* 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. WORK SESSION FOR [00:00:01] MONDAY, MAY 11TH TO ORDER . CAN WE DO A ROLL CALL? MAYOR COCKRELL. HERE. VICE MAYOR AL. HERE. COUNCIL MEPA? HERE. COUNCILMAN INGRAM? HERE. COUNCILMAN REPPORT? HERE. COUNCILMAN LOC? HERE. COUNCILMAN WOOD HERE. IS THERE FIRST. OUR FIRST ITEM TONIGHT IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND IT'S ON THE FY 26 27 PROPOSED ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE. I UNDERSTAND THAT NO ONE HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. UH, IS THERE ANYONE THAT PLANS TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS ITEM THAT PROPOSED ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE? IF, IF SO, I HAVE SOME OTHER THINGS I HAVE TO READ SO NOBODY PLANS TO SPEAK. ALRIGHT, SO I'VE READ THE TITLE. UM, THE SUMMARY IS COUNSEL'S REQUESTED TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE TOWN'S PROPOSED ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 26 27. COUNCIL WILL VOTE TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED FI 26 27 APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE AT THE MAY 26 MEETINGS. THAT'S THE SUMMARY. I'M GONNA OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. HILLARY, NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, RIGHT. ONE MORE CHANCE AND MAY WISH TO SPEAK. OKAY. I AM GONNA CLOSE THE HEARING, PUBLIC HEARING AND, UM, OPEN IT UP TO COUNSEL. NO, WE DON'T JUST DIRECT, THERE IS NO MOTION. 'CAUSE WE'RE GONNA MAKE THE MOTION ON MAY 26TH. YEAH, THIS WAS JUST AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK IN THE PUBLIC DIDN WANT SPEAK. SO WE'RE GUESS WE'RE GOOD, RIGHT? SO GUESS WHAT? GIVE US LIKE ONE MINUTE SO WE CAN ALL GET OURSELVES BACK TO WHERE WE SIT FOR WORK SESSIONS. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE ALL BACK TOGETHER NOW. RIGHT? THANK YOU FOR PATIENCE. THIS AUDIENCE THERE. SO, UH, UM, ITEM NUMBER THREE IS A PRESENTATION ON THE ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE OPTION. UM, AND I DO JUST WANNA MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT. THIS WAS ON OUR AGENDA. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DATA CENTERS, APPARENTLY THAT'S WHAT'S ON SOCIAL MEDIA, THAT SOMEHOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WATER BECAUSE OF THAT. AND IF ANYBODY'S BEEN FOLLOWING THE TOWN COUNCIL FOR THE LAST COUPLE YEARS, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT AND, UH, AND HAVING OUR CONSULTANT COME AND PROVIDE US INFORMATION. AND THIS IS LITERALLY JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT. SO YES, THAT'S CORRECT, MADAM MAYOR. YES. SO IN FEBRUARY, 2025, CHA PRESENTED, YOU KNOW, UM, VARIOUS OPTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCES. SO THIS IS A FOLLOW UP ON THAT DISCUSSION ON ONE OF THOSE PARTICULAR OPTIONS. UM, WE'RE AT, WE HAVE SANDY HERE FROM CHA TO PRESENT, UM, ON THE CORY OPTION. AND THEN FOLLOWING THIS MEETING, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS KIND OF THIS MORE HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW. THERE MIGHT BE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS THAT COUNSEL MAY WANT TO HAVE TO THEN COMPARE SOME OF THE PREVIOUS ALTERNATIVES THAT YOU SAW BACK IN FEBRUARY OF LAST YEAR. SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO SANDY. THANK YOU. YEAH, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THIS UPDATE. SO THIS IS AN UPDATE, A HIGH LEVEL UPDATE LOOKING AT THE QUARRY, ONE OF THE LOCAL QUARRIES AS A POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE. SO IF YOU WANNA GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. SO WE DID A HIGH LEVEL LOOK AT THE QUARRY AND TRY TO TO LOOK AT, SEE WHAT MIGHT, UH, RULE IT OUT OR WHAT MIGHT MAKE IT IDEAL. SO WE LOOKED AT THE SITE CHARACT CHARACTERISTICS. HAVING A GREAT WATER SOURCE 20 MILES AWAY FROM WHERE YOUR PEOPLE ARE IS NOT AS CONVENIENT AS HAVING ONE CLOSE BY. SO WE LOOKED AT THE PROXIMITY TO THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND HOW EASY IT WAS TO ACCESS THE SITE. THEN WE TOOK A LOOK AT THE SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS AND WE TOOK A SAMPLE AND DID AN ESTIMATE OF WHAT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO TAKE OUT OF THAT QUARRY ON A REGULAR BASIS. SO WHAT THE YIELD MIGHT BE. AND THEN FINALLY WE LOOKED AT A COUPLE DIFFERENT OPTIONS, TWO DIFFERENT OPTIONS TO BE ABLE TO, UM, INTEGRATE THAT WATER SOURCE INTO YOUR TREATMENT SYSTEM OR, UM, INTO YOUR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. NEXT SLIDE. SO THE PROXIMITY IS A GOOD PROXIMITY. WE LOOKED AT THIS QUARRY THAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIVER, UH, FROM, UH, AND IT PREVIOUSLY WAS A SHALE QUARRY AND IS NO LONGER IN USE. AND, UM, IT'S LESS THAN A THOUSAND FEET FROM EXISTING WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN. SO THE, IT IS A GOOD LOCATION. IT IS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO WHERE YOU ALREADY HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE AND THERE ARE ABANDONED [00:05:01] QUARRY ROADS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO ACCESS THE SITE. SO THAT KIND OF CHECKED THAT BOX. NEXT SLIDE. WE TOOK AN INITIAL SAMPLE AND THERE'S SOME NUMBERS HERE, UM, THAT AREN'T MEANT TO MAKE IT COMPLICATED, BUT ESSENTIALLY WE LOOKED AT A LONGER LIST THAN THIS. THESE WERE THE ONLY THINGS THAT WERE DETECTED. AND WHEN WE COMPARE THEM TO WHAT WOULD BE A DRINKING WATER STANDARD, UM, THEY'RE ALL BELOW THOSE STANDARDS. WITH THE EXCEPTION, AND IT MAY NOT BE ON THIS LIST, THERE WAS COLIFORM BACTERIA, UH, DETECTED. THAT'S A VERY STANDARD THING. IF YOU GO TO YOUR CURRENT WATER SOURCE BEFORE IT'S TREATED, UH, IT WOULD HAVE COLIFORM BACTERIA IN IT JUST FROM, UH, WILDLIFE AND WHATEVER ELSE MAY BE A PART OF THAT. SO THAT WAS REALLY THE ONLY THING THAT WE SAW. WE DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING THAT WOULD INITIALLY RULE IT OUT, UH, TO BE PARTICULARLY CHALLENGING OR, UM, CONTAMINATED. SO, UM, AND THEN BASED ON OUR CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE, WE DIDN'T DO A PUMPING TEST OR ANYTHING. WE LOOKED AT HISTORICAL PUMPING RECORDS. WE LOOKED AT CURRENT PUMPING RECORDS. WE LOOKED AT, UM, HISTORICAL PUMPING RECORDS OF THE, THE OLD QUARRY AND THEN THE CURRENT, ONE OF THE ONE ACROSS THE WAY ACROSS THE RIVER AND A CONSERVATIVE YALE WOULD BE ABOUT A MILLION GALLONS A DAY. AND THAT WOULD BE WHAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO EXTRACT. UM, UNLIKE A RIVER, IT'S PERMITTED A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY AND YOU'RE NOT LIMITED TO ONLY TAKING OUT A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE TO ALLOW FOR WATER TO CONTINUE DOWNSTREAM. UH, THE QUARRY IS JUST A SET, YOU KNOW, JUST UPON IT DOESN'T HAVE A DOWNSTREAM. SO, UH, AGAIN, A MILLION GALLONS A DAY IS WHAT WE ESTIMATED YOU COULD PUMP OUT OF IT. I'M, I'M JUST GONNA SAY, UH, BECAUSE MY OWN SELF IS THAT I'M JUST GONNA STOP A LITTLE BIT AND JUST, IS ANYBODY ANY QUESTIONS UP UNTIL NOW? OF COURSE. YEAH. I JUST, I DO, BUT I'M JUST GONNA WAIT. YOU SURE? YEAH. 