's a lot happening.

Um moving on.

I'm gonna first call on Councilman McPyke.

I will ask if he has any questions in that bucket, then I'll go through any that I have in that bucket, and then I'll pause to see if there are any that staff wanted us to discuss so that we have time and space for that as well.

Um, so councilman McPyke, let me start with you.

Are there any bills that are currently listed as support that you had questions about or wanted us to talk through further?

Let's see here.

Looking just scrolling through here.

I I was pretty good with all the support ones that we have here.

Uh let's see, I did highlight one.

No, this is fine.

I don't have a question about it.

So I don't have any highlight in in this.

I thought the support set was pretty pretty aligned with where we are.

Um I also do not.

So before we move to the next uh category, are there any that staff wanted to flag in the support bucket?

There weren't any for us to flag on that.

Those were pretty straightforward for us too.

So thank you.

That sounds good.

All right, then I'm gonna move us to oppose.

Um, Councilman McPhike, are there any in this bucket that you wanted to discuss in more detail?

No, these are all fine to me.

Okay.

Um I actually I had a question on HB196.

This is the Virginia Residential Development Infrastructure Fund.

Um, I was just curious if somebody could share a little bit more about why we chose to oppose this one.

I think my first scan, um, it seemed like a good additional resource for us.

So I wasn't sure if there was something I was misunderstood.

We had from Paul, I think this is something we could actually uh maybe move to watch or uh look for amendments on.

Uh we want additional provisions or clarifications.

Uh I can turn it over to Mary.

Did you want to take this one?

Sure.

So you know, I did reach out to Ospasia and Helen.

I think they're both on the call as well, just to make sure that I was also understanding because I, you know, from the housing perspective, I think we agree with what you mentioned, Mary Gaskins, that this could be an additional tool to our toolbox, especially when for for those infrastructure costs.

Um did note that I don't think that the term infrastructure is explicitly defined.

I'd have to double check, but um, you know, uh we don't have as much concern.

I think we agree that this would be a support from our office.

Paul, did you want to chime in?

Yeah, uh happy to speak to it.

So I agree with uh uh Mary and also Mayor, uh, with your initial uh sort of guidance that that yes, we want to look for more resources to provide housing.

Uh so the uh sort of what I had drafted uh on on first read was not based on sort of the purpose behind it, but more as sort of the administrative sort of oomph that they put behind it.

So what they're proposing is that this would be some new entity that would be established to manage this fund.

Uh we've already got uh funds that that can be uh sort of properly administered through Virginia housing as well as through Virginia Economic Development.

So they're already established agencies where if there's more money available, we might be able to just uh move that to a um an existing agency to administer.

Um also I think what they probably need is some more clarity.

Uh so the bill is labeled infrastructure, but then in the language of the bill, it also speaks to providing operating support.

Uh and then it's also not clear whether it is loans or grants.

And so I uh what I was sort of flagging was the potential for a risk that this thing becomes a vehicle for grants to support operating funds, uh, which is probably not a long-term position we want to be in.

Um and so and so one looking for are there existing vehicles we can attach to?

And then can there be more clarity around what's the available use of the the funds?

Is it one time?

Is it ongoing?

Are they are they loans?

Are they grants?

Um, because in different situations, we may want uh sort of one or the other.

Okay, that's that's helpful.

I guess um what I would say given that if councilman McPyke agrees, I'd like for us to maybe move this to watch because it sounds like it could be a potential good tool if it um got additional clarity and maybe some amendments on how it might be new synchronized.

Uh does that work for you?

Yes, I'm fine with moving this to watch.

Awesome.

I don't have any other questions on this one.

And I don't think I have any more questions on others that we've marked opposed.

Does staff have any in the opposed bucket that they wanted to talk through for no we don't move us to the watch side of board um councilman any that you flagged in the watch part of things.

A couple here um the um the facial coverings uh ban for law enforcement is it on watch because we'd like to see some of the exemptions extended like I want to make sure that if we put something like this in here that it's going to allow the legitimate uh uses uh that our APD uses these things for uh to be allowed um I know this in cases where you have an undercover officer working in an environment you want them to be able to have their face covered uh when arrests take place so I is that why this is on watch you're 100% right and I'm gonna uh is APD on did you want to just highlight your comments that are in there yes ma'am yes sir the the exemption piece of it is the undercover officer is a big one um there was discussion about whether in an extreme cold weather circumstance if I'm on a post for 10 hours um moving cars out of the snow things like that if if there's be some kind of exemption in there um and then the last piece was the very last section of it um talks about a uh policy and whether that policy seems to be able if it's based on where it's modeled after the suggested policy from DCJS it would sort of get around that criminal concern.

