All right.

Well, then I guess we can go ahead and get started.

We will call the meeting to order at 5 31 p.m.

Um, Kurt, is there a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting?

So moved.

All right.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

The ayes have it.

All right, Dr.

Ginsburg, I'm gonna turn it over to you to kick off our update first.

Sure.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mayor.

Thanks, Councilman.

Um, tonight we're gonna go over a few uh items that have been happening in the General Assembly and also in the governor's office.

Uh the first thing I actually wanted to note was that today, Governor Spanberger signed bills to send some of the constitutional amendments um uh to Virginia voters.

So uh the affirmative right to marry and the reproductive freedom constitutional amendments were signed by the governor, and they should be going to referendum in November.

So I just wanted to flag those priorities are moving along.

The second thing I wanted to talk about were immigration bills that have been moving today.

Uh on Wednesday, uh the a lot of these immigration bills are about uh how localities and the state are going to enter interact with federal uh immigration enforcement.

Um on Wednesday, February 4th, the governor uh released an executive directive that instructed the state law enforcement and other entities to end any sort of 287G agreements with U.S.

Customs and Migration Enforcement or ICE.

Um and then today there were a series in the House, there were a series of bills, and the mayor actually testified on one of them related to immigration that moved through committee.

And I just wanted to highlight a couple of them.

Uh some of them were rolled together.

There were uh three of them from Delegate Lopez that uh protected certain areas from uh immigration enforcement from entering them, including schools and courthouses and voting areas.

Uh, and then there was a bill on cooperation with immigration enforcement that would codify a lot of what the executive direct uh directive from the governor said on Wednesday.

Um, and then there are always the mask bills.

One of the House cognate of the Selene mask bill that we worked on previously, it uh it's also accepted our amendments, and that is also moving through and got uh pass out of the subcommittee in the house today.

So they will be moving forward and going to full committee for consideration.

So a lot of those immigration bills are continuing to move.

Um, and uh unfortunately uh Councilman Aguray tried to testify today too, but he had similar problems to you, mayor, where he couldn't quite get on screen.

And then at the end they ran out of time and they didn't even let anybody who was online testify.

So he tried, um, but Alexandria was there in full support for all of the immigration bills.

Um, and I'll keep you posted on how those are moving along.

I'm actually now gonna hand it off to Bonnie, who's gonna talk for a bit about an update on Faith in Housing and the Faith in Housing Bill and where we are standing with that.

Yeah.

Hi, everybody.

Um, I had a meeting with Eleanor from archaeology and voice and some other housing advocates related to the faith in housing bill yesterday.

Um, and just as a very brief overview, I sent kind of a longer email to some of the most interested parties, but um, we're still working through amendments to the bill to try to make it so that we are protecting some of the most important local interests.

And in that meeting, we were focused on historic districts and archaeological interests.

Um while also seeking to see if we could find a way forward for the bill.

Um, I think um the APA, um, the planning association, which I'm sort of Paul, I see Paul on my screen is familiar with, they're gonna be neutral on the bill because the bill it came to light very concretely, will preempt local historic districts.

Um, we do think we were able to craft language that will preserve our archaeological code, which has been in place in Alexandria since 1989.

Um, but the by and large, the conclusion of the meeting was the bill continues to preempt our discretionary approvals for the covered projects in the bill, the affordable housing projects on faith-owned and nonprofit-owned land as defined in the bill.

Um, so a lot of our usual conditions that we put on DSUPs, we would not be able to impose on those projects.

Um, but we could still impose code-specific conditions that don't have discretionary review.

So remains a moving target.

They're still willing to negotiate, um, but I think people are starting to, you know, draw their lines and decide where they stand on it.

And I know at least the APA is going to be neutral and not able to support it based on the historic district issue.

Um that's my overview of that meeting.

Do you want to pause for a second?

Mayor, councilman, do you have any questions on immigration on faith and housing before we move on to the next issue, which is the automated speed enforcement.