'CAUSE THE NEXT ONE'S QUESTIONS . OKAY. ALRIGHT. SORRY, SORRY, SORRY. OKAY, ONE MORE SLIDE PLEASE. SO WE LOOKED AT THE TWO DIFFERENT OPTIONS. UM, ONE WOULD BE TO PUMP TO YOUR EXISTING WATER TREATMENT PLANT. SO TO TAKE THAT WATER, PUMP IT TO YOUR PLANT, AND THEN HAVE IT, TREAT IT IN THE PLANT AND HAVE IT, UM, AND THEN HAVE IT GOING THROUGH YOUR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. FROM THERE, IT'S ABOUT 20,000 LINEAR FEET OF WATER MAIN THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED. UH, AND THAT INCLUDES TWO RAILROAD CROSSINGS AND A STREAM CROSSINGS. AND THAT MAKES IT A, UH, MORE COST PROHIBITIVE THAN OPTION TWO, WHICH WOULD BE TO BUILD A SMALL ONSITE MEMBRANE TREATMENT PLANT THAT WOULD JUST TREAT THAT MILLION GALLONS A DAY AND THEN THAT WATER WOULD BE FED DIRECTLY INTO THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, UH, YOU KNOW, 2000 FEET AWAY. UM, SO AGAIN, THAT MINIMIZES, UH, THE AMOUNT OF NEW WATER VEIN AND NEW INFRASTRUCTURE, UH, THE GEOGRAPHIC FOOTPRINT I GUESS, OF THAT NEW INFRASTRUCTURE. SO OPTION TWO IS THE CHEAPER OPTION TWO, RIGHT NOW LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD BE THE CHEAPER OPTION. ARE THERE ANY ESTIMATES? SO THE ESTIMATES ARE STILL PRETTY HIGH LEVEL BECAUSE THAT'S, WE WERE MORE OF LIKE A HIGH LEVEL ANALYSIS. SO OPTION TWO WE ESTIMATED BETWEEN SEVEN AND $10 MILLION. AND OPTION ONE WAS BETWEEN 15 AND 20. AND THAT, THAT WOULD JUST INCLUDE THE COST OF TREATING IT, TREATING IT, PUMPING IT, PUTTING IN THE INTAKE. IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY, UM, WHAT WAS OPTION ONE? THE COST ESTIMATE, 15 TO 20 MILLION. SO I ASSUME BY HAVING THIS, UM, CONVERSATION, BECAUSE THE LAST COUNCIL LEFT OFF, WE WERE UNSURE IF THE QUARRY WAS A VIABLE OPTION DUE TO THE SALE OF THE QUARRY. SO I GUESS THAT CONVERSATION'S NOW BEEN HAD SINCE WE'RE DISCUSSING WHAT WE CAN DO WITH IT. THEY'RE OPEN TO NEGOTIATING. THEY WERE, THEY ARE AWARE THAT WE ARE REVIEWING THIS AS AN ALTERNATIVE WATER AND THEY ALLOWED US TO COME ON TYPE 10, SAMPLE IT. WELL, ALLOWING US TO DO THAT VERSUS BEING WILLING TO PART WITH IT ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. WE SAMPLED MCKAY SPRINGS BUT WE'RE NOT WILLING TO PART WITH IT. TRUE. SO I GUESS THAT'S THE THING. AND THEN, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WOULD HAVE THE ANSWER TO THIS OR NOT. UM, WE HAD THE SAME HIGH LEVEL STUDY DONE AT MCKAY SPRINGS AND I KNOW IT WAS A MINIMAL OR MARGINAL AMOUNT OF WATER THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PULL DAILY THROUGH THAT. DO EITHER OF YOU HAVE THOSE FIGURES? [00:10:01] IT WAS 700. I HAVE IT IN MY OTHER NOTE. I THINK, I THINK YOU MIGRATE 700,000 GALLONS A DAY. I THINK, BUT I MEAN HONESTLY WITHOUT GOING BACK AND, AND THAT IS PARTIALLY BECAUSE FOR THE SPRING YOU WOULD BE LIMITED TO ONLY EXTRACTING 10% OF THE FLOW, RIGHT? MM-HMM . AND WE LOOKED AT POTENTIALLY AT A WELL ON SITE AS WELL. UM, BUT WE DIDN'T WAIT A SECOND TO THAT BECAUSE THAT THOUGHT, I THOUGHT THAT, I THOUGHT IT WAS ACTUALLY 700,000. I THOUGHT IT WAS SEVEN. YEAH, BUT I MEAN I THOUGHT THAT WASN'T THE LIMIT. I THOUGHT THAT WAS ACTUALLY YIELDED THAT. YEAH, I THOUGHT THAT WE COULD ONLY PULL A PERCENTAGE OF 700,000. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT'S YEAH, IT WAS ONLY PERCENTAGE. 7,000 SOUNDS LIKE A LOT. IT WASN'T ENOUGH. IT FELT LIKE IT WASN'T 10%. YEAH, BUT THAT'S WHY IT WOULD ONLY HAVE BEEN LIKE A SUPPLEMENTAL THING IF NEED BE. YEAH. WELL OBVIOUSLY THAT'S SOMETHING. WE'LL, WHEN WE CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION, WE'LL GO BACK AND GET THE ACTUAL NUMBERS IF WE CAN. BUT 10% IS ALL YOU CAN PULL. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? RIGHT. THE EQ REQUIRES 90% OF THE WATER TO FLOW BY AND THEN, AND THEN WE HAD LOOKED AT THE, AT POTENTIAL WELLS AS WELL. AND YOU CAN ONLY TAKE 55% OF THE WELL YIELD, I ASSUME THE COST OF 15 TO 20 MILLION USE OF, THAT'S JUST TO PUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE. WE WOULD NEED TO EXPAND EMPLOYMENT TO MAN THAT FACILITY. CORRECT? YEAH. THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE PEOPLE ON ONSITE FOR TREATMENT PLAN. AND IF WE WENT WITH, UM, OPTION ONE AND SPENT MORE MONEY TO COME TO THE EXISTING ORDER TREATMENT WHERE WE HAVE TO INCREASE EMPLOYMENT THERE TO BE ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH THE FLOW AND, AND IT WOULD JUST DEPEND ON THE AMOUNT OF WATER WHICH WE'RE PERMITTED TO USE. BUT I THINK WE STILL HAVE CAPACITY THERE. SO CURRENTLY ISN'T THE, TO CROSS THE RIVER, ISN'T IT? TO CROSS THE RIVER? IS THAT DEEP WATER? WE WOULDN'T BE CROSSING THE RIVER. NO, IT WOULD BE THE RAILROAD TWICE AND THEN STREAM ESSENTIALLY FOLLOWING THE REDUNDANT WATER LINE. YOU SAID WITH THE WELLS, WE YOU'RE ONLY LOVE TO DROP 55%. OH, WHATEVER THE WELL YIELD IS WHEN IT'S TESTED. YES. SO THERE'S A SMALL SCREEN. SO ARE YOU ALL, I MEAN, I KNOW OBVIOUSLY, UM, THIS FINE WE'VE MADE DECISIONS, BUT, UM, IS DHA IS THERE, ARE YOU, IS THERE A PARTICULAR THING YOU ALL ARE RECOMMENDING OR ARE YOU JUST GIVING US ALL THE INFORMATION AND THEN SAY, I MEAN RIGHT NOW WE'RE GIVING INFORMATION AND THEN I THINK FURTHER DISCUSSION WOULD, WOULD COME RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, WITH YOUR FEEDBACK. RIGHT. I THINK STAFF IS GONNA REVIEW AND SIMILAR TO LIKE OUR RETREAT STRATEGICALLY THINK BACK AND PROVIDE YOU WITH, PROBABLY GIVE YOU THAT BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE CASE SPRINGS THAT WAS 20, 25, FEBRUARY. GIVE YOU ALL MORE INFORMATION HERE. THIS, AND THEN GIVING YOU WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD TO NEXT STEPS DEPENDING UPON THE OPTION THAT STEPS RECOMMENDING AND THEN MOVE FORWARD AT THAT POINT. BUT THIS, BUT, BUT A QUARRY OPTION WOULD PROVIDE THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF WATER CORRECT. THAN ANY OF THE OTHERS, BUT COULD ALSO, BUT COULD ALSO BE THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF EXPENSE TOO. RIGHT? I MEAN, AND THE OTHER OPTIONS WERE, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE OTHER TWO OPTIONS. ONE WAS, UH, THE REGIONAL TYING INTO WINCHESTER, I THINK, WHICH THEY BASICALLY TOLD US IS NEVER EVER GOING DOWN. AND THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER INTAKE, WHICH IS THE NORTH. AND THEN WE HAD THE SAME PROBLEM GETTING THE WATER FROM THE NOR FOR UP THERE. RIGHT. TREATING IT ITSELF. I WAS JUST SAYING THE CASE BRINGS IN THE POTENTIAL WELLS. 'CAUSE I REMEMBER WHEN WE HAD TALKED ABOUT, I KNOW THAT THE CASE SPRINGS EVEN BEFORE ALL OF YOU GUYS WERE TOGETHER WHEN THEY TALKED ABOUT IT, THEY WERE SAYING CALLING IT LIKE A PACKAGING PLANT AND THAT THAT WOULD BE YEAH, OF COURSE THAT'S YEARS AGO WHEN THEY SAID IT, BUT AT THE TIME THEY WERE LIKE, OH, IT'LL BE AT LEAST A MILLION DOLLARS FOR A PACKAGING PLANT. NOW LISTEN TO THIS AND THINK I'M SURE A MILLION WOULDN'T TOUCH IT. SO, UM, ANYWAY, FOR MY NOTES, YOU SAID 55% OF A WELL WHAT WAS WHATEVER WELL YIELD IS WHEN TESTED. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? RIGHT? MM-HMM . SO IF IT TESTED AT A HUNDRED GALLONS PER MINUTE, YOU CAN TAKE 55 GALLONS A MINUTE. OKAY. [00:15:03] JUST AS AN EXAMPLE. RIGHT. AND WE HAD DONE SOME AT THE MCKAY SPRING SITE, WE HAD DONE SOME TESTING TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL WELL SITES, IF YOU RECALL. AND IT WAS MORE THAN ONE THOUGH, RIGHT? IT WAS, YES. SO JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY DOES I MEAN 50% OF JUST ONE? CORRECT. SO IF YOU HAD FOUR 55% OF EVERY, WELL THAT'S 55% OF EACH. WELL, SO IF YOU HAD TWO WELLS, YOU COULD TAKE 55% OUT OF EACH. OKAY. SO IN TERMS WE RIVER IS CUT OFF, HOW FAR WOULD THIS GET US FOR WATER TO SERVE THE TOWN? SO SERVING ONLY A SECTION, THE WHOLE TOWN. THE FOR HOW LONG? WELL WE USE WHAT ABOUT 2 MILLION? HOW MANY GALLONS PER DAY DO WE? YEAH. AND I THINK IF WE WERE BASING THIS OFF, WHAT WE'RE PUMPING OUT NOW IS IT'S A MILLION, MAYBE A MILLION IS WHAT YOU'RE DRAWING NOW? IS THAT WHAT IT WAS FOR THE QUARRY? UH, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT WE COULD, YES. IT NOW OKAY. HALF, HALF THE PANEL. MM-HMM . WHAT ARE WE DRAW NOW? SOMEBODY WAS TALKING AND I DIDN'T HEAR WHAT YOU SAID. WHAT, HOW MUCH, HOW MUCH DO WE HAVE? YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOUR AVERAGE WATER USAGE IS AROUND 2 MILLION GALLONS A DAY. 2 MILLION A DAY. WE TWO. OH, THERE'S MATT . SORRY, MATT MM-HMM . MATT. WAS THAT CORRECT? YES MA'AM. IT'S ABOUT 2 MILLION GALLONS A DAY. MM-HMM . AND THAT SERVES ALL OF OUR CUSTOMERS, INCLUDING THE CORRIDOR, EVERYBODY. RIGHT. AND OUR CAPACITY, WHICH IS ANOTHER THING THAT DHA HAS HELPED US WITH. RIGHT. OUR CAPACITY FOR WHAT WE CAN CURRENTLY PULL OUT. WE'RE FINE WITH THAT. AND ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE HAVE PENCILED IN AS TO WHAT WE BELIEVE COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN, WE WERE GOOD WITH. RIGHT. EVERYBODY REMEMBER THAT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE CAPACITY. I MEAN IT'S AGAIN, THAT'S JUST A MODEL AND A LOT OF IT'S BASED. BUT YES, IN THE LAST TIME WE HAD CHA HERE, AND I'M JUST PULLING IT BACK UP, WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. WE DO HAVE CAPACITY CURRENTLY EVEN WITH THE FUTURE OF LAND USE OR FUTURE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INCLUDED INTO THAT MOTHER NATURE WARRANTED. RIGHT. I MEAN, YEAH. WE SAY WE HAVE CAPACITY NOW, BUT WE'VE HAD RECORD DROUGHT SEASON SINCE MY TIME ON COUNCIL. UNPRECEDENTED EVEN. BUT I THINK YOU HAD SAID THAT I, I THOUGHT THAT WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, LITERALLY