There seemed to be some confusion on that whether what the modeling was so for instance could we add in our policy some the exemption for undercover officers and still be within that that piece that seemed to be unclear to some folks who had read it okay that's I I want to make sure that our officers are are properly protected when they're engaging in legitimate activities.

I recognize where this bill is coming from given some of the federal operations that we're seeing around the commonwealth but yeah we should we should try to work with this to to move it in a in a better direction understood thank you.

Before we go to the next one I would just echo um councilman McPyke's comments on this I agree with what he said I would like to see us maybe get to yes on this so um whatever that looks like in our advocacy with um delegate Jones um would just like to stay posted on the um HB10 is allowing us would allow localities to well certain localities very certain localities to um tax improvements on land separate from uh the the underlying value of the land this is actually a tool I'd be interested in seeing us have in Alexandria so if we're putting it on watch I'm hoping we're putting um watch to try to uh get Alexandria added to the list of localities that could consider this authority.

I'm gonna hand it off to Kevin Greenlee from finance.

Yeah we we uh we took no position on this last year and that's what I put in there again this year.

Simply because it's it's local option um four localities have had this or a variant of this authority and have never adopted it and there's lots of administrative reasons why it'd be a problem if council wanted to adopt this it wouldn't be something I would necessarily recommend.

Okay.

Um for just for uh a huge number of reasons I could go into them if you if you want to hear some of them.

Well uh you know um that's I think the actual question the only question there would be you know more of a quote conversation if we actually ever considered the policy I was just sort of considering the this bill's on watch and it doesn't even mention us and I was trying to figure out the the and and it is it is harmless in that it's local options so that's that's positive.

Okay.

Um let's see anything else uh the uh HB 26 related to marijuana related offenses uh why are we putting this one on watch so this one uh we have we had a plethora of opinions on this bill um I'm gonna let uh there's Brian Brian for uh Commonwealth attorney and uh we also have yeah go ahead is Brian on I'm on um so this bill purports to amend sentences for people that are incarcerated for marijuana um I personally I mean look I get it that the city in my perspective might be different but first of all there are very few people who are currently incarcerated for there's no one incarcerated for marijuana possession.

Okay.

Uh there are people that are incarcerated for marijuana dealing.

And in my, this is just something, Madam Mayor and Mr.

Councilman, that I have been pushing back on is this idea that marijuana dealing is somehow less serious than cocaine dealing or heroin dealing.

I've been doing this for a long time.

And I can tell you that when illegal money is being made, it doesn't matter what kind of drug is being dealt, right?

And so just a couple of years ago, my office indicted 15 people for racketeering for a high-level marijuana dealing organization that had rental properties here in the city.

And they actually killed somebody in the city.

They murdered somebody and the west end of the city out in um off of uh North Beauregard Street because he owed 25,000 to the organization.

Um and when the search warrants were executed on the drug houses, there was a lot of marijuana sees, but there was also a lot of firearms to include AK 47s.

So, you know, I mean, I get it.

I understand um the reality of these situations, but the few people that are currently incarcerated because of marijuana dealing, in my opinion, are not the kinds of marijuana dealers that people kind of think of.

You know, you're thinking of a kid selling a half ounce here.

Um I'm I'm I've been dealing with people that are you know selling hundreds of pounds of marijuana and making literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal profits off of it, right?

So I would I just I guess I just wanted to get that perspective out there and and ask counsel and and and mayor gaskins just to keep that in mind.

Um but I understand where the impetus is behind the bill.

Okay.

The the other the other side of this is represented by uh another opinion is Paul Valenti.

I don't know if you want to hear from that office as well.

Yeah.

Paul, you're on.

I saw you.

I am.

I'm trying and then it went off again.

I'm trying to get my video back on.

Um so good evening.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you.

And now you can even see me.

How about that?

Uh, Madam Mayor, Councilman.

Uh, I guess with of course, full respect for the opinion of the Commonwealth's attorney.

My reading of the bill was that it only required setting hearings to consider modification of a sentence.

It didn't require a modification.

And in that consideration, um the a portion of the bill um allowed that a modification could be denied if the commonwealth demonstrated that modification is incompatible with the public's interest.

So in other words, I I'm fully cognizant of the concern from my colleague, our colleague, but I I I didn't I I thought this had appropriate balancing in place to make sure that if there was uh a risk to the public that then a modification wouldn't occur, and that could be adjudicated through the process in the bill.

I should also announce that Paul is the Office of Human Rights, and I apologize for not saying that before he started speaking.

Well, if I can respond to that, I mean that that is technically what the bill says.

Um, but I am very concerned about having resentencing hearings.

