* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          UH, NEXT OUR 
          [00:00:01]
SPECIAL MEETING. 
          [Town Council Special Meeting on March 14, 2022.]
UH, WE HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. 
          MAYOR HOLLOWAY, VICE MAYOR COCKEREL, EAR, COUNCILMAN GILLESPIE, COUNCILMAN MORRIS THOMPSON. 
          IF YOU HAVE A DRAFT, UH, MOA OF BOARD SUPERVISORS OR TOWN COUNCIL TO PROMOTE AND SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF THE FRONT ROYAL VIRGINIA REGARDING BUILDING CODE ENFORCEMENT, I HAVE A MOTION. 
          UM, MR. MAYOR, I MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND TOWN COUNCIL TO PROMOTE AND SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA REGARDING BUILDING CODE ENFORCEMENT WITH ONE REVISION TO NUMBER FIVE OF THEM AWAY THAT THE AGREEMENT WOULD CONTINUE UNTIL JANUARY 1ST, 2027, OR CAN BE TERMINATED. 
          FOLLOWING A 60 DAY WRITTEN NOTICE FROM THE TOWN TO THE COUNTY. 
          I FURTHER MOVE THAT COUNCIL RESCIND RESOLUTIONS, JUNE 1ST, 2021 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BUILDING CODES AND ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION, DECEMBER 13TH, 2021 UPDATED JUNE 1ST, 2021 RESOLUTION, DECEMBER 13TH, 2021, THE APPOINTMENT OF ACTING BUILDING OFFICIAL AND DECEMBER 13TH, 2021 BUILDING PERMIT B'S FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL UPON FULL EXECUTION OF THE MOA FROM THE TOWN COUNCIL AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. 
          THAT WAS SECOND DISCUSSION. 
          UM, YEAH, UM, WE, WE SPENT AN X AND, YOU KNOW, I'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN OUR CLOSED SESSION, OBVIOUSLY. 
          AND, UM, ONE OF THE PROVISIONS THAT CAME BACK IN THE MOA JUST TO MAKE EVERYONE IN THE ROOM AWARE WAS THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT AND COME TO A CONSENSUS IN OUR LAST JOINT MEETING WITH THE COUNTY. 
          AND THAT CONSENSUS WAS THAT WE WOULD HAVE 60 DAYS IN ORDER. 
          UH, WE COULD, WITHIN THAT FIVE-YEAR PERIOD, CHOOSE TO BRING BACK THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IN THE TOWN OF MOUNT ROYAL. 
          OBVIOUSLY SOME MISSTEPS WERE MADE, WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS. 
          WE'VE HAD REALLY PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE BUILDERS COMMUNITY, UM, IN TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT MAYBE WE DIDN'T GET, RIGHT. 
          AND WE'VE ALSO HEARD FROM THE BUILDING COMMUNITY THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY DO THIS AND DO IT RIGHT. 
          AND SO IN HEARING THAT WE WENT TO THAT MEETING WITH THE SUPERVISORS, WITH THE INTENTION OF COMING TOGETHER AND WE THOUGHT WE HAD IT. 
          UNFORTUNATELY, THE MLA THAT WAS SENT OVER 5 45 THIS EVENING TO THE COUNCIL FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, UM, AND THEN FORWARDED FROM A TOWN MATTER HICKS DID NOT STATE THAT. 
          IT SAID, IT SAID, UM, A LADDER OF 10 YEARS OR 60 DAYS, WHICH WAS THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE, SORRY, FIVE YEARS, SORRY, FIVE YEARS OR A 60 DAYS, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE, WHICH HAD SAID 10 YEARS. 
          UM, SO WE DIDN'T QUITE, WE DIDN'T QUITE MEET THAT. 
          UM, WE THINK THAT WE MAY HAVE A, UM, A WAY FORWARD BASED ON THE DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD WITH, UM, MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY THAT WE CAN, UH, DO SOMETHING A LITTLE DIFFERENT. 
          SO, UM, I'M GONNA LET, I'M NOT GONNA BE THE ONE SPEAKING TONIGHT. 
          I THINK THE OTHER FOLKS WANT TO SHARE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE POINTS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT AND OUR WAY FORWARD, ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON. 
          SO THE, THE VOTE THAT WAS SAID TO BE HAD THIS, THIS EVENING, THAT WE WERE ALL PLANNING ON AND I, I WAS PLANNING ON UNTIL, UNTIL THIS AFTERNOON WAS THAT WE WERE GOING TO VOTE ON THE MOA THAT WE AGREED TO BACK ON MARCH 3RD. 
          AND THAT, THAT MOA IS NOT BEFORE US, BUT CAME BACK AS A CHANGED MOA, BUT EVERYBODY CAN REVIEW THE AUDIO FROM THE, UH, MEETING THAT OCCURRED ON MARCH 3RD AND AT ONE HOUR AND SEVEN MINUTES, ZERO SECONDS. 
          THAT'S WHEN WE START TO VOTE TO VOTE AROUND THE TABLE TOWN AND COUNTY OFFICIALS TO, TO AGREE ON AN MOA THAT SAYS 60 DAYS OR FIVE YEARS. 
          BUT WHAT CAME BACK TO US THAT WE'VE REVIEWED IS 60 DAYS AFTER FIVE YEARS, WHICH IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. 