Um, I would just say for on the immigration-related bills.

I just wanted to say to APD and I think the Sheriff's Association, all of the amendments that we recommended and changes, they were rolled into the larger bill and accepted today.

Um, so that was a good win.

I think on faith in housing, I've connected now with most of the mayors and chairs, not just in Northern Virginia, but across the state.

I also connected with Senator Carol Foy.

I think at the end of the day, like I am glad we are still at the table.

I do know they are aware of our concerns as it relates to the historic districts, archaeology, and sustainability from the senator.

My understanding is that they're still willing to work through those amendments and to have those conversations.

But overall, I think the way we've approached this and the way we continue to be at the table for policies we know are right, I think is important.

And I think is going a long way for Alexandria's reputation on this.

Thank you.

Councilman, anything from you or go on?

All right.

Cool.

Um the next issue we're going to talk about is automated speed enforcement.

Um there was some movement today on automated speed enforcement that I think even shocked um the patron.

So uh I'm gonna start with the Senate side.

On the Senate side and automated speed enforcement, there are there were three bills, and two of them started off as really bad.

They were from Senator Peak, and they would have just outright prohibited the city from using uh automated speed cameras altogether, including like traffic lights and actual like speed cameras that go through school zones, um, would have banned them entirely.

Those actually made it out of committee in the Senate.

Um, but he agreed to amend them.

And when the amendments came out and we shared them with our um our expert team here, it it actually wasn't a terrible bill.

It put some guide rails on there and required a couple more reporting requirements um from us each year to make sure that we were appropriately using the automated speed cameras.

Um and they weren't uh in any way problematic for us.

So those bills that were hugely problematic became not as problematic.

But today um in the finance committee, there is a bill from another senator, Williams Graves, that moved through and they basically axed a lot out of her bill, put the requirements from the peak bill, the new reporting requirements in there, um, and then uh created an entirely new bill that I don't think she was aware was going to happen.

Um but that happened.

I I don't really have the details on the bill because they amended it on the like at the moment, and I've been waiting for it to populate online.

But as it stands, that bill seems okay to us because it doesn't have the sovereign immunity language that we that's been hugely problematic for us.

And if you want to know more about sovereign immunity language, I'm going to turn to our city attorney's office because they can explain it better than I can.

Um, but basically it um it's language that we need in there to make sure that we can have the program in the first place because of certain legal protections that let us do that.

So um on the Senate side, there is a moving vehicle.

It is okay, it does not have the sovereign muni language, it just has an additional reporting requirements.

Now on the House side, there are two bills that are pending over there.

Um, one from uh delegate Delaney and one from delegate Siebold.

Um, they both have the sovereign immunity language in there.

Uh, one of them puts more guardrails on, one of them gives us a little bit more authority.

Uh, we think that the one that puts the guardrails on, it's the Delaney bill, HB 1220.

We think that's going to be the moving vehicle.

We have been trying to negotiate with them.

Um, one, we work with them on language that would allow us to better enact vision zero, um, where we can spend the money that we would uh funding we would generate through using the speed traffic or using the automated speed enforcement uh technologies.

And um that was great, but the sovereign immunity language is still in there.

Uh, we've been trying to negotiate that through.

Um, and so we have the Senate side uh with no sovereign immunity language, we have the house side with the sovereign immunity language.

I see Sarah Taylor's hand up, Sarah, did you want to add in?

Um yeah, just on those two house bills on the um the Seabold bill and the Delaney bill.

The Delaney bill, like as you mentioned, is the um is sort of the guard sort of the guardrails bill.

Um and the CIBOL bill is the expansion bill.

The SIBOL bill will also include the same guardrails as the as the delay bill.

So if there is expansion, it will be it will include those exact same guardrails.

So just to be clear that these are these are um they're not really an either-or, like if you get expansion, you're also gonna get the exact same guardrails um as the um as the uh Delaney vehicle.

