Planning District Commission Special Meeting   7/25/2024

Absolutely.

As requested, if you can turn your camera on for the roll call, that would be great.

Thank you.

Only Mr. Tubbs is there, but he's not going to be doing the roll call.

So I guess here's Ned Thomas, portion presenter.

Hi, Sean.

How are you doing?

Oskron, Natalie, will you be joining the roll call?

Probably not there.

Nope.

All right.

Great.

OK, great.

We'll call this special meeting on July 25th, 2024 to order.

Mr. Goolsby.

Supervisor Barlow.

Here.

Yes, I'm here.

I'm sorry.

No worries.

Supervisor Reed is absent.

We do have a quorum.

Excellent.

Yes.

This meeting of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission is being held pursuant to Code of Virginia subsection C of section 2.2-3708.3, which allows a public body to hold all virtual public meetings.

This meeting is being held via electronic video and audio means through Zoom online meetings and is accessible to the public.

Notice has been provided to the public through notice at the TJPDC offices to the media, website postings, and agenda.

The meeting is held pursuant to the remote electronic participation in all virtual meeting policy as adopted by the Commission on September 1, 2022.

The meeting minutes will reflect that the meeting was held by electronic communication means.

and the type of electronic communication means by which the meeting was held.

Excellent, very well.

Thank you everybody for being here.

This should be a pretty brief meeting and hope you're all having a nice summer.

It's good to see your faces and we'll be meeting regularly next time.

in August here.

Yep, that's me.

Yes, sorry y'all can't see me.

No matter what I do, my video doesn't work.

So you'll just have to go without my face, I suppose.

Let me share my screen.

I'm going to give a quick presentation on

our housing preservation grant application for the 2024 federal fiscal year which opened up at the end of June and the application period will close on Monday.

So we're getting this in just in time.

So,

For those of you who may not know, the housing preservation grant basically helps folks rehabilitate their homes, particularly those with low or extremely low incomes.

The way the program works, generally speaking, is we have partner organizations in each of our rural counties, including Albemarle,

Ahip, which operates in the rural part of the county for this program.

And they find applicants bring their applications to us.

We approve them and reimburse them for their

expenses.

Per project, $5,000 is available.

Typically, though, there's about $3,500 for any given project on average.

And the local organizations know to match those funds with funds from elsewhere.

Typically, the money is used for things like a new HVAC system or a roof replacement.

Generally speaking, pretty crucial repairs for people's homes.

In the previous program year, which is still ongoing actually, will technically close in September, but the grant is active for two years, so we have a lot of time yet to spend down those funds, though already we have spent the majority of them, as you can see, of the 174,000 or so we've already committed 144,000, so

Probably a handful of projects will come in the rest of the summer to be completed and that might wrap things up.

On the right is a graphic representation

of how much money has gone to each county, essentially, each county being folks who reside in those counties for this program year, 2023.

As you can see, Louisa and Fluvanna and Albemarle make up the majority.

And our partner, the Fluvanna Louisa Housing Foundation manages both Louisa and Fluvanna.

So we do the majority of our work with them, 60%.

This is accounting for 40 projects total.

So far this program year we expect slightly fewer for next year, as I'll get to on the next slide, considering a dip in the amount of funding allocated to the state of Virginia by the USDA.

So that brings us to the proposed budget.

The previous year's budget was somewhere around $212,000 that we requested from Virginia of around $424,000 available for the whole state.

This year we're asking for approximately $136,000 based off of that being half of what's available.

That's the maximum you can ask for.

Of that, 111,000 or so will be passed through to our partners and ultimately to the recipients, homeowners in our region.

20,000 or so will be for the TJPDC to operate its administrative costs.

So mostly paying for, for example, me administering my time or printing costs and things.

And then we set aside 4,000 for sub-recipients.

So our contracting agencies, we can pass along 200 or so per project to them.

which helps them greatly.

And for the timeline, today we've had this meeting.

This is actually the end of the public comment period today.