First of all, it's additional work for my office.

Um, and I think that standard, I mean, it would only be for marijuana dealing offenses that has that very unusual standard about incompatible or inconsistent with public safety, and you're asking a judge to make that determination after the person has already had a sentencing hearing in which a judge has sentenced them to incarceration.

So I mean, I'm just not gonna I I I just I personally cannot get behind this.

Uh, but again, it's you know, it's gonna affect a very small number of people.

There are not a whole lot of people in the Department of Corrections for marijuana dealing.

Um, and I get where it's coming from.

And I just I just want to put a little bit of realism um to the discussion.

That's that's it.

And I I understand people are gonna have different opinions on this one, but that's that's my opinion.

And should you um maybe for the next time we meet or in between, could you get us some numbers on like in terms of the population that we have currently in the jail?

Like I know you say it's only a handful, but I'm just curious for context, like what is that number?

Well, maybe that'd be that might be a better question for the sheriff's department.

I I'm not sure about the jail, Madam Mayor.

It's I'm talking about people that are incarcerated in prison.

Um, I mean, there's gonna be I'd be shocked that there's more than one or two in our in our jail.

Um, but I I can probably look into it for you.

I think I think I could probably get you some data.

I think that would be helpful.

And I think maybe let's keep this one in the watch category as we continue to learn more here.

Um and this might be even one that Kirk and I need to go back to our colleagues and just get a better false check of like where the whole council might be on on this issue.

Yeah.

I have a couple of questions that are very minor about some of the others, but if they're on watch now, they'll linger on watch.

And I don't want to make this first meeting drag on too long.

Um then I have two quick ones.

The first one is HB5, the paid sick leave.

Um, this one seemed to me like this would typically be something that we would just support.

Uh yes.

I'm gonna turn to uh let's see, we can go with uh Paul Valenti again.

Sure.

Um actually I I think that was my position on the bill.

Oh no, watch because of the budgetary implications.

Um understanding that it does allow for the city to be more competitive.

Um no, I'm looking at the wrong one.

Oh, yeah, yeah, watch because the I I didn't know how expansive the phrase legal services in one section of the bill was relating to use of paid leave.

Um, and and I'm not sure that it contemplated both seeking legal assistance from attorney in addition to going to court to seek a TRO or um a hearing on a TRO or appearing in court in um relation to a domestic violent sexual assault or falcon case, and if it was sufficiently clear, and I thought the anti-retaliation provision might not be as strong as I've seen it in other civil rights statutes.

In other words, um I didn't read it to have a provision that said if I assisted, supported or encouraged somebody to make use of this leave, I too would be protected from anti-retaliation for doing that.

And that's why I put it on watch.

I mean, uh the general sentiment, of course I support, but it was more those technical issues that I just discussed.

According to the HR, uh the city sick leave entitlements already see the standard set out.

Um, but this would require some uh compliance risks.

I don't know if Alyssa wants to get on, if there's additional insights there.

I'm not sure.

No, see her.

Um yeah, just what I mean, my general thoughts are aligned with Paul.

This would be one that I think we'd probably be more in the support category, but you know, we're early in this, so maybe let's see how it evolved over the next like few weeks um to see if those things get clarified.

But I think this one is aligned with all of our values and the language that council's been saying about being a workplace of choice and having different types of benefits.

So do we want to keep it watch for now, or would you like to move it to support and see if we want to move it back?

Let's keep it for watch for now, and then you know, in the next like two weeks or so when we have these meetings and things have gotten a little more clear, we'll we we can see where it goes from there.

Got it.

Um and then the last one I had on this list, another benefits related type one is HB18, the employee child care assistance pilot program.

This to me also read one that seemed very aligned with our values and our policies and our goals around um early childhood.

So I wasn't sure why this one was in the watch category.

So um again, HR put it in the watch, uh, helping employees get affordable care.

Uh I'm gonna say um let's let's hear from Steffi Landramon, because she had a lot of ideas about how this could be good, not just for um our city, but also for the private sector too.

Is Stephanie on?

I am here, Wendy.

Yes.

Um the comments I put in are that as long as this remains a uh carrot, sort of a voluntary program that employers can choose to access.

I think that this is a net positive.

Um, as the mayor said it's aligned with our uh a number of things that we uh push forward, and I think a lot of businesses would find it beneficial.

Um the the thing that I would be careful about is if it became mandatory or a requirement, anything that adds expenses to small businesses potentially is just something that we need to think a little bit more about.

And so that's like uh that was from my perspective why I thought watch would be uh appropriate.

Wendy, do you mind if I um speak uh this Kate Garvey, the director of DCHS?