          AND SO, UM, WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THE OPTION OF, OF, UH, VOTING ON THE MOA THAT WAS AGREED TO ON THE THIRD. 
          UM, SO NOW THAT OPENS THE WHOLE DISCUSSION BACK UP AGAIN. 
          AND SO IF WE WANTED TO MOVE IT BACK TO THE COUNTY, WE WOULD HAVE TO SEND OUT, SEND BACK A DIFFERENT MOA, WHICH WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH MORE CONSIDERATION COMMUNITY THROUGH THE, UM, THE COUNTY. 
          SO THERE'S AN IMMEDIATE WAY FORWARD AND WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THE BUILDING COMMUNITY COMMUNITY, AND IN GOOD FAITH WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO INCORPORATE EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS AND CONCERNS INTO OUR APPROACH. 
          AND BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE HEARING IS THAT THE BIG SHOCK TO THE SYSTEM WAS THE, THE PRICE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THEY WERE GETTING FROM THE TOWN AND THE COUNTY. 
          [00:05:01]
AND SO I'VE, I'VE, UH, VOCALIZED WITH NUMBER OF PEOPLE, THE IDEA OF THE TOWN COMING IN AND PROVIDING A SUBSIDY TO HELP, UH, THE BUILDERS AND ANYBODY ELSE PULLING A PERMIT TO, UM, YOU KNOW, LIVE WITH THOSE COSTS. 
          AND SO WE CAN TALK TO THE COUNTY ABOUT A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO A PERMIT. 
          AND SO WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING AND WHERE WE'RE HOPING WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE, THE COMMUNITY IS A 50% SUBSIDY, UM, OF THE, UH, OF THE FEES THAT WE'RE, UH, THAT WE'VE BEEN PUTTING OUT THIRD PARTY, THIRD PARTY, THIRD PARTY INSPECTION, UM, WHICH WE THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS A, THE E UM, GENERAL CONSENSUS OF WHAT, WHAT WE HAD HEARD THAT, UM, IT WOULD, OF COURSE BE, UM, YOU KNOW, SUBJECT TO FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW LONG THAT SUBSIDY OCCURS. 
          IT WOULDN'T BE A PERMANENT SUBSIDY BUTTON. 
          BASICALLY THE DIFFERENCE WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH OUR PERCH TONIGHT WOULD BE THAT WHATEVER THE COSTS FOR THE INSPECTIONS ARE WHERE WE'RE MEETING HALF THOSE COSTS, WHAT ELSE? IT'S UNFORTUNATE. 
          I CAME TO THIS MEETING TONIGHT, FULLY IN PREPARATION, ANTICIPATING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE MOA TO SEND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT BACK TO THE COUNTY. 
          UM, BUT AS I'VE CONSISTENTLY SEEN OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS WITH MULTIPLE THINGS, UM, WE WERE EMAILED AT 4:45 PM TONIGHT BEFORE 7:00 PM MEETING, UM, BASICALLY SAYING HERE'S WHAT WE'RE WILLING TO DO, TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT. 
          AND IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH MANY BUILDERS IN THE COMMUNITY AND MANY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS IS THAT IF THE TOWN HAD LAUNCHED THEIR BUILDING DEPARTMENT IN AN EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE MANNER AND INCLUDED THE BUILDERS ASSOCIATION IN THIS CONVERSATION, THEY WOULD BE OPEN AND RECEPTIVE TO SUPPORTING IT. 
          UM, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I, THERE THERE'S TWO OPTIONS HERE TONIGHT. 
          WE CAN COUNTER WHAT THE COUNTY HAS SENT US AND SAID IS THE FINAL FROM THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, WHICH ONLY PROLONGED THE INEVITABLE AND KICKS THE CAN, OR WE CAN TAKE A VOTE HERE TONIGHT TO DO WHAT I SAID I HAD NEVER WANTED TO DO AND SUBSIDIZES PROGRAM TO THE BURDEN ON THE BUILDERS OF THE THIRD PARTY CONSULTATION AND INSPECTION FEES. 
          UM, AND SO IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT IT'S COME TO THIS, BUT, UM, THOSE ARE THE TWO OPTIONS THAT WE'RE FACED WITH HERE TONIGHT AT 10 30 AFTER WE HAD A VERY LONG MEETING, AS SCOTT MENTIONED THAT ONE HOUR AND SEVEN MINUTES ON THE COUNTY WEBSITE, YOU CAN SEE, WE HAD UNANIMOUS CONSENT BETWEEN THE TOWN AND COUNTY TO SEND IT BACK WITH A 60 DAY WRITTEN NOTICE FOR THE TOWN TO TAKE IT OVER AT SOME POINT, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN 60 DAYS FROM NOW, ONE YEAR OR FIVE YEARS FROM NOW. 
          UM, AND UNFORTUNATELY THAT SEEMS TO BE NO LONGER THE CASE JUST TO FOLLOW UP. 
          SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT YO-YOING BACK AND FORTH, CONSISTENCY OF AND TOPICS THAT WE HEARD, AND WE DID HEAR YOU, AND WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT THAT. 
          THAT'S ANOTHER, UM, ANOTHER ISSUE WITH THIS. 