To date have not received any public comments.

And the pre-application itself is due the 29th.

September 1st, 2024 is when the program year is set to begin.

The application is a little bit late coming out this year.

It usually comes out about two months earlier, as far as I can tell.

So there may be a change with that September 1st date, depending on how long it takes them to get back to us with awards.

But that is the spiel.

Yeah, I think that sums things up pretty well.

Could you help me understand a bit about the matching that your one slide mentions?

No, it's not coming from us.

It's coming from

For example, let's take the Fluvanna Louisa Housing Foundation.

They would find funds from another source, maybe a state source, occasionally from home or something else, a federal source.

And they would bring those funds to the table already for us.

I think in large part, yes.

I think because the program years sort of overlap with the fiscal years of a lot of our organizations and ourself, they have likely identified most of them.

I think maybe there's some up in the air, but typically our

The amount of money that goes into any one project on average is 25% made up from HPG funds and 75% from elsewhere.

Yes, many of these projects are funded by multiple grant sources and many of

The sources are private, but the non-profits are able to pull in sources that are not state or federal, but private.

I was just going to say that while this is kind of like additional funding for those projects, they do typically include this in their annual funding budgetary

And it's not a thing, they might be hard at rest to identify a unique source of matching funds that isn't otherwise accounted for.

Like they would have to fundraise to do matching.

No, I've never heard them say that they have had any difficulty finding the matching funds.

And if you permit me one other quick question, I actually couldn't get very helpful information from the USDA RFP on this about

what they're using to define what is and is not a rural area.

And as Albemarle continues to go through kind of demographic change and place change, I'm kind of curious how they're understanding it.

Yeah, actually I can sort of speak to that, generally speaking for Albemarle County, everything that isn't Hollymeade, Forest Lakes, Crozet proper, and the very inner ring qualifies.

Everything but that.

Yep.

They do it by a census block.

So on one side of the street, you can be there on the other side of the street.

You're not.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Seeing none, at this point, we'll open up the public hearing.

Seeing none, we'll now close the public hearing.

We have discussion among the commissioners.

All right, seeing that we have no discussion, we will now take a vote on it, I assume.

Is that correct?

Or no, we're gonna wait.

So there is an intergovernmental review memo in your packet explaining the intergovernmental review process that is required by USDA and that is acknowledged in the resolution that is also in your packet and you will vote on the resolution.

Okay.

The intergovernmental review is a requirement by USDA and by many federal agencies for local and regional grant applications to make sure that state and local officials have an opportunity to have a say in how those dollars get used.

O'Brien.

So this is your notice that we are applying or intending to apply for this grant and

Great.

OK, so we do have a motion.

All right.

Are we taking a roll call on this one?

I imagine so.

Supervisor Pruitt?

Aye.

Supervisor O'Brien?

Aye.

Supervisor Goolsby is absent.

Supervisor Barlow?

Yes.

Supervisor Reed is absent.

All right, anybody against?

Okay, so the motion passes.

All right, on to additional business here, remote electronic participation for all virtual meeting policy.

Yes, good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission.

As you all convened this meeting this evening under your remote electronic participation and virtual meeting policy, it is also necessary that we put this item on the agenda for you this evening because there are

Some changes that need to be made pursuant to some legislation that passed during this General Assembly session earlier this year.

In your packet, you do have a version of the policy that shows the proposed changes highlighted in yellow.

And then following that, there is a clean copy of the resolution that would include those changes.

So you may recall you adopted this policy initially back in September of 2022, so almost two years ago.

And again, legislation is driving the changes that we're bringing before you in this document.

First one is to increase from 25% to 50%.

The maximum number of all virtual meetings that you can hold per year.

So we have 10 regularly scheduled meetings for the commission.

So that would allow you to have up to five virtual meetings should you desire to do so.

Of course, there's still the requirement that you cannot have two in a row.

So you'd be looking at an every other meeting kind of thing.

But that amount, percentage amount was increased.