Thanks, Sarah.

Thanks for the clarification.

And we think again, the Delaney bill would be the moving vehicle.

So that's just an update to say that a lot happened in the Senate to sort of change the posture of where the Senate was at on these bills.

Um, I know that we've had conversations on both the House and Senate side.

Um, I'm a little bit more positive about where we are now, and I'm we're working with the city attorney's office to come up with a potential solution on the House side uh for the sovereign, the problematic sovereign immunity language for us, and we hope to present that to them before Tuesday, which is when um it's a lot of those bills will be up in subcommittee.

And I'm gonna stop there.

That's a lot about automated speed enforcement is how I'm going to say it now.

Do either uh councilman mayor, do you have any questions on automated speed enforcement?

Okay, great.

Um I don't have a question, but a quick comment because we got several emails after this call last week.

I just think it's important to be clear for the public.

Like we 100% support this, and it's been a critical tool.

We are just trying to find the right vehicle and bill that has the ability for us to continue to use the program in a way that works for our city.

So I just want to, I know we got several emails saying like what the city, why are you not supporting speed enforcement and why, you know, why did you put that on watch?

I just want to make that very clear.

We do support, but some of these bills would either take it all away completely or make our ability to do the programs we're trying to do even worse.

Thank you for punctuating that.

That's really important.

We really are trying to get to yes on these bills.

Um the next thing, uh, Mayor, you asked me if I go over some of the governor's housing priorities.

Uh, and I wanna just start a little bit before she was inaugurated.

Um, and even when she was running for office, she had some clear priorities in the housing space that really aligned with our legislative priorities.

Um, she talked about tools in the toolbox for disposal, which is almost verbato and what we have in our legislative package.

Um, and then she really highlighted um some of the policies we called out.

Uh, she highlighted right of first uh first right of refusal, which is HB4, which is uh delegate Benna Parker's bill.

Um, and then she also highlighted uh five to 14 days, which uh would move further down the road, wouldn't let a landlord try to remove start the process for removing a tenant who couldn't pay on time from five days, like they would start on the sixth day to the now 15th day.

So these protections were actually clearly articulated not only uh before she was elected, but on her first day in office, she uh promulgated a couple of executive orders that sort of reinforced these values as well.

Um, one of the the first, the very first executive order that she promulgated required that there uh a lot of executive branch agencies take a look at uh actual budgetary, regulatory, and policy changes that would reduce costs for Virginians in things like housing, health care, energy, and education.

She gave them 90 days to do that.

That those reports are expected by April 17th.

And then on the third uh executive order that she promulgated, she required a multi-agency review of regulations permitting practices that affect housing development with the goals of eliminating unnecessary requirements, streamlining approvals, and reducing barriers to housing production.

Again, all values that we have put into our legislative package.

So with those in mind, the bills that we have been tracking, uh specifically, I already called out HB4 by Elizabeth Bennett Parker, but um SB 290, HB 14, these are the ones that um a locality could institute action on behalf of a tenant if a tenant is being negligent in certain areas about um upkeep of a particular housing unit.

Um, those bills have already uh are already ready for crossover.

They've moved to if they were the house bill, they moved to the Senate.

If they were the Senate bill, they've moved to the House.

HB4 already already in the Senate, ready to go for crossover, and then SB48, HB 15, that's the five to 14 day uh bills on each side, also moved for crossover.

These a lot of these housing bills are just sort of sailing through, and our the best tactic has been for us to sort of get out of the way and let it happen.

So I'm gonna stop there, see if you guys have questions.

If you have more questions on some specific housing bills, we've got the expert in the room, Mary Horner, ready to help too.

Okay, seeing seeing none, we're good to go.

We're gonna move on.

Um the last thing I want to highlight before we get into the actual bills tonight are um the fact that council's been incredibly active and super helpful down in Richmond this session.