Um also we in principle absolutely support, but some of the specifics and the requirements and past issues related to implementation of the mixed delivery system.

ads expenses to small businesses um potentially is just something that we need to to think a little bit more about and so that's like uh that was from my perspective why i thought watch would be uh appropriate wendy do you mind if i um speak uh this kate garvey the director of dchs um also we we in principle absolutely support but some of the specifics and the requirements and past issues related to implementation of the mixed delivery system so not so much in this yeah we support the spirit it is the execution of it and so it would be the particulars of of how that um they're carrying out the the uh project um i guess what would be helpful and follow we can do this one offline but um i'd love to read more about like just some of the challenges we've had with execution before i i think this one is one even if i look at our package we've specifically name things around early childhood um this is also i mean delegate mclear has been a partner for us on a lot of things i think this is one we'd want to get to support sooner than later so um however we can figure out how to have those conversations um this would even be one I don't know councilman McPhike where you are this would be one where I would be willing to go to support and then pull it off if it changes to mandatory but um yeah I highlighted this one in green and I just sort of skipped over because I figured the reason it was on watch was uh you know unfunded fiscal in implications but if you'd like to move it to support I'm happy to do so got it let's move it to support and then if it becomes a problem it's too long.

Okay.

I don't have any others um are there any others in this category that staff wanted to make sure we touch base on there were not you you hit the ones that we figured we're going to get hit.

Okay.

Um let's go to the no positions councilman McPeck any um like do we need to go through all of these or do we only want to look at some of them I guess we're not taking the position on every bill and from the general assembly I think some of them it was very clear to me why we had no position so I don't think we need to go through all of them.

Yeah um let's see here I'm curious about HB21 uh delegate helmer's bill regarding uh firearm industry members that's the only one I flagged too Kurt um yeah the only comment I have from there is from uh Brian Porter so the Commonwealth attorney had thoughts on this one this is a is he still there don't see him his comments say the bill I can read what I can read his comments they say his the bill purports to create a new level of civil liability on the gun industry as it is civil in nature he takes no position this uh there will be a he he said that this is one of many he's right there have been a lot of gun bills introduced um so he had no position but um as a city clearly we can have a position outside of that um okay I mean I I was vaguely uh I you know I trust delegate helmer's instincts on these firearm related issues so I was sort of wondering why we weren't a support um I don't know where the mayor was coming from in her questions on this mine was gonna be why we aren't a support so given that we both are leaning that way let's just move this one to support yep done and then um another one I had was HB51 which would be um the timing of local elections allowing them to be moved back out of November.

We actually as a city pushed very hard uh for legislation to move all elections to November we we supported that in previous years uh even after Alexandria made the change itself um I think in in terms of sort of consistency ideologically is where we've been in the past on these sorts of questions I think I think we should probably oppose an effort to sort of chip away at that yeah I would agree with that as well okay for an I just three on this show I don't know if Angie's honor has any other comments we got a lot busier today so I have gotten a little busier um but yeah no uh our office typically doesn't take positions on legislation so that might have been where the no position came from okay okay any others in this category uh no I uh I mean a couple I had random small questions on but nothing that I felt was like really needing of uh stated position at this point um I too don't have any either um are there any in the no position that rise um to the level that staff want to talk or explain about it was I'm wondering if there's an HB 225 that came in late and I think it I don't know if that was in a watch or if it was in it's no position if you do no position so that one we would like to move to support it's two two five yes uh I'm gonna hand that off to Frederico and DCHS to talk about why moving that to support makes sense yeah Wendy thank you um we go ahead Kate that's good you take it go ahead if you want

So that one we would like to move to support.

So it's 225.

Yes.

Oh, new ones.

Um I'm gonna hand that off to Frederico and DCHS to talk about why moving that to support makes sense.

Yeah, thank you.

Um we go ahead, Keith.

That's good.

You take it.

Go ahead.

If you want.

Well, uh well, we we move to support, um, given that the Markets Alert uh task force will provide guidance and oversight of the Marcus Alert system, um, giving us or strengthening the program overall and providing opportunities uh where um potential areas of improvement can be identified.

I agree with that.

Uh councilman park, do you have any concerns on that one?

No, not at all.

All right, let's move that to support.

There was one other one, HB 73, which is a petitions for relief of care and custody.

Um trying to figure out where that one was.

That is HB 73.

73.

I don't think I have that one.

My spreadsheet there's 72 to 75.

Okay, that might be because we had um got information on that late.

We can add that one to the next round then, so we can have a full analysis of it there.

Um, but uh we're gonna support that one when it comes in.

So, or we're suggest recommend supporting it.