          SO WE KICK IT BACK. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER NEGOTIATION ON THIS MOA, MORE PAPERWORK, MORE POLITICS, ALL THIS NONSENSE. 
          UM, OTHER THE OTHER DIRECTION IS, AS SCOTT SAID, WE CAN TAKE ACTION. 
          WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND WE CAN DO SOMETHING AND IT MAY NOT BE A PERFECT, I MAY NOT BE A BEAUTIFUL SOLUTION, BUT IT'S BETTER THAN JUST KICKING IT BACK AND PLAYING PING PONG WITH THE COUNTY ON IT. 
          UM, I REALLY THINK THAT WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL FIGURE SOMETHING OUT IN THE LONGER RUN. 
          UM, AND, AND AGAIN, I KNOW EVERYONE HERE AT THIS TABLE WANTS TO WORK WELL WITH THE COUNTY AND WE REALLY DO, UH, AND WE HOPE THAT RELATIONSHIP CONTINUES TO GROW. 
          UM, BUT FOR NOW WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE HEARD AND RESPONDING TO THAT AND ENSURING THAT WE'RE NOT PLAYING THIS BACK AND FORTH POLITICAL GAME. 
          SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'VE ASKED ONE PHYSICAL STUDENT AND I WANT IT TO COME HERE TONIGHT TOO. 
          AND I WAS GOING TO SEND IT BACK TO THE COUNTY AS WELL EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON, I ACTUALLY HAD A CONVERSATION SIMILAR TO THAT. 
          AND THEN LATER INTO THE EVENING, WE GOT THIS, LIKE, BASICALLY WE'RE NOT PLAYING ANY MORE. 
          LIKE WE'RE GONNA BOUNCE IT HERE. 
          IF WE BOUNCE IT BACK TO THEM, THEY'RE JUST GONNA BOUNCE IT BACK TO US AGAIN. 
          AND SO INSTEAD OF PLAYING THAT GAME, UM, WHERE DO YOU THINK THE COST, UM, HAVING PEOPLE AVAILABLE TO HAVE LIKE SOME WALK-IN CONVERSATIONS, THINGS LIKE THAT? CAUSE I HEARD AVAILABILITY WAS AN ISSUE. 
          UM, WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON THAT AS WELL, BUT I THINK REDUCING THE COST BY 50%, UM, GETS US CLOSER TO WHAT THE COUNTY IS DOING AND STOPS THE PING PONGING BACK AND FORTH AND KEEPS THE GUYS FROM BOUNCING BACK AND FORTH, OR JUST NOT KNOWING WHAT TO DO IT'S HAPPENED, UH, LAST TIME. 
          SO I THINK I'M GOING TO VOTE TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS WITH ALL OF THE SUBSIDIES AND THOSE SORT OF THINGS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED. 
          LASTLY, I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT I SPENT FRIDAY AFTERNOON CALLING 
          [00:10:01]
FAUQUIER COUNTY PAGE COUNTY, UH, PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, AS WELL AS A NUMBER OF OTHER COUNTIES. 
          AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALSO APPARENTLY OPENED A CAN OF WORMS AND THESE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE LIAISON THAT THE COUNTY IS GOING TO BE REVIEWING AND CHANGING THEIR FEE SCHEDULE, NO MATTER WHAT AS WELL. 
          UM, SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE OR WHAT'S TO COME FOR THE COUNTY, BUT I WILL ALSO ADD WITH THE CONVERSATION TONIGHT OF SUBSIDIZING THIS BUILDING DEPARTMENT, IT WOULD ALSO COME WITH THE CHANGE IN THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. 
          I THINK WE WERE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE WITH THAT PART OF THE AGREEMENT, THE BUILDING CODE OFFICIAL WOULD NOT BE THE TOWN MANAGER. 
          I THINK THAT THEY'RE SENDING MOVES, GOING TO GO LAST. 
          I AM FOR IT SENDING THIS BACK TO THE PANEL. 
          I THINK FIVE YEARS WILL GIVE US PLENTY OF TIME TO BE ABLE TO GET THE BUGS WORKED OUT. 
          UM, I THINK THE TOWN WOULD, WOULD BENEFIT TREMENDOUSLY FROM A BUILDING OR A MINT. 
          UM, RIGHT NOW THOUGH, UM, WE'RE STILL GOING TO BE A LOT OF THOSE FEES ARE STILL GONNA BE, I MEAN, THEY'RE GONNA SUBSIDIZE HALF OF THE INSPECTION FEES, BUT WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT, AT THE EROSION CONTROL FEES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT I SAID, AND I'M NOT GOING TO CHANGE MY STANCE AT THE LAST MEETING. 
          I THINK WE NEED TO GET WITH THE COUNTY AND OUR BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT HERE IN OUR, IN OUR COUNTY. 
          AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO BE TAXPAYERS FUNDING A WORK NUMBER. 
          HE WAS, IT JUST, WASN'T GOING TO LET OUR CITIZENS KNOW, I GUESS THE REASON I'M VOTING FOR SENDING THIS BACK WITH THE FIVE YEARS, UH, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE ALREADY, WE'RE ALREADY SPENDING TAXPAYER FUNDING ON HIRING THAT WE ALREADY DID IN SERVICE OF THE, UH, BUILDING DEPARTMENT, WHICH, UH, YOU KNOW, IT WAS VOTED ON UNANIMOUSLY, BUT IT DID COME TO A VOTE. 