The second change is really an expansion of existing provisions concerning the members use of audio and video technology during the all virtual meetings.

I asked you at the beginning of the meeting to turn your cameras on.

That is basically what that change is talking about with regard to establishing a quorum is to have your video on if it is available and working.

And then the third change, again, I mentioned that you had initially adopted this policy almost two years ago.

There's now a requirement that you have an annual adoption of the policy.

So those are the changes that were required by the legislation.

There's also a few other technical and streamlining changes that we included in the attached.

All right, thank you very much.

Well, it's interesting the way the language is worded because it speaks to for the purposes of establishing a quorum.

So I'm just gonna read it to you.

And of course, if you don't have it in front of you, but when any member has audio visual technology available and electronic communication is being used to establish a quorum, that member shall be considered absent

from any portion of the meeting during which visual communication with the member is voluntarily disconnected or otherwise fails or during which audio communication involuntarily fails.

So I think the read on that that I would have and in talking with some others is that you have it on for the establishment of the quorum.

I would say that you need a quorum if you're going to be taking a vote.

So if folks have their video off during some discussion, but when it comes time to vote, you know, during the roll call vote that Ruth just did, for example, that camera would be on.

I think the premise behind this and it being brought forth by some folks in the open government world is that this is a virtual meeting.

We wanna make sure that we can see folks when you're having these public meetings.

So I think that's the idea behind it and the spirit behind the change.

So this is maybe getting into the weeds, but my understanding of Robert's is that once you've established a quorum, if the quorum, if the number drops after the establishment, you can still proceed.

I think the language is confusing.

But again, I think if you were, I would agree.

And I think TJPDC in the past has had some meetings where we did not have quorum physically assembled.

We may have had six people.

We proceeded with the meeting and the discussion, but then if we got someone that came in late, then we would officially meet, call the meeting to order.

And I think that for purposes of taking a vote on any action item, you do have to have a quorum.

So when in doubt, you know, we're going to have to inflict our visages on everybody else.

I was always under the impression that you had to have a quorum for votes.

So this is saying that if your camera is not on, if you've voluntarily turned it off, and we've got five people with their cameras on, then you're absent from the meeting unless your camera's on.

So that's what I'm saying.

And the reasoning to go to 50%, David, any particular thoughts there?

He's muted.

I had just said I didn't realize my camera was off.

So I turned my camera on and then turned my audio off.

So see, you've got me all confused.

The patron of the legislation this year, primary patron, had brought similar legislation the year before.

and had tried to increase that percentage.

Former member of city council, and I felt just, you know, I think in Northern Virginia, so I think felt that they needed more flexibility for a number of reasons, particularly related to some of the traffic issues that they have up there.

was not successful in 2023, brought it back again this past year in a little different makeup of the General Assembly, and was able to get that 50% through.

In your bylaws, if you wanted to have something stipulated that you would only have a certain number of all virtuals per year, you can state that.

I think since this policy was enacted a couple of years ago, I think you've not used it even to the extent you would have had the opportunity to under the still existing policy where you could have had three because the language is two or 25% and you round up to the next total number.

But I think it's been a tool that you've had for flexibility purposes such as this, which I think we've had to have this special meeting in July.

2 or 3 years now because of the timing of some grants.

So it's not something that I have found in talking with others that local governments are saying, hey, we're going to schedule to have X number of virtual meetings throughout the year and that they're going to be in August and November or whatever.

There's a comment that maybe staff could note for the organization.

Our calendar is set in the calendar year, correct?

I believe that Christine includes a calendar of meetings for you in the December meeting packets.

It seems like a best practice that I've been hearing from others and we've started to use in our own county or

on some of the other bodies that are not the board or the commission has just stated in advance what your intent would be for the virtual.

So for example, like this special meeting, if the commission said in the event of special meetings, you could call those out as likely virtual or maybe a summer meeting that you're gonna establish at that calendar time, which one may be virtual.

So you're announcing it ahead of time and well in advance of any public notice that that's the intent.