And I just wanted to highlight some of the testimony that you guys have given while we were uh either virtual or down physically in Richmond with me.

Uh first of all, Councilman Agure wrote a really compelling letter on skill games and how we are opposed as a community to skill games.

There are there's a bill in the House and a bill in the Senate that would create a regulatory schema for skill games.

We made clear that we don't want skill games in our community.

Um we're opposing those bills because we know skill games are already illegal.

We don't want to create a regulatory scheme for something we know is illegal and that these uh predatory companies created a loophole, and now we're gonna create a regulatory schema for them.

It doesn't really make sense to us, so we're opposing those bills.

Um, and if you haven't seen it, there's a wonderful article about Councilman Aguray's letter about his opposition to skill games as well.

Uh, Mayor Gaskins, you have testified on immigration this morning.

You've done anti-rent gouging as well.

Um I want to highlight Vice Mayor Bagley, who uh testified on behalf of the omnibus bicycle safety bill.

Um and she yesterday testified in person uh for delegate Bennett Parker's bills on renter fees uh and abolishing uh exorbitant renter fees that come uh when you're applying for a new house uh a new rental unit.

And then uh she also testified on delegate Bennett Parker's unfortunately doomed building code energy efficiency bill that we absolutely loved.

But once again, we were told that we don't legislate the building code.

So um that that was exciting but unsuccessful.

And then I don't know, Councilman McPike, did you want to talk about your uh your your day when you sat in on a lot of the housing bills and how that was for you?

Yeah, it was um it was interesting.

It was uh I was I was in the room for seven or eight um housing bills, uh didn't speak but participated in sort of the um wave form of uh public input that Chairman Simon Life reasks anybody to just stand up if they're supporting a bill or opposing a bill.

Um and these were bills regarding um uh you know delays in in evictions and um housing uh quality issues uh that were before his uh subcommittee.

So it was it was an interesting uh and um aerobic uh afternoon in that committee.

There were a couple of bills that I would have spoken on, but I didn't want to be the one person to get up and make the process go longer uh by talking.

Uh it seemed a bit self-aggrandizing to do that.

So instead I just uh participated quietly and physically as the uh rest of the uh participants were.

Thanks, councilman.

Yeah, for those of you who haven't been uh to Richmond during session, they have a hearing for almost every bill that gets introduced.

So at some time you start getting the hairy eyeball, like we already support this, just sit down and let it happen.

So um you do get the sort of wave or the jazz hands moment where like who supports the bill on a lot of these.

Um so uh I'm gonna stop uh with these sort of introductory moments there.

I we're gonna move into the review of bills.

Um and then after the review of bills, I was going to ask some of my colleagues to talk about uh the transit bills that we hope and must be moving next week uh and give a little overview of what we think that's going to look like next week and what those bills are.

But I'm gonna hand it off to the mayor and councilman McPike to walk through the spreadsheet.

And if you'd let us know if you have any questions about the bills that are on it this week.

Um, Councilman McPike, let me ask you this.

Are there so I have two that to pull out?

I'm curious, do you have a list in each of the categories?

Because I feel like most of them, our positions haven't changed.

So positions haven't changed.

Um, I didn't have any uh I was a bit uh curious a bit about this voter registrar bill by Simon.

Um, but that was the only one that I really noted uh any questions on.

Well, then rather than going through the spreadsheet, maybe if we could do that bill and then Wendy, I have two for you.

So we'll just cover those and then go to our transit.

Yep, and just for those following at home, it's HB41.

All right, HB41.

I'm pulling it up.

Yeah.

Is that an Angie bill to make a new log bit?

I believe so.

Um so yes.

So currently uh to remove a member of uh the electoral board, the um state board of elections would have to petition the uh courts to have that removal occur.

Um and same with uh removal of a general registrar, removal of a general registrar would require a vote of the board and then a petition on the courts.