          UM, AND SO WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THE OPTION OF, OF COMPLETE SAVINGS OF A TAXPAYER OF FUNDING THAT WE COULD HAVE HAD. 
          AND ACTUALLY WE WE'VE DISCUSSED THE EXPENSE OF SENDING IT BACK TO THE CALENDAR AND THAT IN THE END ENDS UP BEING MORE EXPENSIVE THAN JUST SENDING IT BACK TO THE COUNTY, HIRING UP AT THE TOWN AND THEN TAKING IT BACK, WHICH IS WHAT EVERYBODY HAD DISCUSSED. 
          IF WE DO THAT, THAT ENDS UP PITT SPENT, EXCUSE ME, COSTING MORE THAN THE 50% SUBSIDY STARTING NOW. 
          AND SO IT MAKES MOST ECONOMIC SENSE TO, TO CONTINUE FOR, UM, WITH IN THE WAY THAT WE'VE DESCRIBED. 
          UM, IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT ALL THIS CONFUSION OVER THE TERM, OKAY. 
          BACK TO THE COUNTY. 
          OH, SORRY, GARY, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU W AS IT, SO SENDING IT BACK TO THE SAME BACK TO THE COUNTY, BUT THERE'S NOBODY HERE WHO IS THIS HERE'S, UM, CONSIDERING LIKE LEAVING IT OUT THE COUNTY, EVERYBODY WHO HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT SAYING IT BACK TO THE COUNTY UNTIL WE CAN GET OUR DUCKS IN A ROW AT THE, AT THE TOWN LEVEL, WHICH, YOU KNOW, THAT DISCUSSION HAS ENTAILED HIRING UP BEFORE WE BRING IT BACK TO THE, TO THE TOWN. 
          AND IF WE DO THAT, THEN THAT ENDS UP COSTING MORE MONEY THAN, UM, THAN JUST, UH, IMPLEMENTING THE SUBSIDIES IMMEDIATELY CAN ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED AND FACING THOSE PROBLEMS INDIVIDUALLY, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE PLANNING ON DOING. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYONE ELSE? YEAH. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, SO I, AND I'VE SHARED BEFORE I REALLY STRUGGLED WITH THIS BECAUSE WHEN NICK, WHEN WE FIRST, INITIALLY JUST GOT THIS, WE SAT DOWN OR THE IDEA WAS THAT THIS APARTMENT WAS GOING TO MAKE THINGS MORE EFFICIENT. 
          UM, AND WE WANTED, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE BUSINESS AND GROWTH AND, AND THINGS IN THE TOWN. 
          AND WE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THE COUNTY, WE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THAT ARE, THOSE NEEDS WERE BEING MET AND THE COUNTY GOING TO BURNT MY LEGS. 
          THEY SHED TOO. 
          THAT WAS THE STRUGGLE. 
          UM, ALSO A STRUGGLE OF, YOU KNOW, WHERE'S THE MONEY GONNA COME FROM BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I, I REALLY WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF SOMETHING. 
          I'D BEEN A PROGRAM. 
          ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MR  SAID EARLIER, I'M GOING TO HOLD EVERYBODY TO. 
          AND THAT IS THAT IF WE WERE TO TRUST THAT I'VE BEEN FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, THAT THE PLAN WOULD 
          [00:15:01]
BE TO EVENTUALLY NOT BE, NOT BE UP. 
          SO I THINK THIS DEPARTMENT, UM, SO AT THIS POINT IN THE MEETING, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS CLEAR THAT THE IDEAS THAT, THAT MATER EMPEROR IS ALL THAT, THAT IS, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'RE DOING THIS TO GET UP AND RUNNING, TO BE EFFICIENT WITH THE PLAN THAT EVENTUALLY, UM, THE FEES WOULD, HOWEVER, UM, THE DEPARTMENT. 
          AND THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY WAY THAT I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS IS KNOWING THAT THERE IS A N GOALS AND HOBBIES NOT BEING MET BECAUSE WE'RE ALL VERY FRUSTRATED. 
          THE FACT THAT IT'S BEEN, UM, SO SIGNIFICANT TO ME ALREADY BY THE, AT THE COUNTY LEVEL. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO OFFER. 
          UM, I THOUGHT SOMEBODY WAS GOING TO DISCUSS ABOUT HOW MANY APPLICANTS WE HAD HAD, AND, AND UP TO THIS, AND THE FACT THAT WE'VE HAD VERY LITTLE  LAUREN, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? UM, SO TO DATE, WE'VE HAD ABOUT 69 PERMITS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE SYSTEM. 
          WE'VE HAD THREE FORMAL COMPLAINTS, UM, INCLUDING, SO, UH, MR. OAKS AND A FEW OTHERS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED, UH, YOUR BUILDING PERMITS BEEN ISSUED, DO YOU NOT HAVE A STAMPED APPROVED SET OF PLANS? UM, AND THEN THERE, THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH AMP THAT ONE HAS BEEN RESOLVED, AND THERE'S ANOTHER, THAT'S PENDING THE DISCUSSION WITH ECS REGARDING THE TIMING WE HAVE. 