We can put that on the next uh docket though, so we can go through that and you guys have time to look at it.

But those are the only two I highlighted to bring up specifically as something we uh might recommend the changing ourselves.

So I think that takes us through all of the bills.

Um Wendy, I think I'm turning it back to you.

Is there another agenda item?

Um, there is one question I have for the subcommittee members, which is uh traditionally our or at some times you uh the subcommittee has requested that uh there's a presentation at the Tuesday council meeting following the subcommittee meetings.

I want to know if there's any presentation that you would like from me or if you guys would like to present the what came out of the subcommittee meeting on Tuesday.

If you would happy to present and zoom in for that if you'd like.

So I don't think we need a formal presentation at this time.

Kirk and I have it listed in our oral reports.

Um so let's go ahead and do it that way.

And then if it doesn't feel like we're um getting all the information here, we can we can um revisit.

I think also previously these meetings weren't recorded.

I know now they have to be recorded since they're virtual.

So there's also now another mechanism that if people want to follow up, they they can watch it.

So that was the only final thing left on the agenda, other than to say thank you so much for your time and thank you so much to the subject matter experts before uh subject matter experts.

I can't see who it is on the oh uh Ramiro.

It's Greg Parks.

Sorry, I think going in Romero.

Yeah, sorry, I lost the raise my hand thing.

I apologize for just talking.

There's two bills that I wanted to just mention real quickly as we ran through that.

Um that I would like us to just real quickly um HB 163 Marcus uh delegate Simons um imposes a requirement that the clerk of the circuit court create a uh a notification system for people who have things filed on the land records on their property.

Um besides the just as an aside from this is is a solution in search of a problem.

We've never had one of these in Alexandria.

This is a late-night television scaring people.

Um this is not a problem in Virginia in reality.

Um, but all that said, um, I would like to to, if not oppose uh this bill, um at least um watch and perhaps try to work with delegate Simon to adjust this because this imposes a potential substantial cost on the clerk's office to create or contract for a system to do this that we don't have the resources to do.

This bill doesn't provide any resources.

The majority of the clerks in this in the in the Commonwealth of Virginia use the Supreme Court's land record system.

So the appropriate place to direct this would be to direct the office of the executive secretary or the Supreme Court to develop a system at their expense that would provide this functionality.

I have requested the office executive secretary to do this.

Um, if we're gonna do this, and they won't.

So this will impose a cost on us, which of course is ultimately uh is ultimately taken out of my office as budget or we have to figure out a way to fund it.

Um and so again, just as an aside without the details, this is not a problem.

We've never had this happen in Alexandria that we know of.

But there are a lot of late night um, you know, commercials that are selling commercial versions of this.

Um, and so that's where where this comes from.

Um, let's go ahead then let's move this to watch.

Let's see if changes can be made.

And if changes can't be made, then let's oppose.

Thank you.

And the one other one is a very short one.

It's HB101.

Um, and it has us listed as opposed on this.

This um this bill was actually put in by at the request of the clerks.

All it simply does is it removes the in writing from the concealed handgun application statute.

The reason for that is because there's been some question as to whether or not online electronic application processes um meet the statute uh for for being in writing.

I personally think that they do.

You're doing an online application, you're writing out the same sort of things.

We have that.

I just implemented that in Alexandria.

It's much, much uh easier for the people who want to apply for these.

It's much, much easier for us to process it as well as APD who have to do the background checks.

Um, we have it.

There are some clerks in the state who think that that doesn't meet the requirement that the statute requires a physical paper writing.

All this does is eliminate that in writing so that it's clear that clerks can use electronic applications for it.

So I'd like this for for that bill, I'd like us to support it.

It it literally takes one word out of the statute um and just clarifies some uh some ambiguity on whether or not we can operate in the 21st century.

Thank you.

Um, I think for this one, I'm hesitant to go to support just yet.

What I'd love to see, Greg, is if you could just send me the current state statute and the new one, because the summary the way it's written, it it does on first read.

And I think if other people see this, it does seem like we're making it much easier.

So I think if I could just see the two texts side by side, that would help me.

Um curious, counselor McPike, is there anything you need on this one or thoughts you have on that one?

I agree with you.

That's what I'd want to see.

I mean, it literally deletes one word.

I will send it to both of you uh soon as we should CC Wendy on that same.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Um problem.

All right, I think that is everything.

Thank you all for trying out this new format.

Um, if it didn't work or have you had comments on how to improve it, please send those to Wendy and I so we can adjust before the next meeting.

But with that, if there are no additional questions or comments, I hope everyone has a good rest of your Friday.

Thanks so much.

Thank you, everybody.

Bye bye.