Um with that petition to the courts does come uh council, you mean uh so you would have um support uh through that process, legal support.

Um, however, this process, uh the concern the RAV, our association has predominantly is about the fact that uh there would be no um council or kind of legal sounding board to uh provide that support.

So all the electoral boards across the state are three people, right?

Two from the governor's party and one from not.

Yep.

And just for my glancing at this bill, and correct me if I'm wrong, two members of the electoral board could expel a third member of the extra electoral board.

Um so you could have a situation where the two member majority for one party is expelling the representative of the other party in a way that I feel that that concerns me.

Yeah, I feel like they're you're creating a real space for mischief here that would not be good.

There are concerns about this bill, yes.

Okay.

All right.

Well, I hope that I hope that the delegate is thinking this through.

I I understand trying to speed up some of the processes here.

If you've got a bad member of the board, somebody's not actually carrying their weight or doing their job.

Uh, but um the yeah, I said the the space that you're creating for for um bad actors to engage in problematic behavior here seems pretty broad.

So I'm glad that we're watching it.

Um I'm not I'm not necessarily saying we should move to oppose, but it's definitely a bit concerning.

Okay, yes.

Let's keep this one in the watch.

Okay.

Um my question was on HB1062.

I think this is the one that Ryan flagged for us this afternoon.

Just wanted a little more detail on it.

Ryan, are you on?

Is he on?

Yes, sorry.

Okay, there it is.

Trying to buy my mute button.

Yes, uh 1062.

Um this is the uh it came in a conversation with some of the Northern Virginia sustainability folks, um, sustainability jurisdictions.

Um it's a bill that would direct the state corporation commission to do some stuff specifically for low income, but also to implement a pay as you save program or by September or November of this year to issue an order that forces the commission to look at a pay as you save program.

So that's I think it's the silver bullet for um residential projects.

Um it provides on-bill financing capital from the utility, they pay to make improvements in your home, you pay that back on your utility bill based on the savings that are generated from the improvements.

Um so it's a and and it sticks with the meter.

So it's kind of like a pace loan, but it's the residential um and it's on the utility bill.

Um so you don't you don't borrow more than you can cover with the savings, savings pay the cost, and then it's a persistent payment through.

So if you sell the house or a renter comes in or something like that, it just it sticks with the meter.

So the charges on the meter.

Um they're pretty common um programs that are being popped up.

They've done a lot with like municipal utilities or cooperative utilities.

Um, not as many at uh investor-owned utilities, but I think it would be a really good approach for getting Dominion to put some money into energy efficiency for residential work.

Is that the Hernandez bill?

I think it came out of labor and commerce 22 to nothing yesterday last night.

Yeah.

It is good sign.

And I assume the recommendation here is support.

Absolutely.

Yes.

Okay.

That works for me.

Councilman McPike, does that work for you?

Yes, 100%.

Okay.

Um, before we go to transit, I know that the spreadsheet was sent to all of our colleagues.

Um I'm curious, Wendy, have you heard of any bills where folks were curious about the positions we've taken that we need to discuss further before Tuesday?

I haven't heard any feedback on it yet.

No.

Okay.

I hadn't either.

So I guess we did a good job, guys.

Everyone, everything's correct.

Um with that then, I guess I will turn it back over to you for the transit bill update.

Sounds great.

So um there are four pending large-scale transit bills.

Um they are cognates of each other.

So House and Senate, House and or House and Senate, House and Senate.

There is a bill from Delegate Tran and Senator Evan, and then a bill from uh delegate Sullivan and Senator Surreville.

And they attempt to plug the gap that will soon exist for transit in Northern Virginia, but also raise funds for transit across the commonwealth.

They do so in two very different ways to try to patch the same goal.

Uh, the upshot before I hand it off to uh Ray, Josh, and Hillary to explain it a little further, very briefly, I promise.