          NO, I KNOW MR. LEWIS IS AN ATTORNEY, BUT YOU ALL DONE AN AWFUL LOT OF DISCUSSION HERE THAT DID COME UNDER THAT FREEDOM OF, OF CLOSED SESSION IS I WOULD PERCEIVE IT. 
          AND I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY. 
          THERE'S AN AWFUL LOT OF DISCUSSIONS TAKING PLACE HERE THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN TAKING PLACE IN THAT CLOSED SESSION. 
          I THINK IT FELL UNDER, LET ME DO A SESSION, WAS TALKING ABOUT PERSONNEL AND WE'RE ABOUT READY. 
          YOU'LL SEE ALL THIS DISCUSSION. 
          YOU'LL SEE HOW AT THE END, HOW IT'S ALL GOING TO WRAP AROUND FROM THE PERSONNEL ISSUES OF HOW THIS IS APPLIED. 
          SO, OKAY. 
          NO ATTORNEY HERE TO VERIFY THAT YOU'LL FIND, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS MOTION. 
          ORIGINAL MOTION, ORIGINAL MOTION. 
          I DON'T, I DON'T MIND HERE FOR MR. KLEIN. 
          SO, UM, MS. BRESLIN, WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, UH, MR. MAYOR, I MEAN, UH, SOMEBODY HAS THEIR HAND RAISED IN THE, IN THE REAR, WHICH IS WHY, I GUESS HE PROBABLY CAN'T SEE THAT. 
          NO. 
          UM, I THINK WITH THE MOTION THAT IS ON THE FLOOR, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT IS THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR? AGAIN, THE, TO AGREE TO THE MOA THAT WAS SENT OVER BY THE COUNTY IN YOUR PACKET, BUT THERE WILL, YEAH, YOU, YEAH. 
          YOU'LL NEED A VOTE ON THIS MOTION AND THEN WE'LL HAVE TO CREATE ANOTHER MOTION AFTER YOU VOTE ON THIS. 
          AND I'LL SHARE WITH YOU WHAT THAT OTHER ONE NEED TO BE DONE AS PART OF THE CLOSED SESSION DISCUSSION. 
          WELL, I BELIEVE SOMEBODY SAID YES, WHEN MR. SWEET, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT PING PONG AND BACK AND FORTH. 
          UM, AND QUITE FRANKLY, THE COUNTY IS DOING THE EXACT SAME THING YOU OFF. 
          I MEAN, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO LOOK AT IT, THE PING PONG. 
          AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE ON FRIDAY, SOMEBODY FROM HERE SEND ANOTHER AGREEMENT OVER TO THE COUNTY WHO DID THAT? I DID, IT WAS PART OF THE PACKAGE NOW TO COUNCIL TO SHOW THEM WHAT'S IN THE PACKAGE. 
          WE'VE HAD AN AGREEMENT THAT YOU SENT BRAD. 
          HE HAD ONE YEAR ON IT. 
          IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT DISAGREEMENT. 
          WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE HERE. 
          I KNOW THAT WE FORWARD OVER TO, TO THE COUNTY, THE SAME AGENDA PACKAGE THAT WENT OUT. 
          I HAVEN'T SEEN A ONE YEAR. 
          I CAN PROBABLY PRODUCE THAT FOR YOU TOMORROW. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO THE PAIN TOM, IN, QUITE FRANKLY, ALL YOU ALL ARE ALL PING PONG STUFF. 
          THEY'VE PING PONG STUFF. 
          AND IT'S JUST A DIRECT RETALIATION. 
          WHEN WE LEFT THE MEETING THAT OTHER NIGHT, WE WERE ALL UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT FRIDAY MORNING WE COULD DO INSPECTIONS, 
          [00:20:01]
MR. BEING MAST FOR MONDAY, YOUR TOWN MANAGER, OVERRULED THAT HE MIGHT'VE CALLED HIM MR. DAILY, ACCORDING TO MR. DALEY AND SAID THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO UNTIL YOU ALL HAVE VOTED ON IT. 
          THAT WAS NOT THE AGREEMENT. 
          AND I SAID, THAT'S, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, YOU RENEGED ON YOUR AGREEMENT. 
          ALL THIS COULD HAVE BEEN VOTED ON BASED OFF THAT ORIGINAL READING ON THURSDAY NIGHT AND IT WAS NOT RIGHT. 
          AND SO IN ANOTHER EXTRA WEEK, WE'VE DONE CHANGED IT ALL AGAIN. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WHOEVER REPRESENTED TO THE GROUP, I MEAN, I DON'T, I DON'T REALLY KNOW, BUT WHAT, IT'S YOUR JOB TO OUR IMPRESSION, OUR IMPRESSION THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AS ON THE, ON THE MONDAY THING WAS NOT, WAS NOT LEGAL BECAUSE IT REQUIRED AN EXTRA VOTE THAT I WAS NOT AWARE OF. 
          UM, AND I DON'T KNOW WHO WAS AWARE OF IT. 
          I DOUBT THAT ANYBODY IN THE ROOM WAS AWARE OF IT. 
          DO YOU SEE PEOPLE WERE IN THE ROOM? STEVEN WAS THERE. 