WE HAD EVERY FUTURE LAND USE ON THERE. EVEN SOME THAT WE NOW KNOW ARE NOT BECAUSE IT MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN. CORRECT. THAT WAS THE INFORMATION WE HAD AT THE TIME. ANY TYPE OF SITE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED OR HAS BEEN APPROVED OR OUT OF TOWN UTILITY THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED, WE INCLUDED INTO THAT. WE DID BEGIN TO CREATE ANY JUST GENERIC FUTURE LAND USE INDUSTRIAL. BUT THAT WAS TOO SPECULATIVE TO REALLY PUT IN A LIST. IT WAS, BUT BASICALLY WHAT WE'VE COMMITTED TO RIGHT. ESSENTIALLY IS WE ARE WITHIN CAPACITY OF THAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, NATURE INCLUDING FUTURE, INCLUDING FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE'VE APPROVED AT THIS POINT. CORRECT. RIGHT. OKAY. SQUIRREL LANE. SQUIRREL HILL, OUR WOOD PLACE, UM, MARSHALLS, GLEN, MARSHALL, GLEN, ALL, ALL THAT WAS IN THAT, THAT'S WITHOUT INCLUDING INCREASING OUR, OUR PERMIT DRAW. RIGHT. I MEAN WE'RE, WE'RE ONLY, WE'RE ONLY DRAWING CORRECT. FRACTION OF WHAT WE'RE WITHIN PULL LIMITS. IT'S WITHIN THE INFRASTRUCTURE. CORRECT. AND THAT WAS BEFORE HEPT A'S DEVELOPMENT WAS WITHDRAWN, CORRECT? YEAH, THIS WAS, UM, WHAT DID THEY SEND THIS? THIS WAS THE MOST RECENT. SO I'VE BEEN HERE. YES. SO THIS DOESN'T INCLUDE YEAH, HEPT A'S BEEN WITHDRAWN SINCE NOT IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THAT. IT'S NOT. OH, OKAY. I THOUGHT FOR SOME REASON IT WAS WELL, IT'S IN, IT IS STILL IN THERE ACTUALLY. YEAH. I THOUGHT IT WAS ONE. THE ORIGINAL NAME. YEAH. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CHA AT THIS TIME? HOW MANY SAMPLING, UH, SESSIONS TO DO THAT? WE JUST DID ONE. JUST DID ONE. IT KIND OF, SO IF WE DECIDE TO GO FURTHER STEPS, WE WOULD SUGGEST DOING A MORE REGULAR SAMPLING OVER AT LEAST A YEAR PERIOD. THAT A YEAR PERIOD IS REQUIRED FOR THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO ALLOW IT TO BE A PUBLIC WATER SOURCE. UM, BUT WE JUST WERE LOOKING FOR ESSENTIALLY FATAL FLAWS. LIKE SOMETHING THAT WOULD RULE IT OUT. YEAH. WITH SOMETHING LIKE NITRATE OR DOES WE DID LOOK AT NITRATE. UM, NITRATE [00:20:01] CAN BE REMOVED. IT'S JUST A LITTLE HARDER. UH, WE DID LOOK AT NITRATE AND IT AND, UM, IT'S ON HERE. YEAH, IT'S, THAT WAS THE . IT'S A PRETTY LOW LEVEL THOUGH. UM, YOU SAID HEALTH DEPARTMENT REQUIRES A ONE YEAR STUDY PERIOD FOR IT TO BE USED FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? YES. AND SOMETIMES IF THEY WILL ALLOW THE USE ON AN INTERIM BASIS WHILE THAT ONE YEAR IS GOING ON, IF THERE'S LIKE AN EMERGENCY OR A REASON WHY YOU WOULD NEED TO BRING IT ONLINE SOONER, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE EITHER MECHANISM TO TREAT IT ONLINE SOONER THAN YEAR. . YEAH. YEAH. WHICH WILL TAKE AGAIN, JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY. DO YOU KNOW WHEN, WHEN THE SAMPLING OCCURRED? DO YOU KNOW WHEN, WHAT TIME OR, YOU KNOW, TIME OF DAY. I MEAN LIKE MONTH. YEAH, RIGHT. I THINK WE STARTED GETTING SOME OF THE RESULTS BACK. WAS THE END OF LAST YEAR EARLY? YEAH. I WANNA SAY IT WAS OF LAST YEAR. OKAY. WE STARTED GETTING SOME OF THE SAMPLES BACK. I WAS ONLY ASKING BECAUSE OF JUST LIKE WHAT TIME OF YEAR IT WAS LIKE, WAS IT AFTER A LOT OF SNOW? WAS IT, YOU KNOW, THE FALL WASN'T, IT WAS, I THINK THERE WERE STILL LEAVES. IT WAS NICE OUTSIDE. SO IT WASN'T, IT WAS BEFORE WINTER. YEAH. TRYING TO FIGURE WAS MY DAD SUMMER? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO. NONE. NO. I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE SOME FOR THE FUTURE, BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE THANK YOU FOR COMING. THANK YOU. WAIT, NO, THIS ISN'T FOR CHA. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO I GUESS IT PICTURE SAY WE'LL HAVE THIS IN A FUTURE WORK SESSION. CORRECT. DO WE KNOW ABOUT HOW LONG SUMMER'S APPROACHING? YEAH, IT IS. YEAH. I'LL BE LIKELY SENDING YOU ALL PROBABLY EMAIL FIRST RECAPPING SOME OF THE, THE CASE SPRINGS, JUST SO YOU ALL HAVE THAT TOP OF YOUR MIND. AND THEN IN JUNE, SO WE CAN, WE CAN START DISCUSSING THIS, UM, AS YOU CAN LOOK AT THOSE OPTIONS. SO NEXT MONTH WE CAN HAVE IT ON OUR WORK SESSION. EITHER BE THE FIRST OR SECOND WORK SESSION CORRECT. BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY, WE'VE ALREADY GOT, WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED WITH THEM PRELIMINARILY ABOUT WHAT NEXT STEPS WOULD BE AND WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT. SO THEY'VE ALREADY SENT US SOME FEEDBACK ON, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAD TO GET A TASK ORDER OR SOMETHING. SO WE'VE ALREADY ENGAGED WITH THAT. SO WE'LL BRING THAT TO YOU NEXT MONTH. OKAY. BECAUSE IT WOULD BE NICE TO ALMOST LIKE HAVE LIKE, UM, LIKE A CHART, LIKE THREE COLUMNS, LIKE MM-HMM . YOU KNOW. YEAH. THIS IS THE YIELD, THIS IS THE ANTICIPATED COST. THIS IS THE HOW LONG. YEAH. THIS MIGHT MIGHT IMPACT STAFF. LIKE, UM, KIND OF SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT ALL THE THINGS. 'CAUSE WE'RE, I BELIEVE I READ RECENTLY WE'RE IN A DROUGHT. WE'RE IN A DROUGHT ALREADY. YEAH. WINTER. YEAH, WE CAN DO THAT. YEAH. OR LIKE, LIKE, LIKE A, LIKE A COMPARISON. LET A VENN DIAGRAM. ALL RIGHT. SO OUR NEW BUSINESS IS A WATER TANK MAINTENANCE SERVICE PROGRAM. AND THAT'S MS. CAMPBELL'S GONNA BE PRESENTING. SHE HAD CHOOSE TO PRESENT TONIGHT A LOT LESS FROM LAST TIME. RIGHT. . SO, UM, COUNSEL HAS REQUESTED TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO SOUTHERN CORROSION OF ROANOKE, RAPID NORTH CAROLINA TO PROVIDE ANNUAL INSPECTIONS, WASHOUTS RENOVATIONS AND REPAIRS FOR THE TOWN'S FOR WATER TANKS. UM, THE QUOTE THAT WE RECEIVED IS IN THE AMOUNT OF $127,722 A YEAR. AND THAT IS TO SERVICE THE, UM, 1 MILLION GALLON TANK, UH, ON ROUTE 5 22. THE HYDRO PILLAR WATER TANK, THE 3 MILLION GALLON GUARD HILL GROUND STORAGE WATER TANK, THE 3 MILLION GALLON ROUTE FIVE, UH, 55 GROUND STORAGE WATER TANK, AND THE 100,000 GALLON FOUR H GROUND STORAGE WATER TANK. UM, THE TOWN WILL BE USING COOPERATIVE CONTRACTING UTILIZING THE TOWN OF WOODVILLE'S, UM, PROFESSIONAL TANK MAINTENANCE SERVICES CONTRACT AS A METHOD OF PROCUREMENT AND FUNDING IS AVAILABLE UNDER THE WATER PLANT MAINTENANCE SERVICE CONTRACTS. LINE ITEM. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. CAMPBELL? HOW OFTEN DO WE DO THIS? JUST CURIOUS. WELL, THERE'S DIFFERENT SERVICES THAT THEY PERFORM THAT ARE SCHEDULED THROUGHOUT THE YEARS AND ACTUALLY MATT IS HERE AND HE CAN ADDRESS THAT MORE READILY THAN I CAN. I'M CURIOUS HOW OFTEN THEY, MATT, WHY DON'T YOU COME UP HERE? WE USUALLY DON'T TALK OUT TO THE AUDIENCE [00:25:02] QUESTION OR WE TRY NO, NO, THAT WASN'T TOWARDS YOU. THAT WAS, SO THERE ARE ARE DIFFERENT. UM, THERE'S A SCHEDULE. THEY PERFORM THESE GENERALLY EVERY FIVE YEARS A TANK IS DRAINED COMPLETELY. THE INTERIORS INSPECTED. UM, IF IT NEEDS A TOUCH UP ON THE INSIDE OF THE PAINT, THEY WILL DO THAT. UM, THEY DISINFECT THE TANK AND THEN WE WILL FILL IT BACK UP AND PUT IT BACK IN SERVICE ANNUALLY. EVERY YEAR THEY COME AND PERFORM A VISUAL INSPECTION. UM, THEY GO ALL AROUND THE TANK, THEY GO ON TOP OF IT, THEY LOOK AT ALL THE ACCESS, HATCHES, LADDERS, ALWAYS CLEAN FEATURES. AND THEY WILL PERFORM ANY MINOR REPAIRS IF NEEDED AT, AT THAT TIME. UH, I BELIEVE EVERY FIVE YEARS AS WELL. THEY WILL DO AN EXTERIOR PAINTING, UH, JUST TO TOUCH UP ANY OF THE, ANY COATING THAT MAY HAVE THAT WORN DOWN OVER THE YEARS. GENERALLY IS ANNUALLY AND THEN EVERY FIVE YEARS FOR THE, FOR THE MAJOR PROJECTS DURING TAKING OUR SERVICE, THERE IS A SCHEDULE ALSO PROVIDED IN THE PACKET FOR EACH OF THE TANKS. HAVE WE USED THEM BEFORE? NOT THIS COMPANY. NOT, IS THERE A REASON WHY WE'RE USING THIS ONE INSTEAD OF THE OTHER? I'M JUST CUR BECAUSE WITH COOPERATIVE CONTRACT, WE'RE JUST USING SOMEBODY THAT THEY'VE USED. RIGHT. OR WE GET WITH WITH BILL. YES. WITH BILL. OKAY. THAT'S WITH, UH, WELL WE HAD PREVIOUSLY, UM, THE COMPANY THAT WE USED PREVIOUSLY, WE'VE BEEN IN CONTRACTS WITH THEM, ONE OF THE TANKS SINCE LIKE 19, WAS IT 97? EARLY NINETIES. YEAH. EARLY NINETIES. YEAH. AND THEN GRADUALLY ADDED EACH TANK ONTO THAT. UM, AND THEN WE JUST STARTED LOOKING AT THE, UH, SOUTHERN CORROSION AND WE DID COMPARE PRICING AND EVERYTHING. YEAH. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. UNLESS ANYBODY HAS A PROBLEM WITH THAT. WE, WE'LL PUT THAT ON CONSENT. THAT FIRST. . ALRIGHT, DIDN'T I? UM, ALRIGHT, HERE WE GO. SO YEAH, THE EXCELLENT BUCKET TRUCK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR BEING HERE. UH, SO THE PURCHASE OF THE REPLACEMENT BUCKET TRUCK FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MS. CAMPBELL, THIS IS FOR THE PURCHASE OF A 2026, UM, ALTECH BUCKET TRUCK. UM, THIS IS TO REPLACE, UH, 2017 FORD F FIVE 50 BUCKET TRUCK. THIS PROCUREMENT IS ALSO MADE THROUGH COOPERATIVE CONTRACTING USING A SOURCE LAW CONTRACT, UH, WITH OUTPUT INDUSTRIES. STAFF OBTAINED A QUOTE. UM, THEY'RE ALSO OUT OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA IN THE AMOUNT OF $204,912. FUNDING IS AVAILABLE WITHIN THE ELECTRIC, UM, MOTOR VEHICLES FISCAL YEAR 26 OPERATING BUDGET. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. CAMPBELL? I THINK IT'S LONG EXPLAINED IN THE, THE PAPERWORK. OKAY. THEY NEVER HAD A CHANCE THAT THEY, THEY WENT ASKED HOW OLD WAS THE, THE PREVIOUS 20 14 17, 20 17. OH, 2017. NINE YEARS OLD. HOW MANY MILES WAS THAT? I DON'T KNOW. TERRY, AGAIN, I BELIEVE 140,000. IT'S OUR DAY-TO-DAY TRUCK. THAT'S SO THE ONCALL TRUCK DRIVES EVERY DAY AND THE, I I WOULDN'T EVEN BEGIN TODAY. I MEAN, HIRES IT THAT ON. IT'S A LOT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YOU HAVE TO GET THE BLOOMS INSPECTED EVERY SO OFTEN OR RESTART YEARLY. YEARLY INSPECTIONS. CLOSE THE END WITHOUT THAT. THIS TRUCK'S HAD A MOTOR PUT IT IN. SO IT'S, I MEAN, THE BOOM ITSELF TOO. YEAH, IT'S GOT A LOT. IT'S GOT A LOT OF ISSUES. THIS TRUCK DOES. IT'S DOWN MORE THAN IT'S, THAN WE USED IT, UNFORTUNATELY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. THERE'S NO OBJECTION. WE, WE CAN PUT THIS ON CONSENT AS WELL. OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO NEXT UP IS UNFINISHED BUSINESS. UM, THERE THE ZONING TAX AMENDMENTS TO TOWN CODE 1 75 DASH THREE DEFINITIONS TO DEFINE DATA CENTERS IN TOWN. CODE 1 75 DASH 64 STATEMENT OF INTENT INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT I TWO TO ADD DATA CENTERS WITH PERFORMANCE STANDARD, UH, SPECIAL USE PERMIT. NOW IT DOES NOT HAVE A STAFF MEMBER'S NAME BESIDE OF IT, SO I BELIEVE MR. PETTY IS GONNA LEAD THIS DISCUSSION OR AT LEAST START [00:30:01] THE DISCUSSION. WE HAVE TO. SO OBVIOUSLY THIS PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, RECOMMENDED APPROVAL IN SEPTEMBER OF 2025. IT CAME TO COUNSEL IN OCTOBER OF 2025, WHICH COUNSEL REQUESTED THAT WE SEEK OUTSIDE LEGAL OPINION ON WHERE THAT SITS IN BEST PRACTICE. WE'VE BEEN REVIEWING IT AT THIS POINT, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY APPROVED HOUSE BILL 1 53 THAT STATES THAT ANY HIGH ENERGY USE THAT'S SEEKING REZONINGS SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT SHALL, UH, HAVE THESE IMPACT STATEMENTS. IT IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. WE'VE MET WITH LEGAL THAT THIS POTENTIALLY BE PLACED ON NEXT AGENDA ON THE 26TH AS AN ACTION ITEM TO SEND IT BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW IT WITH THAT GENERAL ASSEMBLY LANGUAGE. THAT BECOMES EFFECTIVE JULY ONE. AND THAT'S BEEN SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR. IT HAS BEEN APPROVED TO ENSURE THAT WE WILL BE MEETING ANY UPCOMING STATE REGULATIONS BY JULY ONE. UM, THAT IS KIND OF THE RECOMMENDATION NOW THAT IT WOULD JUST GO BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT OBVIOUSLY COUNSEL HAS THE ABILITY TO MOVE IT FORWARD TO A PUBLIC HEARING. I HAVE A QUESTION. YES. GIVEN LEGAL ADVISEMENT AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR, THAT'S NOT ENOUGH TO SAY WHAT'S WRITTEN AS SUFFICIENT FOR WHAT'S JUST PASSED IN THE HOUSE. THERE ARE SOME LANGUAGE IN LIKE WE FEEL THAT THEY'VE HAD THE IMPACT STATEMENTS AVAILABLE IN THERE. UM, AND JUST THINK THAT THEY'VE ALREADY, I THINK, LOOKED AT IT AS WELL WITH THESE CHANGES JUST TO ENSURE THAT IT MEETS THAT DIRECTIVE, UM, TO ALLOW THAT ABILITY. I'VE GIVEN THE LANGUAGE, I THINK IT'D BE BEST TO HAVE PLANNING COMMISSION JUST REVIEW IT. BUT IF COUNSEL, COUNSEL CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS AND HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, UM, AND MAKE A DECISION AFTER THAT PUBLIC HEARING, IF IT WERE TO BE ADOPTED, DENIED KICK FEEDBACK AND THEN JULY ONE COMES, YOU CAN ALWAYS GO BACK AND AMEND ANY LANGUAGE THAT'S APPROVED OR OBVIOUSLY COULD BE DENIED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION FIRST. I JUST FEEL LIKE WE KICK EVERYTHING BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO MANY TIMES I THOUGHT THIS COUNSEL RECEIVED LEGAL OPINION RECENTLY THAT IT WAS UP TO PAR WITH THE HOSPITAL. FOR ME, IT JUST FEELS LIKE KICKING THE CAN. UM, AND I KNOW THIS IS GONNA BE AN UNCOMFORTABLE STATEMENT, BUT I FEEL LIKE KICKING THE CAN ON SOMETHING, IT'S THE SAME WITH ADUS WHO SENT THAT BACK MULTIPLE TIMES. URBAN AGRICULTURE YEAR AFTER YEAR. WE'VE SENT THAT BACK. AND SO AT SOME POINT I FEEL LIKE WE JUST HAVE TO BE DECISIVE AS A COUNCIL. AND I HATE TO IMPLY THIS, BUT THE FACT THAT WE'RE KICKING THE CAN DURING AN ELECTION CYCLE KIND OF SPEAKS VOLUMES. AND SO WE'VE ALL EXPRESSED OUR OPINIONS AS A COUNCIL, BUT THE PURPOSE OF TONIGHT WAS TO DO IT PUBLICLY AND IT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE DONE WHETHER IT'S TODAY OR NEXT MONTH OR THE MONTH AFTER, EACH OF US COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ANSWER. SO I, AND I FEEL BAD FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT WE JUST CONTINUE TO GET ADVISEMENT FROM 'EM AND SEND THINGS BACK AND BACK AND BACK. I, I FELT LIKE WHEN I LEFT HERE LAST MONDAY NIGHT, EVERYONE ON THIS COUNCIL HAD AN OPINION ABOUT THIS AND NOW THAT'S NOT BEING DISCUSSED. WELL, I'LL POINT WHAT THIS WAS ABOUT. I DON'T, I THINK THIS WAS TO MAKE A DECISION, WE HAD TO DISCUSS IT IN OPEN. RIGHT, NO, I KNOW. BUT NOT MAKE A DECISION ABOUT IF WE'RE MOVING IT AMENDMENT OR TO WHAT TO DO WITH IT IF WE'RE MOVING IT FORWARD OR COULDN'T GET BACK. EXPLAIN COMMISSION. AND WE GOT LEGAL ADVISEMENT THAT IT WAS PREPARED AND READY TO MOVE FORWARD. I'M SORRY, DID WE GET LEGAL ADVICE TO MOVE IT FORWARD AS THIS, THAT IT MEANT THE NEW HOUSE BILL? I'M SPEAKING, DID I NOT UNDERSTAND FROM THE LAWYER? I'M GONNA, I MEAN YOU WERE THERE WHEN THE LAWYER SUPPOSED THERE. HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS IN IT, LANGUAGE IN IT LEGAL. WE RECOMMEND THAT CHANGING. I LONG ABOUT THAT. I I I APPROACH THAT. I I THINK THAT THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THERE, IN THE HOUSE. BILL, AGAIN, IF, IF WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT TODAY, WHICH I THINK THAT THE LEGAL ADVICE IS THAT YES, YOU COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH IT IF, AND YOU CAN GO FORWARD WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING, YOU CAN ADVISE THAT THAT WOULD EARLIEST WOULD BE JUNE, OBVIOUSLY. UM, DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF THAT. AGAIN, JUST SAYING IF IT WERE TO BE APPROVED, UH, YOU WOULD HAVE STILL PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND BRING AMENDMENTS FORWARD AFTER JULY ONE. [00:35:01] IF IT'S DENIED, IT'S DENIED, UM, OR WHATEVER ELSE ACTION YOU COULD TAKE AFTER THAT PUBLIC HEARING. BUT YES, YOU COULD MOVE IT FORWARD TO JUNE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AS IS. JUST BE NO, LIKE ANYTHING IS APPROVED. I'M JUST SAYING IF IT IS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE AMENDING THAT BY JULY, YOU KNOW, ONCE JULY PERHAPS WE COULD HAVE THE LEGAL ADVISEMENT RECAPPED IN WRITING TO US. OF COURSE IT'D BE UNDER ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. BUT FROM MY NOTES, WHICH I TAKE VERY THOROUGHLY, UM, THE ATTORNEY SAID THAT HOUSE BILL 1 53 WAS NOT, WE HAD ALREADY ADDRESSED IT AND WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY. SO I DON'T KNOW. IS IT, CAN SOMEONE, GEORGE, COULD YOU POINT US WHAT SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS WOULD NEED TO BE MADE AFTER JULY ONE IF THIS WAS PASSED BY COUNSEL? I, I DIDN'T KNOW OFFER AN OPINION ON THIS. SO I CAN DO, I CAN DO THAT. YES, PLEASE DO. I CAN DO THAT. BUT I WASN'T ASKED OR NOR DID I OFFER AN OPINION ON IT. I'M ASKING RIGHT. I MEAN, PRIOR TO NOW. SO OF COURSE I CAN OFFER AN OPINION AND I'D APPRECIATE THE OUTSIDE LEGAL OPINION IN WRITING TO THIS COUNCIL BECAUSE WE ASKED IF IT NEEDED TO GO BACK LAST WEEK. AND IN MY NOTES, WHICH ARE, I DIDN'T THINK WERE ALLOWED TO BE SHARED WITH THE PUBLIC. UM, IT SAID THAT THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT WAS VERY THOROUGH AND THEY DID NOT FORESEE ANY AMENDMENTS WOULD NEED TO BE MADE TO THAT ON 5 4 26. LET ME REPHRASE MY QUESTION. I THOUGHT THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE HERE HAD HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS AND OTHER SUGGESTIONS, WHICH IS WHY WE WOULD SEND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO WORK WITH 'EM, TO REVISE THE ORDINANCE SOMEWHAT TO DO HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS, WHETHER IT'S FIXING THIS OR FIXING THAT, RATHER THAN TAKING SOMETHING IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC. IT STILL HAD TO BE AMENDED LATER. THAT WAS PART OF THEIR PART OF THE DISCUSSION. YES. THERE WOULD BE NO FURTHER PLANNING OR PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNING COMMISSION THOUGH. THEY'VE ALREADY HELD THE PUBLIC, THEY'VE ALREADY PRESENTED THIS TO THE PUBLIC. SO, OKAY. I GUESS THIS GOES BACK TO LEGAL AGAIN, GEORGE, IF THEY AMEND IT, THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC. THEY HAVE. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNING COMMISSION. WHAT'S THE TIMEFRAME LOOK LIKE ON THAT? THE PLANNING COMMISSION THEN HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING? THREE MONTHS? NO, MORE LIKE MONTH AND A HALF. AND WE'RE HERE ABOUT THEIR TIMELINE TWO. SO I THINK AND YEAH, TWO MONTHS BE TWO BECAUSE IF YOU WERE TO MAKE THE ACTION AT THE MAY MEETING IT, IT WOULD BE BEYOND WHEN THEY CAN ADVERTISE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING IN JUNE. WELL, AND THEY WOULDN'T EVEN BE ABLE TO DO IT IN JUNE BECAUSE THEY'D MAKE THE AMENDMENTS IN JUNE. WELL, THEY WOULD NEED A WORK SESSION. THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MEET THE WORK SESSION IN THE ADVERTISEMENT. SO UP TO THREE MONTHS BEFORE THIS COULD HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING, BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION. IT WOULD LIKELY BE WHAT DAY IN JULY? IT WOULD BE IN JULY. FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION. FOR PLANNING COMMISSION. THAT'S CORRECT. AND IT WOULD COME TO A WORK SESSION FOR US IN AUGUST. AND YOU COULD, AND WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ADVERTISE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL MAYBE THE END OF AUGUST, SEPTEMBER AT THE EARLIEST. YOU COULD HAVE THE WORK SESSION AT THE BEGINNING OF AUGUST AND HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING IF IT'S IN THE FIRST WORK SESSION. CORRECT. YEAH. WHICH IS LIKE HOW WE'VE DONE, YOU KNOW, OTHER PLAYING THE ITEMS. AND I THINK THERE'S A POSSIBILITY OF A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING. WE COULD DO JOINT. YES. WE'VE DONE THAT BEFORE WHERE EVERYBODY GATHERED THE INFORMATION AT THE SAME TIME. COMMISSION VOTE, PURSE AND THEN COUNSEL, WHICH AGAIN, I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH BECAUSE THE POINT OF A PUBLIC HEARING IS TO GET PUBLIC FEEDBACK. AND WHEN YOU'RE GETTING PUBLIC FEEDBACK IN A JOINT MEETING AND BOTH TAKING ACTION, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO TIME FOR THIS COUNCIL OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO PROCESS THE INFORMATION TO GET LEGAL ADVISEMENT TO MAKE ANY NECESSARY THOUGHT IN THE PROCESS. YOU'RE BASICALLY MAKING YOUR MIND UP BEFORE YOU COME TO THAT MEETING OR YOU'RE MAKING IT UP ON THE SPOT WITHOUT TIME. THIS GOES BACK TO THE ISSUE THAT I STATED LAST YEAR, THAT WE NEED TO HAVE TWO PUBLIC AGAIN. WELL, I WAS GONNA, I WAS GONNA SAY, DON'T FORGET, THAT WAS MY IDEA QUITE A WHILE AGO THAT WE PROBABLY NEED TWO READING FOR THAT VERY REASON. I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU BECAUSE IT, IT IS HARD TO GATHER INFORMATION AND THEN TRY TO MAKE A DECISION RIGHT AWAY. NOT ALWAYS. SOMETIMES IT'S QUITE EASY. OTHER TIMES, ESPECIALLY SOMETHING AS IMPORTANT AS THIS, I WOULD SAY YOU'D WANNA GIVE IT THE MOST AMOUNT OF TIME THAT YOU COULD WELL, AND REFERENCED WARRANT IN AND IF IT GOES LIKE WARRENTON, WE COULD BE THERE UNTIL 3:00 AM SO, WELL MY QUESTION WAS PROCEDURAL IN TERMS OF IF WE'RE VOTING, WE'RE VOTING JUST ON THE TEXT AMENDMENT, RIGHT? [00:40:01] SO IF, IF THERE ARE, IF THERE IS INTEREST IN BANNING ALTOGETHER, AND I KNOW THAT WE DISCUSSED THAT AS WELL WITH LEGAL, UM, WE WOULD HAVE TO DO WE HAVE THAT ABILITY? YES. YES. IT WAS SET TO WE'RE A LEGISLATIVE BOARD. NO, NO, NO. I KNOW WE DO. I KNOW WE DO EVENTUALLY, BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT LIKE RIGHT THEN WHEN WE'RE ASSESSED TO BE VOTING ON THE TEXT AMENDMENT, YOU CAN DO AN ALTERNATIVE. ANY COUNCIL MEMBER SITTING ON THAT DIOCESE CAN MAKE ANY MOTION THEY WISH AS LONG AS IT'S WITHIN ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A PROPOSED MOTION. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE AN AMENDED MOTION. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY STAFF. AND THAT'S WHAT LEGAL TOLD US LAST WEEK. WE ARE A LEGISLATIVE BODY WITH THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE DECISIONS INDIVIDUALLY AS COUNCIL MEMBERS AS WE SEE FIT FOR THE TOWN OF FIRM OIL. I HAVE PROPOSED BEFORE AMENDMENTS AND MOTIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN IN OUR AGENDA, WHICH HAS BEEN CONTENTIOUS AT TIMES. BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ELECTED TO DO, IS WHAT MAKE DECISIONS THE YES, WE'VE, WE'VE WE'VE SHOT DOWN THINGS OF A PUBLIC HEARING AND A MOTION BEFORE. I JUST DON'T WANNA GET INTO, I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO, I KNEW THAT THERE'S BEEN SITUATIONS WHERE WE VOTED ON THINGS AND VOTED IT DOWN AND THEN DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK AND DO AN ALTERNATIVE. AND I CAN'T THINK OF IT RIGHT NOW. BUT YOU CAN MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION IF IT PASSES. WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I JUST, I I'M FOR ABAN ALTOGETHER BECAUSE IT TAKES AWAY ALL THE GUESSWORK. IT TAKES AWAY THE KICKING CAM BACK AND FORTH. IT TAKES AWAY ANY SUBJECTIVE, UH, INTERPRETATION OF, OF, UH, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. SO IT JUST, YOU KNOW, IT IS, IT IS SIMPLY, YOU KNOW, JUST SIMPLE NOTE. SO I THAT'S, THAT'S MY TAKE ON IT AS I THINK I CAN CHIME IN. SO I THINK AN ALTERNATIVE TO WHAT'S BEEN RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION, INCLUDING SOME SORT OF BAN, WOULD STILL HAVE TO ORIGINATE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I DISAGREE. THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE, SOME COUNSEL CAN DENY THE AMENDMENT, BUT AS FAR AS NEW TEXT, THERE'S NO NEW TEXT. WE WOULD BE BANNING THE DENY. WE DON'T HAVE ANY EXISTING ZONING. WELL DENYING THE, DENYING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, IF YOU WANT TO CALL THAT A BAN. OKAY. IF YOU WANT ALTERNATIVE TEXT LANGUAGE, IT HAS TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION. IF THIS WERE A PUBLIC MEETING, WE COULD MAKE A MOTION. RIGHT. NOW THAT WAS TWO PRONGED THAT SAID WE WERE DENYING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THE ZONING TEXT TO IMPLEMENT NOT EVEN CHANGE. WE DON'T HAVE, IT'S NOT CURRENTLY IN THE TOWN CODE. AND THEN ALSO IN THAT MOTION, YOU COULD MOTION THAT THE TOWN OF FRONT ROYAL BAN DATA CENTERS PERIOD. YOU, YOU CAN DO THAT. THE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS TO US. WE DON'T HAVE TO ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO BE IN DATA CENTERS. TEXT AMENDMENTS HAVE TO BE OR, OR ORIGINATED THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND THIS ONE HAS, THIS ONE HAS. SO WE COULD MOVE THIS FORWARD AND TAKE ACTION ON IT AS IT SAYS TODAY. RIGHT. BUT I THINK WHAT MRS. CLARIFIED FOR YOU, I THINK WHAT MR. SIGN IS SAYING IS TAKING ACTION ON THIS, IF WE CHOSE TO DO THAT, UM, WOULD BE ACTION ON THAT TEXT AMENDMENT CORRECT. AN AN ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING, COMMISSION PLANNING. AND THEY COULD ALSO STILL SAY AGAIN, WE'RE GONNA, YOU KNOW, PUT THIS THROUGH TO COUNSEL, AND COUNSEL WILL TAKE AN ACTION ON THAT ITEM. BUT THE, BUT ASSUMING COUNSEL'S DIRECTION IS NO TO THIS TEXT AMENDMENT, IT'S THE CONSENSUS OR THE VOTE OF COUNSEL THAT, UM, TO DIRECT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DRAFT AN AMENDMENT BANNING DATA CENTERS. SO EITHER, EITHER WAY WE HAVE TO TAKE ACTION