Um, but they the upshot is that if we don't have a transit bill that uh moves through the legislature, there will be a hundred and thirty-six million dollar gap in what the the Commonwealth of Virginia owes for Womatta operations specifically, and localities will have to uh to take on that burden um and we don't want that to happen.

So these bills have not yet moved.

I will say that they have not yet moved because we are waiting to see the posture of the administration and where they stand and which of these bills they would like to see move.

Um and it has to move next week, which is why I um would love for you for everyone to sort of learn about these bills this week so that we're prepared for what I hope happens has to happen next week.

And I'm gonna hand it off to Ray and Josh to sort of walk through these bills very quickly and and and or Hillary, I'm not sure who's going first, but um you if you guys want to take it for a quick five minutes or so.

Sure.

Um I can start with um just a really quick overview of the bills and Josh and Ray can probably dig in a little bit deeper on what it means for Alexander and specifically Dash.

Um, but just as an overview, both bills kind of do three big things, right?

One, they structure how our statewide transportation dollars are allocated.

They're both creating brand new Northern Virginia regional transit revenue streams that are dedicated to Wamata BRE and local transit.

And they're both adding significant new performance reporting, which is really good for us in terms of withholding triggers for WAMATA and dramatically kind of tightening the accountability on WAMATA.

So they they add they require WAMATA to do several things, like putting caps on growth, holding public hearings, being more transparent.

So those are all things that are really good for us.

Um both of them are kind of shifting money away from highways and toward transit and rail, which is something that I think in an urban area like this is really important for us.

Um and they're both looking at the this this um new district.

It's looking at protected revenue from various uh new sales tax um on services and digital goods.

And all this these funds are locked in for transit use only.

So where they're different is really along how they split between highway money and transit money.

Um the um HB, let's see, um getting the mix of HB 900.

So that is gonna be the Sullivan Surveille bill.

Is that that's right?

Um that one is um, sorry, I have these in.

Which one's 730?

730.

Is that the that's Soraville?

Yeah.

Okay.

So this one um does heavily favor Wamata, a little bit over local transit agencies.

Um the other bill, the HB 1179 is a little bit better for Alexandria because it does um it it allows us to use more money for local transit.

And so we know um Dash is something that we have invested in, and that bill gives us a little more flexibility, more money for local transit as well.

Where the other one, I think the two main differences is the other one is favoring uh Wamata, which we pay a lot of money for Wamata, and we definitely need dedicated revenue for that.

Um, but having a little bit more flexibility for transit overall um is really important for us.

So both great bills, both things that we want to do.

I think one of them's a little bit better for Alexandria in terms of how we can then spend the money that is is coming to us.

So I don't know if Josh and Ray want to add anything about how Dash might be impacted with either of these bills.

Sure.

Thank you, Hilary.

So I could provide a little more context.

I I'm not sure we're still kind of trying to figure out the details of how each bill benefits us directly.

Um to your point, they all contribute to funds that ultimately make their way to Dash.

And so I think I think the thing that we should take away right now is that whatever happens is good for us.

There is a scenario where it helps us and provides more opportunity for funding that makes its way to Dash.

Uh, also just understanding that the city has a bill to pay for WAMATA, the state has a bill to pay for WAMATA, and the more we can take the pressure off in paying that bill, um, there is also a benefit for Dash.

So not only the carve out of funds, which is really something that comes from the SJ28 work, recognizing the need to ensure that Northern Virginia transit and statewide is supported in a way that there is a carve out, um, is gonna be really critically important.

Um I would just ask if there's questions.

I mean, at the end of the day, I think we gotta see kind of where it all lands and we gotta really find it and see how it plays out.

All right.

Thank thank you guys.

Um the upshot really is we need these bills to move.

We need to know which bill to support.

We're going to support these bills.

If these bills don't move through the city would be in a big financial quandary.

Um, not just the city, but Northern Virginia and frankly the rest of the commonwealth too, because uh for every dollar that is spent on WMATA, public transit yields five dollars in economic returns.