          I, EVEN, WHEN THERE WAS WEDNESDAY, I SENT AN EMAIL FRIDAY EVENING AFTER THE THURSDAY MEETING AND SAID, I FELT LIKE I HAD DECEIVED EVERYONE BECAUSE THEY STOOD UP AND MR. STOUT SAID, I'VE GOTTEN 10 PERMITS. 
          I'M COMING TO YOU MONDAY MORNING. 
          AND WE ALL LAUGHED AND SAID, OH YEAH, LET'S GET TO WORK. 
          AND WE ADJOURNED. 
          I WILL SPEAK MR. KLEIN TO YOUR STANCE ABOUT PING-PONG AT THIS POINT TONIGHT IN THIS MEETING, I MEAN, I WOULD BE IGNORANT NOT TO HAVE TAKEN ALL OF YOUR FEEDBACK, ALL OF THE BUILDER'S FEEDBACK, ALL OF COUNCIL'S FEEDBACK, ALL OF THE COUNTY'S FEEDBACK AND MADE A DECISION TO ACT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER TONIGHT, BECAUSE IF WE SEND THE MOA BACK, NOTHING CHANGES, NOTHING GETS DONE. 
          SO I WILL SAY, I FEEL LIKE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IRRESPONSIBLE OF ME TO NOT MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THE INFORMATION, PROBABLY THE PROVIDED THE DATE. 
          I WILL SAY THERE ARE COMMUNICATIONS HAPPENING, APPARENTLY THAT COUNCIL, OR MAYBE JUST ME ARE UNAWARE OF. 
          SO, UM, THANK YOU FOR THE CONVERSATION. 
          SO, AND WHILE IT'S MY JOB, I MEAN, UNLESS I AM AS A CONSTITUENT FOIL, ALL THE COMMUNICATIONS, I DON'T KNOW, I'VE ASKED AT EVERY MEETING TO PLEASE BE COPIED. 
          UM, I BELIEVE RYAN, YOU SENT AN EMAIL, UH, UH, ADDRESSED TO TOWN COUNCIL AND MAYOR, AND THAT WAS FORWARDED TO ME BY A PRIVATE CITIZEN. 
          I NEVER GOT THAT EMAIL. 
          SO I'M SORRY FOR NOT RESPONDING TO THAT. 
          BUT I WENT IN MONDAY MORNING TO CHANGE FIVE TOWNS PERMIT EVER TO A COUNTY PERMIT PULLED UP, STARTED WELL, TWO, AND THEN I COME UP HERE AND I GET STONEWALLED AND I'M NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK TO ANYBODY. 
          THAT'S THE REASON WHY I SENT THE EMAIL. 
          I DIDN'T GET HER EMAIL EITHER THOUGH. 
          SO I'M SORRY THAT I HAVEN'T RESPONDED TO THAT. 
          I DIDN'T GET YOUR EMAIL, A PRIVATE CITIZEN. 
          UM, AT THE, AT THE END OF LAST WEEK, FORWARDED IT TO ME TO ASK ME IF I'D SEEN IT. 
          MY EMAIL WAS SENT TO THE TOWN COUNCIL, THE TOWN MANAGER, TINA LAUREN, AND MONICA, DOWN AT THE PERMIT OFFICE. 
          SO THE OPTION OF STUDYING ABOUT THE, THE ACCOUNTING, UM, YOU WOULD HAVE, IT WOULD BE ACCORDING TO THE AGREEMENT THAT WE HAD ON, ON THAT THURSDAY NIGHT, WHICH WE UNDERSTAND WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY REJECTED BY THE COUNTY BECAUSE THE FIVE-YEAR THING IS A STICKING POINT FOR THE COUNTY. 
          SO WE HAVE THE OPTION OF ACTUALLY ACTING OR PUTTING ON A SHOW AND I'VE GOT A, I'VE GOT TO, UM, LET'S SEE, I'M READING THE SAME AGREEMENTS YOU GOT. 
          AND TO ME, THE 1, 1 20, 27 SHOULDN'T EVEN, IT DOESN'T EVEN NEED TO BE IN THERE, RIGHT? SO IT'S SAYING THE LEADER OF 69, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THE LAKE BOOK, WE GOT A NEW ONE AT 4 45, THE SAME ONE. 
          SO IF YOU LOOK BEFORE A 1, 1 27 SAYS THE LATER OF WHAT NEEDS TO BE, THAT'S, WHAT'S DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE WERE THINKING. 
          SO IF WE , AFTER AT THAT THURSDAY NIGHT MEETING, WE SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED THAT TERM AND THAT WAS TAKEN OUT AND DON'T TELL HIM THAT ALL THAT MR. MESA WAS ABSENT I GRADE. 
          AND THAT'S THE TERM THAT HAS COME BACK, WHICH IT MEANS WHAT WE WERE EXPLAINED TO. 
          IT MEANS THAT IT'S FIVE YEARS AND THEN WE CAN KEEP IT GOING. 
          OR WE THEN AFTER THE FIVE-YEAR WE HAVE 60 DAYS. 
          AND WHAT WE AGREED TO IN THAT MEETING WITH THE COUNTY SUPERVISORS WAS THAT WE COULD, AT SOME POINT, NOT SAYING TOMORROW, WE'RE GOING TO SAY 60 DAYS, BUT IT GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY THAT WITHIN SIX, YOU KNOW, MAYBE 16 MONTHS OR 15 MONTHS OR A YEAR THAT WE COULD THEN SAY, WE'RE READY. 