ON WHAT'S, WHAT'S BEEN CORRECT. RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. CORRECT. SO YOUR LEGAL OPINION TO COUNSEL IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO MAKE A MOTION TO BAN DATA CENTER WITHOUT ASKING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO SEND SOMETHING FORWARD WITHOUT IT FIRST GOING THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROCESS. YES. I WOULD LIKE LAST MONDAY NIGHT'S LEGAL OPINION IN WRITING FROM OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL. MY, MY QUESTION IS, SEE THERE'S SOMETHING MISSING IN THE LOOP HERE. IT'S LIKE, IT'S, IT'S, THE LOOP IS IN CLOSING BECAUSE THERE'S THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, I SAW IN, IN THE TEXT AMENDMENT THAT COUNCIL HASN'T HAD A CHANCE TO GIVE ANY FEEDBACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO TAKE IT INTO CONSIDERATION. SO, YOU KNOW, WHILE THERE ARE POINTS IN THE [00:45:01] TEXT AMENDMENT, SORRY, IS THERE A PROBLEM? OKAY, WELL, WHILE THERE ARE GOOD POINTS IN, IN THE, IN THE TEXT AMENDMENT, THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN THERE THAT ARE KIND OF VAGUE. AND I, YOU KNOW, I, I HAVE SOME THINGS THAT I, I I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ADDRESSED. BUT IF IT GOES BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THEN THEY BRING IT BACK AND NOTHING'S LIKE CHANGED, UH, THEN, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THE SAME TEXT AMENDMENT. SO WHAT I WOULD ALSO OFFER AT THAT POINT IS YOU COULD ALSO, BEFORE YOU WOULD MAKE, DO MANY STATEMENTS OF WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE CHANGES, OBVIOUSLY THAT'S THE PROCESS OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. YOU COULD HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN IF YOU DECIDED THE COUNSEL DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE CHANGES OR RECOMMENDATIONS OR AT THAT TIME, YOU COULD SEND IT BACK. UM, BUT BEFORE YOU MAKE SPECIFIC STATEMENTS OF CHANGES OR ALTERATIONS IN TEXTS THAT YOU WOULD ALLOW THAT PUBLIC HEARING TO TAKE PLACE. SO YOU CAN'T HAVE A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN COUNCIL AND JOINT LIKE WORK SESSION TO DISCUSS IT CERTAIN WE HAVE BEFORE MM-HMM . I'M TRYING TO THINK WHICH ONE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SHORT TERM RENTALS. BUT WE HAD ONE, THE CEMETERY, WELL, IT WAS A JOINT, THE CEMETERY. YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT. SINCE LAUREN'S HERE, JOE, HOW MANY WORK SESSIONS HAVE WE HAD WHERE YOU GET, YOU PRESENTED THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S, REPORTS AND TEXT AMENDMENTS AND ASKED FOR FEEDBACK AND DIRECTION FOR PLANNING COMMISSION? CAN YOU, DO YOU, IS THERE SOME WAY STAFF CAN GIVE ME THE DATES OF HOW MANY WORKS IN, BECAUSE THIS IS THE SAME THING WITH THE TAX RATE. LIKE WE HAVE HAD MULTIPLE WORK SESSIONS WHERE WE DISCUSSED IT IN OUR, THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING IT WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR IS FOR HER TO TAKE IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE WORK SESSIONS ON THIS, ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, ON THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT. THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME IT'S BEEN ON OUR AGENDA. THE DATA CENTER TEXT, I CAN GET YOU ALL THE DATES. IT WAS ON THE COVER SHEET. IT WAS THAT OCTOBER MEETING AND THEN DECEMBER 4TH, WE DISCUSSED IT DECEMBER 4TH. AND THAT'S WHERE IT WAS KICKED BACK TO THE LEGAL OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL. SO IT'S BEEN BEFORE COUNSEL SINCE OCTOBER FOR THE RECORD. WELL, DECEMBER 4TH MIGHT HAVE JUST BEEN AN UPDATE THAT WE HADN'T BEEN ABLE TO SECURE THE LEGAL COUNSEL UNTIL THAT POINT. AND THEN WE WORKED ON IT. I DON'T HAVE MY OTHER NOTEBOOK, BUT WE DISCUSSED IT AT ALL ON DECEMBER 4TH. DECEMBER 4TH WAS THE ONLY WORK SHUT SESSION WE HAD IN, IN DECEMBER. BUT, UM, I DO KNOW, I, I DID WANNA JUST ADDRESS ONE THING. SOMEBODY SAID SOMETHING ABOUT IT, BUT SAY, SAYING THAT IT WAS A ELECTION YEAR THING. THIS HAS ALL BEEN DRIVEN BY THE DATES OF WHEN PEOPLE BROUGHT IT TO US. AND THEN AS THAT WAS IN PUBLIC, I THINK WHEN COUNCILMAN RAPPAPORT ASKED FOR LEGAL, SOME AN OUTSIDE LEGAL, SOMEBODY THAT'S DEALT, YOU GET IT. NO, NO, I KNOW. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. IT'S LIKE, IS THAT THE IDEA WAS TO GET SOMEBODY THAT, THAT HAS HAD EXPERIENCE WITH THIS TOPIC TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD ALL OF OUR DUCKS IN A ROW IF WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN AMENDMENT WITH PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. AND THAT WAS IN OCTOBER. AND THEN I KNOW THAT THE NEXT TIME WE TALKED ABOUT IT, THAT'S WHEN WE FOUND OUT THAT WE COULDN'T GET ANYBODY TO EVEN TO, UM, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, TAKE THE BAIT, LIKE TO SAY. YEAH, WE'LL REVIEW IT FOR, FOR YOU. AND THEN I BELIEVE THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION WAS NOT UNTIL A MONTH OR TWO AGO THAT WE FINALLY GOT SOMEBODY THAT WAS ABLE TO, TO WEIGH ON THIS FOR US LEGALLY. OUTSIDE. LEGALLY. RIGHT. MR. I MEAN, I'M TRYING TO THINK WHEN YOU TOLD ME, BUT IT WAS, SO THIS IS, IT TOOK SOME TIME AND THAT OUR TRANSPARENCY, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD STATE WHY WE COULDN'T FIND OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING ZONING TAX AMENDMENTS FOR DATA CENTERS. THAT'S PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. THEY ALL WORKED WITH FOUR DATA CENTERS AND DEVELOPERS. WE COULD NOT FIND A, UH, NON-CONFLICTED, UNBIASED OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THAT LONG BECAUSE THEY ALL WORKED FOR OR WITH DATA CENTERS AND DEVELOPERS WHO DID THAT. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. I MEAN THERE WAS, MOST OF 'EM HAD CONFLICTS. YEAH. I DO THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO SAY. UM, AND I, AND UM, ALWAYS LIKES TO SAY, YOU KNOW, AS YOU GET MORE INFORMATION, YOU [00:50:02] THINK ABOUT THINGS. AND I WAS, I DON'T WANNA POSITIVE, I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO GIVE MY OPINION TOO MUCH ON AT THIS POINT, BUT I DID WANNA SAY THAT, UM, I KNOW THAT I RECOGNIZE THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID VERY GOOD DUE DILIGENCE. THEY DID VERY GOOD WORK. THEY RESEARCHED IT WELL, DID, YOU KNOW, WENT TO OTHER COMMUNITIES, EXAMINED THE DATA, TRIED TO COME UP WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, INFORMATION TO RESTRICT IF WE EVER HAD A DATA CENTER HERE, BECAUSE IN THE ABSENCE OF LANGUAGE, YOU KNOW, A DATA CENTER COULD, COULD COME IN AND HAVE WHATEVER THEY WANTED. UM, THAT SAID, ALL IS NOT LOST. IF, FOR INSTANCE, WE DECIDE NOT TO IF WE DECIDE NOW TO BAN. BECAUSE I STARTED THINKING ABOUT IT AND I, I THOUGHT, WAIT A MINUTE. WE'RE SITTING HERE, WE'RE TRYING TO PUT ALL THIS LANGUAGE AND RESTRICTIONS AND, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, COMPLIANCE IS NOT EVEN REALLY GOING DEEPLY INTO WE'RE GONNA NEED STAFF FOR THAT. WHY ARE WE DOING ALL OF THIS WHEN WE KNOW WE'RE NOT READY? AND PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT. SO WHY KEEP SHOVING IT DOWN THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, AND, AND GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS. AND AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE WORK. I KNOW WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO WORK HARD ON SOMETHING AND THAT IT IT NOT COME TO FRUITION. I THINK THAT IN THE FUTURE, PERHAPS IT COULD COME TO FRUITION OR OTHER PEOPLE CAN USE IT OR WHATEVER. I JUST, ALL I'M HEARING IS THE COMMUNITY IS NOT READY FOR IT. AND SO WHY GO THROUGH ALL THIS, YOU KNOW, POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE TO ACT LIKE IT'S GONNA GO THROUGH. BUT I, AND I DO THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE NOT BE ALARMIST, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S GETTING IN THE DATA CENTER BUSINESS. IF WE HAVE AN INDUSTRY COME TO TOWN AND THEY ALSO DO DATA CENTERS, WE DON'T AUTOMATICALLY SHOVE THEM OFF THE, THE LIST OF INDUSTRY BECAUSE WE DEFINITELY NEED INDUSTRY AND JOBS. BUT DO WE HAVE TO PUT A DATA CENTER? IS THAT OUR ONLY OPTION FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT? UM, SOMETIMES, UM, WE, I KNOW WE ALL NEED MONEY, BUT, UM, THE COST OF HUMAN