And on top of that, these bills not only help WMATA, they um they help they would help all transit across the commonwealth as well.

So the bills are designed in a way that gets skin in the game from every locality.

So I'm hopeful that that means that all these localities that are looking to get transit money will also be interested in these bills.

Um and uh it would it would be consequential for every locality should these bills not move next week.

So that's really what we're keeping an eye on.

Um I'm gonna pause there, Mayor Gaskins, Councilman Pike.

I don't know if you have any questions on transit or any of the issues that we've talked about tonight before I hand it off to you to um close out the meeting.

Um I would just say on the transit front, I know um Governor Spanberger, Governor Westmore, and Mariel Bowser met, I think earlier this week.

And I'm hearing that transit was a big part of that conversation.

So I think that's important.

Number two, when we had our meeting with Secretary Donahue, he basically said, like the best thing is that they are bills in conversation and that right now we shouldn't worry too much about taking a position.

Our position should just be something has to pass.

So I think, you know, I think that's been a message we continue to keep and let's keep that until we have to change that or have clear, clear direction.

I will definitely keep in touch and make sure that you are aware of which bill they want to move and what we can do to help make sure it passes.

Absolutely.

I guess uh before we close, let me just make sure there's no one from staff who has an update or bill they were hoping we go back over.

Not seeing any hands.

Oh, Sean.

All right.

Well, Councilman McTyke, this is your last legislative meeting.

Oh, wait, is there a hand?

Did I miss it?

Yeah, Sean Ferguson.

Who?

Hey, hi, Sean.

Sorry.

Uh sorry.

I know we're we're trying to wrap up.

Uh I just just want to uh just very, very quickly circle back to SB388, uh, the faith in housing bill and just sort of express uh a perspective that we have in OHA right now that I know that there's been some progress on protecting the archaeology code, and maybe there needs to be look, you know, a closer look at how that uh plays out in practice with the language that's pending.

But I also want to express that I think we see a lot of concern with not also protecting those historic districts and trying to find some language that pairs both those things together, uh, maybe cultural and historic resources, and I think C5 in that bill.

But I just want to pin that that I don't know if OAHA can encourage support of it without seeing something that moves forward with archaeology protection and historic district protection.

Yes, no, I think we agree.

And my understanding, Wendy, correct me if I'm wrong.

My understanding was that you and Bonnie were working on language that we were going to send to the patrons of the bill that specifically address both the concern about the historic districts as well as sustainability.

Is that correct?

We have been working, we can't directly contact the patron of the bill.

Um so we've been working through um other entities and negotiating with them.

I and Bonnie, please come in, correct me if I'm wrong, but we are continuing to have conversations with them.

As Bonnie mentioned before, some lines are being drawn that make it so that the movement there has potentially slowed and um time is running out.

So we are we are working to see what other language we can negotiate in conversations are continuing, but um, I don't know how much more wiggle room there will be before we have to make our determination.

And Bonnie, correct me if that's wrong.

No, no, I think I think those two issues are going to be two big ones, Mayor.

Um the historic district one, there was proposed language on the table that um the housing advocates on the the bill advocates were not going to support, which sort of broadly protected the BAR process that we currently have, which is a discretionary review.

And so we had a really frank discussion that that's just at odds with the goal of the bill, which is to remove discretionary process.

So under the current form of that bill, there is no way to protect our current BAR process or similar localities who proceed under the same legal authority.

Many localities do, where there's a process with a public hearing and a discretionary decision.

This would be that would be preempted.

So if we want to work on language, it would be really to create a new process.

And there was a lot of consternation around what that could possibly look like to Sean's point.

Um and then the other issue on our sustainability, our green building policy is only applied on DSUPs and site plans that go through our public hearing process.