          WE'VE HAD THESE NEGOTIATIONS. 
          WE DECIDED THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO FORWARD. 
          WE COULD THEN BRING IT BACK AND, AND EXECUTE AGAIN. 
          BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S FIVE YEARS OR NOTHING. 
          [00:25:05]
AND WE DON'T PLAY HAD THE GAMES NOT BEING PLAYED LAST WEEK. 
          YEAH. 
          I, DON'T WHY THAT'S SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND. 
          IT'S A, IT'S A BIG, IT'S A BIG SHOT OR A BIG GAME BETWEEN HICKS AND DAILY. 
          RIGHT NOW. 
          IT'S JUST A, IT'S A POWER STRUGGLE. 
          IT'S WHO'S GOT THE BIGGEST MUSCLES AND HAD IT BEEN PUT THROUGH WHEN IT WAS DECIDED ON, WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE TO MIND. 
          LET ME JUST ASK YOU DIRECTLY. 
          DO YOU, DO YOU THINK, AND AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO DO THE BEST THING THAT WE CAN DO TO TAKE ACTION AND MOVE FORWARD. 
          WE CAN EITHER DO THAT AND SUBSIDIZE WHICH AGAIN, WE'RE, WE'RE WILLING TO BASICALLY BRING OUR RATES DOWN FOR THIRD-PARTY, UH, WHICH WAS THE BIGGEST ISSUE THAT WE HAD HEARD TO BRING THOSE DOWN, OR WE CAN PLAY THE POLITICAL GAME AND WE CAN VOTE THIS FORWARD. 
          AND IT'S GOING TO GO BACK TO THE COUNTY AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE MORE TIME. 
          I MEAN, I W WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE US DO IN THIS SITUATION? I MEAN, HONESTLY, THIS IS HONESTLY, I'LL TELL YOU, WHY DID WE WANT TO PAY MORE FOR OUR PERMIT FEES AND OUR REVIEW FEES AND WHAT WE'RE PAYING ON REDDIT? WHY DON'T YOU WANT TO DO WELL, TWO THINGS, SOME OF THE FEEDBACK I HAVE GOTTEN SAYS, IF WE WERE TO SUBSIDIZE IT TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY A SLIGHTLY HIGHER COST FOR A FASTER TURN TIME. 
          I DIDN'T GET A FASTER TURNAROUND FASTER. 
          AND THEN THE SECOND FEEDBACK THAT I'VE GOTTEN, UM, IS THAT THE COUNTY FROM HERE IS GOING TO BE CHANGING THEM AS WELL. 
          SO IF WE HAD 60 DAYS NOTICE AND THEY CHANGED THEIRS IN THE NEXT YEAR, WE COULD COMPETE WITH THEM AT SOME POINT, BUT THIS KIND OF THE 10% ON THE RATE FEES WITHOUT, WITHOUT THE, UH, REVIEW FEES AND THE INSPECTION FEES, YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO COMPETE WITH THEM. 
          THEY'RE ALWAYS GOING TO BE LESS THE, THE CONVERSATIONS I HAVE WITH ALL THE SURROUNDING COUNTIES, IF THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO DO WHAT THEY SAID IN THAT MEETING THAT NIGHT AND MIRROR OTHER LOCALITIES IN VIRGINIA, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE 10%. 
          AND AGAIN WE ARE, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE WE SAT THERE FOR HOURS THAT NIGHT IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY, IT WAS LIKE A WASTE OF TIME TO CHANGE THE TERMS AT THE END OF IT. 
          WELL, IT'S OBVIOUS YOU'RE GOING TO DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO, AND WE'RE GOING TO DO WHAT WE NEED. 
          THANKS, MAN. 
          OKAY. 
          THE MOTIONS ON THE TABLE TO APPROVE THE MOA BETWEEN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND TOWN COUNCIL TO PROMOTE SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT AND CURRENT LOYAL REGARDING THE BUILDING CODE ENFORCEMENT WITH ONE REVISIONS, NUMBER FIVE OF THE MOA THAT THE AGREEMENT WOULD CONTINUE UNTIL JANUARY 1, 20, 27, OR IT CAN BE TERMINATED. 
          FOLLOWING 60 DAY WRITTEN NOTICE FROM THE TOWN TO THE COUNTY. 
          I FURTHER MOVED AT COUNCIL RESEND RESOLUTIONS FOR JUNE 1ST, 2021, DECEMBER 13TH, 2021 STUDENTS. 
          FIRST, DECEMBER 13TH, 2021 FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE ACTING BUILDING OFFICIAL AND DECEMBER 13TH, 2021 ON FULL RECORD EXECUTION OF THE MOA FROM THE TOWN COUNCIL AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, VICE MAYOR, COCKREL ABSTAIN. 
          UM, I BELIEVE I THOUGHT I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PASS A CUT BACK TO YOU. 
          LET ME JUST CLARIFY THIS NOTION, BECAUSE WE DISCUSSED SO MUCH TIME. 
          THIS MOTION IS DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOING TO THEN BE ON THE WAY BACK TO THE COUNTY WITH THE LANGUAGE AS IT'S WRITTEN. 