SATISFACTION IS GREATER IN THIS ONE. AND I THINK WE CAN TRY TO FIGURE OUT SOME ALTERNATIVES. BUT THAT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE I'M FEELING. I'M, I'M NO LONGER FEELING LIKE ON THE FENCE OF OKAY, WE, YOU KNOW, HAVE SOME RESTRICTIVE LANGUAGE, BUT I KNOW WE CAN'T DO NOTHING. WE CAN'T LEAVE IT AS IT IS LEAVING IT AS IT IS. WE HAVE TO EITHER BAN OR RESTRICT. THERE'S NOT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOT A MIDDLE GROUND ON THAT. RESTRICT DETAILS OF THAT. YOU'RE OPEN PURPOSE. RIGHT. I WILL SAY THAT, THAT I, I LEGAL CAN WEIGH IN ON THIS IF YOU WANT. UH, I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE PLACES AROUND THE COUNTRY THAT HAVE BASICALLY PUT MORE AUDITORIUMS ON, ON DATA CENTERS UNTIL THEY'VE WORKED THROUGH ALL THE ISSUES AND LANGUAGES, UH, REGARDING, UH, WHAT THE CONCERNS ARE. I'LL JUMP IN DATA, WHICH IS OTHER STATES. UH, YEAH, WE'RE, WE'RE WE'RE DYLAN'S RULE. SO YEAH. BUT THE, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT A FULL MORATORIUM. I'M TALKING ABOUT A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM. UH, IF, IF COUNSEL SO WOULD CHOOSE TO DO SO. BUT I, I OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS, I'M HEARING CONCERNS, UM, THE FRONT ROYAL IS A UNIQUE PLACE IN THE SENSE THAT YOU HAVE THIS SKYLINE DRIVE RIGHT AT THE DOORSTEP, AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT UNIQUE AND BECAUSE OF THE AESTHETICS, THE VIEWS, THE SKYLINE AND ALL THAT TYPE OF EFFORTS. SO, I MEAN, THERE ARE THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE TO MITIGATE THOSE THINGS SO THAT A DATA CENTER COULD WORK. I I'M JUST SAYING THAT, UM, I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT, YOU KNOW, FOR COUNSEL TO CONSIDER. AND IF I CAN RESPOND OH YEAH, PLEASE. SO I'M JUST, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH ANY ENABLING LAW IN VIRGINIA REGARDING SUCH A MORATORIUM TEMPORARY, I I'M TALKING TEMPORARY. IT, IT'S STILL, WERE DYLAN'S RULES. MM-HMM . SO YOU HAVE TO FIND IT SOMEWHERE IN STATE LAW. WELL, DO THEY SAY YOU CAN STATE, I'M, I'M ADDRESSING MORATORIUM. I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF DIRECTING STAFF TO SEEK A MORATORIUM OPTION. I, I THINK IT'S A WASTE OF [00:55:01] MORE STAFF TIME. SO I, I THINK OUR JOB TONIGHT IS TO GIVE STAFF OUR DIRECTION. AND I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THEM SEARCHING FOR LEGAL LANGUAGE IN THE STATE CODE TO PLACE A MORATORIUM. I'M ALSO NOT IN FAVOR OF SENDING IT BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION. SO THAT'S MY OPINION. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? IT, YEAH. JOSH, YOU, ARE WE MAKING THE, WELL, TRYING TO, I I'M TRYING TO FIGURE THAT OUT MYSELF. BUT WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE SAYING WE DON'T WANT ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON IT, I DO WANT PUBLIC COMMENT. I'M ASKING TO NOT SEND IT. IF WE DON'T SEND IT ANYWHERE, IT WOULD BE, WE WOULD ADVERTISE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, A PUBLIC HEARING. RIGHT. I'M ASKING TO NOT WASTE STAFF OF JUNE. COUNCILMAN INGRAM, YOU, YOU, YOU WERE TRYING TO JUMP IN THERE AT SOME POINT. YOU JUST GOT CUT OFF THE SIDE. HAVING SERVED, HAVING SERVED ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, HAVING THIS BROUGHT TO US IN THE PAST AND CA AND COUNSEL, YOU KNOW, DIRECTING, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION TO WRITE A, UH, WRITE A TO WRITE A TEXT AMENDMENT. YEAH. AND IT DID HURT MY FEELINGS. I MEAN, WE WERE, WE DID OUR JOB AND GOT KICKED, SENT BACK AND THEN NOTHING HAPPENED TO HIM. SO IN THAT REGARD, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T BOTHER ME. BUT, UM, BUT I DO AGREE WHAT'S, WHAT'S, UH, THE VICE MAYOR AND, AND, AND, AND, AND ALSO WHAT, UH, COUNCILWOMAN SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, KICKING IT BACK AND KE OR EVEN WHAT COUNCILMAN RAPPAPORT SAID AS WELL, KEEP KICKING, KEEP KICKING IT BACK TO THEM AND HAVING THEM STIR UP, STIR UP AGAIN, GET IT BACK. AND THEN WE'RE LIKE, OH, LET'S DO THIS. LET'S DO THIS, LET'S DO THIS. 'CAUSE WE'VE SAT IN THIS TABLE COUNTLESS TIMES. WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS FOR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. I THINK WE CAN SAFELY AGREE THAT WHETHER IT'S 50 FEET TALL OR 80 FEET TALL, 37 30 FEET, WHATEVER IT IS, WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS OF THAT. AND WE ARE NEVER, EVER AS A, AS A WHOLE, WE'RE GONNA KEEP KICKING IT BACK TILL, YOU KNOW, HOW, HOW FOR HOW LONG IT, IT'LL NEVER EVER, IT'LL, THERE'S NO AMENDMENT THAT WE CAN WRITE WITH ALL THIS VERBIAGE THAT'S GOING TO MAKE EVERY ONE OF US HERE HAPPY. THAT'S WHY I AM LIKE, LOOK, IF WE'VE BEEN TOLD BY AN ATTORNEY SITTING HERE AT THIS TABLE THAT WE CAN BAN AND IT'S ALREADY HAPPENED IN, IN WARRENTON, LET'S KEEP IT SIMPLE. EITHER YOU WANT 'EM OR YOU DON'T. IT'S EITHER BAN 'EM OR JUST KEEP IT SIMPLE AND LEAVE IT AT THAT. THAT WAY THERE'S NO ARGUMENT, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO, UH, CHANCE OF ANYBODY COMING BACK AND TRYING TO INTERPRET, YOU KNOW, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. IT'S JUST, IT'S A CLEAR MESSAGE WHETHER OR NOT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WHOLE COUNCIL'S CONSENSUS ON THAT, BUT TO ME IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST A PLAIN. JANE MAY HAVE SAID, I SAID LAST MONDAY, IF WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO ADD RESTRICTIONS, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU GUYS DON'T WANT DATA CENTERS. 'CAUSE IF YOU'RE GONNA RESTRICT THEM TO THE POINT OF NOT BEING ABLE TO COME HERE, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU DON'T WANT THEM HERE, WHICH IS WHY I PROPOSED TWICE IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS. WE'VE BAN DATA CENTERS. WE CANNOT, WE CAN BE SUED FOR NOT HAVING PERFORMANCE. WE CAN BE SUED FOR BANNING 'EM. WE CAN BE SUED FOR NOT HAVING THEM IN THE BOOK CAMP. RIGHT. WHAT YOU WANNA BE SU FOR, YOU CAN BE SUED FOR ANYTHING. THIS IS A MARATHON. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE INSURANCE. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL. THAT'S WHY WE WERE ELECTED TO DO THE JOB OF MAKING THE HARD DECISIONS. AND I DO NOT FEEL WHETHER I SIT AT THIS DIOCESE, THIS TABLE, OR WHETHER I SIT IN THAT AUDIENCE, THAT FRONT ROYAL IS THE RIGHT PLACE FOR A DATA CENTER. AND THAT'S, IN SPEAKING WITH DATA CENTERS, I DON'T WANNA WASTE ANYMORE. AND THIS, THIS IS ME SAYING HAVING WORKED IN PROBABLY MORE THAN ANYBODY AT THIS TABLE, I ING HIM, BUILDING HIM, I SHOULD SAY. YOU KNOW, I'M SAYING, YOU KNOW, FROM A PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AS WELL. SO WE ALL HAVE NICHES IN WHAT WE'RE REALLY GOOD AT. BUT I CAN DARN SURE SAY THAT I'VE PROBABLY SPENT MORE TIME IN DATA CENTERS HELPING PUT TOGETHER A BUILDING THAN ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM FOR THAT MATTER, PROBABLY IN BOTH SIDES OF GOVERNMENT FOR THAT MATTER. SO YEAH, I'M GOING TO, I THINK WE NEED CONSENSUS POUND FOR THAT. AND AGAIN, I'M SAYING IT COMPLETELY OBJECTIVELY, SO WELL UNDER THE RIGHT CONDITIONS, YOU MIGHT, YOU MIGHT CONSIDER A DATA CENTER. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THERE, THERE MAY, YOU KNOW, I, I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. YOU KNOW, OKAY. NO ONE, NO ONE WANTS TO, THEY HAVE TOWERS, RIGHT? SO THOSE TOWERS ARE ANYWHERE BETWEEN 150 FEET TO TWO. WHAT TOWERS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? TWO 40. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT TOWERS THAT RUN THE TRANSMISSION LINES? OKAY. OKAY. SO GOTTA SPECIFY. SO YOU MIGHT HAVE SOMEBODY THAT MIGHT SAY, I DON'T LIKE THEM. I DON'T LIKE THAT, BECAUSE IT'S GONNA RUIN THE SKYLINE. MM-HMM . OKAY. BUT DATA CENTERS ARE ALSO EXPLORING RUNNING THEM UNDERGROUND. YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE NEW WAVE THEY'RE LOOKING AT RUNNING, RUNNING THE TRANSMISSION LINES UNDERGROUND. IN FACT, THEY, THEY'VE DONE IT ON INTERSTATE [01:00:01] 66 MM-HMM . UM, SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST ONE EXAMPLE. I MEAN, I MEAN, THERE'S OTHER THINGS YOU CAN, YOU CAN, I WOULD JUST ASK, OKAY, WHERE IN WOULD YOU LIKE FOR THEM TO BE BURIED THEN? EXCUSE ME. I WOULD JUST ASK IF YOU SAY THAT, THEN WHERE IN TOWN WOULD YOU LIKE FOR THEM TO BE BURIED? THEN THAT'S, THAT'S, I MEAN, IT'S A FAIR QUESTION IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. WELL, YEAH, I MEAN, UH, THAT WOULD BE THE ENGINEERING ASPECT OF IT. BUT WHERE TO DETERMINE WHERE, WHERE, WHERE IN YOUR MIND RIGHT NOW WOULD YOU THINK THEY WOULD, COULD BE BURIED ON THE, ON THE PROPERTY RUNNING ACROSS TO WHEREVER THEY, THEY WOULD HOOK ONTO THE, UM, THE, UH, ELECTRICAL GRID. I KNOW, BUT I'M JUST ASKING WHERE SPECIFICALLY IN TOWN, LIKE, DO YOU HAVE AN AREA LIKE NEAR SEA? WELL, I MEAN NEAR A SPECIFIC ZONING OR WHAT, I'M JUST, I'M JUST ASKING GENERAL QUESTIONS. NO, I'M, I'M, I'M SAYING THAT WOULD BE, WELL YEAH, BUT THAT WOULD BE IN THE, IN THE, UH, THE ENGINEERING DESIGN. SO THAT'S WHAT A DATA CENTER, UH, DOES. I MEAN, YOU JUST SAID YOU WORK IN DATA CENTERS, SO THAT'S WHAT THEY YEAH. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. UM, THEY ALSO POST INTERPRETATION. SO I MEAN, THERE, THERE, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET BOTH WORLDS OUT OF IT AND MAYBE NOT. BUT IF YOU PUT THAT INTO THE TEXT AMENDMENT AS AN EXAMPLE, THAT'S FINE. I'M JUST SAYING. AND THEN, UH, ASK MAY BE WHERE DO YOU WANT, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, BUT, SO HERE'S WHAT I GONNA SAY. I THINK, I THINK WE JUST NEED TO DECIDE, OKAY, TONIGHT, WHAT'S BEFORE US IS COUNSEL TO CONSIDER ADVERTISING DRAFT AMENDMENTS FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AT A FUTURE DATE. WE REFER THE ITEM BACK TO THE PLAN COMMISSION FOR FURTHER REVIEW A THUMBS UP. WE'RE NOT, I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR, WE'RE NOT VOTE. THIS ISN'T A VOTE FOR OR AGAINST DATA CENTER TONIGHT. THIS IS ABOUT THAT TEXT AMENDMENT ARE, DOES COUNT. IS COUNSEL READY TO SEND IT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING IN JUNE TO TALK WHETHER OR NOT THE, THAT UP OR DOWN ON THAT AMENDMENT THAT, THAT'S BEFORE US? OR DO YOU FEEL LIKE WE'RE NOT READY TO SEND IT TO A PUBLIC HEARING AND SEND IT BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION? THAT THAT IS A RECOMMENDATION. THAT'S IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, UH, IT, NEITHER OF THESE ARE ACTIONS TODAY. THEY'RE WHAT DID, WHERE ARE WE GOING FROM HERE, WAYNE? I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM YOU AT ALL. AND I'M SORRY. I WAS LIKE, I JUST DIDN'T, I KNOW. I, I, LOOK, IT'S SUCH A PASSIONATE TOPIC. WE COULD BE HERE TILL MIDNIGHT TONIGHT. I'LL, I'LL SEE. I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT DATA CENTERS. OKAY. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH WATER TO START WITH FOR OUR CITIZENS THAT WE HAVE NOW. AND YOU KNOW, WHAT'S, WHAT'S IT GONNA DO TO OUR ELECTRIC GRID? YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALREADY HEARD FROM THE PEOPLE SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, DATA CENTERS MAKE OUR ELECTRIC BILLS GO UP. THAT'S THEY ALREADY HAVE RIGHT NOW. I KNOW, I KNOW THEY HAVE, BUT I DON'T MEAN JUST OUR ASSIGNMENT THEY'RE SAYING IN GENERAL AROUND THEM, UM, YOU KNOW, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE SAME PROBLEMS THEY HAD IN LOUDOUN COUNTY WITH THEM. SIR, THE QUESTION IS, I'M GONNA GO BACK TO THIS. SO DO YOU WANT, ARE YOU READY TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING? DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO, DO WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO TAKE IT TO A PUBLIC HEARING IN JUNE TO, TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS? IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING YOU'VE READY, THAT YOU TAKE ACTION IN JUNE FROM GETTING INFORMATION. YOU'D RATHER DO THAT THAN SEND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BUT I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR YOU, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LEANING TOWARDS. YEAH. AND JOSH, THIS IS THE SAME AND AMBER IS THE SAME. YEAH. AND MELISSA, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE THE SAME, AND WOULD YOU, ARE YOU WELL, I, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF, OF, UH, I WANT, I WANT THE , I WANT THE INPUT OF THE WORK THAT I'VE DONE PERSONALLY AND DETERMINING WHAT COULD BE GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY, UM, IF CERTAIN THINGS WERE ADDED TO THIS TEXT AMENDMENT. OKAY. OKAY. SO I, HOLD ON. SO I MEAN, YOU WANT ME TO SHARE 'EM WITH YOU? NO, I'LL BE GLAD TO SHARE 'EM. I KIND OF DO. YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, BUT I JUST WANNA SAY WHAT'S BEFORE US IS WHETHER OR NOT THE IDEA IS DO YOU WANT IT TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR DO YOU WANT IT TO BE ON A PUBLIC HEARING TO TAKE IT? AND IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME YOU'D PREFER TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SO THAT THEY COULD TAKE SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS [01:05:01] AND, AND CLEAN UP OR MORE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. THAT'S WHAT I THINK YOU'RE SAYING. YEAH. OKAY. ALL 'CAUSE IT MAKES, IT MAKES THE DOC, IN MY OPINION, IT MAKES THE DOCUMENT STRONG. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COUNCILMAN WOOD, YOUR PREFERENCE TO, I, I MEAN, MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE WE, WE GOT LEGAL ADVICE, UM, LEGAL OPINION, LEGAL, UM, LANGUAGE THAT SHOULD BE ADDED OR REMOVED FROM OUR ORDINANCE. SO I BELIEVE THAT IT SHOULD GO BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO BE CLEANED UP OR PRESENTED, BUT I'M FINE WITH MOVING US AHEAD TO A PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. UM, ALL RIGHT. IT OBVIOUSLY, UM, I'M NOT THE MATH WIZARD IN THIS ROOM. WE CAN ALL FIGURE OUT THAT THE IDEA IS GOING TO BE THAT WE'RE, THAT IN JUNE WE WILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS TEXT AMENDMENT AND EVERYBODY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC, AND THEN WE'LL TAKE ACTION ON THAT TEXT AMENDMENT AT THIS TIME, MR. PETTY, IS THERE SOMETHING, IT JUST KNOWS, AND THEN THERE WAS ALSO THE REQUEST FOR A LEGAL OPINION, CORRECT? CORRECT. YEAH. I'D LIKE TO HAVE A RECAP OF LAST MINUTE THIS CONVERSATION. YEAH, WE'LL MAKE SURE YOU HAD THAT. YEAH. BUT THIS IS MAY 11TH AND OUR JUNE MEETING WILL BE, LET ME THINK 22ND. 20. 22ND WILL BE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 22ND. YEAH. WILL BE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WAIT, JUNE 22ND. JUNE 22ND, 22ND. 15TH. EIGHTH, FIRST. YEP. OKAY. I WAS GONNA SAY THAT SEEMED THAT'S THE EARLIEST THURSDAY. WE HAVE FIVE MONDAYS. FIVE MONDAYS. OKAY. GOTCHA. ALL RIGHT. SO, SO THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE ON JUNE 22ND, WHICH MEANS WE GOT A MONTH AND 11 DAYS TO GUESS THE LEGAL OPINION OUT TO COUNSEL IN WRITING. NO, I KNOW, I WAS JUST, JUST CLARIFYING EVERYTHING UNLESS THERE'S SOMEHOW MINUTES FROM THAT MEETING. THAT WAS ADVICE, BUT I MEAN, I HAVE MINE. THERE WOULDN'T BE, IT WOULDN'T BE MINUTES CLOSED. RIGHT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IT SEEMED THAT'S, THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT WE'LL HAVE TO DISCUSS GOING FORWARD BECAUSE IT SEEMS THAT THERE WERE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF WHAT WAS SAID VERY DIRECT. I WROTE VERBATIM. SO. ALRIGHT, SO NEXT ITEM IS CLOSED MEETING. I'M SORRY, YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT YEP, I HAVE THE DIFFERENT MOTION. YEP. MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE THAT TOWN COUNCIL CONVENE A CLOSED MEETING PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2 DASH 3 7 1 AND 2.2 DASH 3 7 2 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSE. ONE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2 DASH 3 7 1 A EIGHT OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA FOR CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EMPLOYED OR RETAINED BY A PUBLIC BODY REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MATTERS REQUIRING THE PROVISION OF LEGAL ADVICE BY SUCH COUNSEL. MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE AMENDMENT TO THE VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF WARREN, VIRGINIA AND THE TOWN OF FORT ROYAL VIRGINIA REGARDING THE COMPROMISE FOR PILOT MEALS AND LODGING TAXES ENTERED INTO APRIL 11TH, 2018 AND THE 5 22 CORRIDOR PILOT. OKAY. MOTION IS SECOND. YES. COUNCIL? YES. INGRAM? YES. YES, YES. YES. * 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.