And that's because we did a lot of um legal research around what how far we could take sustainability regulation, and we found that we had authority to impose conditions through that discretionary process on say specific conditions on a case-by-case basis.

So again, I think we're at an impasse with both of those, in that um neither one is an objective ministerial code requirement.

They both require application on a case-by-case basis in a discretionary manner.

And so they they will not be able to be incorporated into the bill, or at least the advocates for the bill were not willing to incorporate those changes into the bill.

And I would note that the House version of the bill today passed through.

There were a number of no votes on it from people who you would on its face think were housing advocates for the very same reason.

And whether it was um a lot of it was that case by case um, you know, need and whether that's related to infrastructure or um archaeology or sustainability, but that was very much the underpinning um of many of the surprising, let's call them no votes on the house side.

Let me ask this.

I know we've been working closely with the advocates, and I know we can't work directly with the patron, but I guess why not work um maybe with others who are going to vote or view on that committee to see if they would carry language in an amendment.

We can absolutely work that side of it and see if there's avenues to go there.

I can work with Sarah.

Sarah's making, we can try to figure that out.

I mean, I guess like I I understand like we've been working with one core group, but we also I think this specific issue, we're not the only ones who have the concern, particularly as it relates to the historic district.

And if we have language that would work and brings along a lot of other localities and solves our need, I think we should be working to the people who either if we can't work with the person who wrote the bill, voting for the people who we're working with the people who will ultimately review it and see if there's any way to propose and work through that.

Yeah, Eldon James represents the APA, had some good language that they used in the modular homes bill that Sarah and Wendy are maybe very familiar with, that it was a compromise and looked like good language to me at first glance in that meeting.

So we may be able to do what you're saying, Mayor, and sort of shop that with some other folks at the table.

Yes.

My understanding is that is that APA is the venue to work it through and whether that also goes through voice.

Like I think that is, you know, that is a decision for us to make about how we want how and with whom we feel we need to negotiate on this bill.

Um, and part of those decisions are based on relationships that have been built and commitments that have been made to this point.

Um, so I think that's sort of where um some of these uh why some of these pathways are um are the ones that are before us right now.

Okay.

Well, maybe let's um let's connect uh and have a deeper discussion about kind of who are the different stakeholders, who are the relationships, and then what's the path to get the things we need in this bill to work for our city?

And then ultimately, if it just won't work, then we have to come to a different conclusion.

Got it.

Um, Councilman McPegg, does that align with the Yeah?

I think that's fine.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um with that, I well, Kirk, um, thank you for being such a great member of the legislative committee.

It's been great to have your perspective and expertise on the team.

We're gonna miss you.

Um, and these will become your problems next time.

We'll be coming to you with all the things we've watched and support or oppose.

Um, we'll see.

Uh yeah, I I think it's appropriate that um this is the last thing I'll do as a member of the city council is the legislative subcommittee meeting.

So we're honored.

See you all on the other side, but thank you uh so much for all of y'all's work, uh, not just in this subcommittee, but across the city.

Um, as I've had the opportunity to tell some of y'all uh and I'll take the opportunity that now because we have such a wide swath of staff here.

The people of Alexandria don't realize how fortunate they are to have such a dedicated and um hard-working group of city staff uh advocating and working on their behalf every single day on any number of issues.

And uh as a resident, I certainly appreciate all that y'all do to keep the city working great and to advocate for good policies um in uh in Richmond through this process.

And as a current and soon-to-be former council member, I recognize that nothing that we've achieved over the last four years would be possible without many hours put in by uh folks like you.

So thank you all very much for the opportunity to serve on this committee and the opportunity to work with all of y'all.

Well, in your last official action, do you want to make a motion to adjourn this meeting?

Not particularly, but I will make a motion to adjourn the legislative subcommittee one last time.

I think that's the greatest gift to staff.

We're ending early again every every week.

So um I second that.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Um the eyes have it.

Everyone have a good Friday.

Thank you.

Good night.

Bye.