          THE ONE WE GOT HERE AT 4 45 TODAY. 
          NO,  YEAH, THIS IS AS WE, SORRY, IT'S, WE'RE SENDING IT BACK. 
          UH, WE'RE AGREEING TO THE, AS IT WAS APPROVED, AS WE AGREED AT THAT MEETING ON THURSDAY, WHICH ALLOWS FOR THE 60 DAY WRITTEN NOTICE FROM THE TOWN TO THE COUNTY. 
          SO ESSENTIALLY WE'RE GOING BACK TO ONE HOUR AND SEVEN MINUTES AND ZERO SECONDS OR WHATEVER TIME IT WAS THAT WE ALL CAME TO CONSENSUS AND WE'RE SENDING IT BACK WHERE WE'RE NOT SENDING IT BACK. 
          WE'RE AGREEING TO WHAT WE AGREED TO TWO WEEKS AGO. 
          YEAH, THIS IS THE ORIGINAL MOS. 
          BUT WHEN WE GOT AT 4 45, 400, LET ME, LET ME HELP CLARIFY THE MOTION YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW, COUNCIL MEMBERS IS VOTED UP OR DOWN. 
          THEN THERE'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER MOTION THAT SAYS I MOVE THE COUNCIL 
          [00:30:01]
APPROVES, UH, RESENDING THE APPOINTING OF THE ACTING, BUILDING OFFICIAL STEVEN HICKS AND APPOINTING JOHN, WHERE AS THE ACTING BUILDING OFFICIAL. 
          SO THERE'LL BE TWO. 
          YOU NEED TO VOTE THIS ONE DOWN IF THAT'S WHAT YOU ALL WANT. 
          AND I THINK, AND THEN FROM THERE, THERE'LL BE ANOTHER, A MOTION TO APPOINT TO RESEND ME AS THE AGREEMENT ON THE AGREEMENT. 
          ONE OF THE PACKETS, WHICH IS NOT THE ONE WE RECEIVED AT FOUR 40 GRASS. 
          RIGHT. 
          LAURIE, DIDN'T YOU UNDERSTAND? NOW YOU NEED TO READ, YES. 
          IT'S A VOTE FOR THE ORIGINAL ONE THAT WE AGREED ON AT THE LIAISON MEETING. 
          YES. 
          BUT THE ONE THAT WAS IN OUR PACKET, THE ONE THAT WAS IN OUR PACKET, WAS IT CLEAR THAT WE DID NOT HAVE TO WAIT FIVE YEARS? YES. 
          THE ONE IN OUR PACKET HAD THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE THAT WE AGREED ON THURSDAY AT THE LIAISON MEETING. 
          SHE HAS ARMS. I'M STILL LEARNING THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU GOT, UM, IF I COULD I ACTUALLY HAVE A THOUGHT? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          I, WELL, BEFORE THIS, SO, UH, SOMETHING THAT'S, THAT'S CHANGED RECENTLY AS OF MARCH 2ND, IS THAT I SEE MYSELF HAVING BUSINESS BEFORE THIS, UM, WHICHEVER PERMIT, ALL PERMITTING OFFICE THAT WE, WE ENDED UP HAVING. 
          UM, NOW I'M JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE AS A DISCLOSURE. 
          I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING CURRENTLY BEFORE EITHER, UM, OFFICE, BUT I JUST WANT TO BE CAUTIOUS IN MY, SO, UH, SO THIS IS THE, YEAH, I DON'T KNOW. 
          I MEAN, IN THE, IN THE PAST 20, 30 MINUTES, I'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH ON, ON THIS VERY ISSUE BECAUSE I MEAN, REALLY THAT WAS THE AGREEMENT THAT WE HAD THURSDAY, AND THAT WAS WHAT EVERYBODY WAS HAPPY WITH. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, I REALLY, IF I WERE GOING TO BE GOING FORWARD WITH, WITH THE TOWN SUBSIDY PLAN, THEN I WOULD BE JUST ASSUMING THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT, UM, THERE WAS SOMETHING TO THAT CHANGE AS OF THIS AFTERNOON, BUT REALLY, I DON'T KNOW WHY THE TERMS WERE DIFFERENT. 
          AND SO WE ADDED AN AGREEMENT ON THURSDAY, THIS PASS LEADS TO THAT REMIT THAT WE HAD ON THURSDAY. 
          AND SO I THINK THAT MY VOTE IS, YES, I DIDN'T ANTICIPATE THAT BEING MY, MY VOTE AS OF JUST 20 MINUTES AGO, BUT I GOT TO GO WITH WHAT I THINK IT IN AS WELL. 
          SO YEAH. 
          YES. 
          THAT'S ALL IN WARS. 
          I JUST HAVE TO ADD THAT. 
          I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE GOOD INTENT AND THIS VOTE, HOWEVER, IT'S GOING TO BE KICKED BACK AND UNPRODUCTIVE. 
          HOWEVER, IT IS WHAT I ORIGINALLY READ UPON AND I WILL NOT RENAGEL THAT. 
          AND MY VOTE IS YES. 
          YEAH. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          MOTION PASSES, LDA AGREES, NO FURTHER BUSINESS MEETING A GERMAN.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.