But I just throw that out as,

Thank you.

We could certainly announce intent if that would be of desire.

So this requirement relates to if there is an all virtual meeting such as what you're having now.

If you were to have a situation where Louisa County's Board of Supervisors was meeting and you have five, which is a quorum physically assembled there in your county office building and you and Mr. Woodward were participating remotely, this would not apply.

Seven.

You would have to have seven people physically there.

So what I'm saying is if I, for instance, wanted to participate via Zoom, then

As long as you had a quorum, that would be okay.

But if you didn't have a quorum, I wouldn't count.

We're voting, that's right.

Really 50% of your regular meetings.

Well, I mean, I think it's a great idea to save somebody driving 84 miles every once in a while, which, you know, I'd be all for it, but I still am not completely sure about the quorum aspect of it because I think that if, for instance, you only had five people there,

and I came on by Zoom, then you still wouldn't have a quorum.

So what happens is the physical quorum is needed to vote you into the meeting.

Yeah.

Exactly.

It can't be voted in, then you can't vote.

That's what I'm saying.

Right.

Because you are required, if you're going to have

Now, I'm just looking at the language there on notification, and I'm not saying it's inconsistent.

but it references 25% for the typical meeting.

So the all virtual meetings, 50%, is that correct or is that intended to be something different there?

Yeah, it's actually in two different places.

That is your cap.

That's something totally different.

Totally different.

Those are the reasons that if you're gonna participate remotely as a member, and there is a quorum physically assembled at the TJPDC, and the commission votes to allow you to participate from a remote location, there is a reasoning that you have to state that why you're participating remotely.

So in theory then, with this change, you could participate in 25% of the meetings for personal means that you stated in advance, but you could also participate because of a medical illness or injury that's kept you away above the 25%.

That is correct, yeah.

In A, they only apply the 25% to the personal matters and the rest would not be limited by that, correct.

Excellent.

Any other questions?

All right.

Seeing none, I guess we need to take a motion here.

Would somebody like to make the motion?

We have a second.

All right.

Roll call, please.

Supervisor O'Brien.

Aye.

Supervisor Goolsby is absent.

Supervisor Barlow.

Yes.

Supervisor Reed is absent.

All right.

And Mr. Blount, I think you want to speak about the VATI grant.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Appreciate the opportunity.

And I believe next, well, in September, which I believe is going to be your next meeting, we're going to have a more formal update on the Virginia Telecommunication Initiative VODI program that we have.

But just wanted to give you a brief update.

VODI 22, which is the project we're working on and have been working on for the past couple of years, moving right along, Fireflies,

You're doing great work.

Just got a report from them that they've completed more than 13,000 passings with their fiber construction.

And that's on the way to the 36,000 plus passings that are the milestone for the Body 22 project.

So I think we're in good shape in reaching that mark in just about a little over a year from now.

But the big news that we wanted to share with you all this evening, in case you had not seen our media release from earlier this afternoon or seen it from somewhere else, that it was announced yesterday that TJPDC was awarded $12.2 million in VATI 2024 funding.

and that's to expand on the work that we're currently doing with Firefly.

Total cost of this particular project is $48 million and the additional work will expand the number of passings by about $5,800.

over the course of 18 months.

And that's going to be taking place in 10 of the original 13 counties that we're working with now as part of VADI 22.

So we're just really happy about that.

We want to really congratulate Firefly.

As you know, they've been a great partner.

They have a great team there.

Certainly want to thank Lori and Gorjan on our team.

For working with Firefly to put together a really good application.

So just to give you a sense, just very briefly, there was about $41 million available in this funding round.

The requests that were submitted were asking for $170 million.

There were 10 projects that received funding out of the 25 that applied.

And if you look at our 12.2 million against the 41 million total available, we got somewhere close to 30% of the money that was available.

So, you know, again, I think we're making really good progress at getting people connected to the internet and I'm just really excited about

continuing to work with Firefly.

And Firefly, I will tell you too, just as a final note, they have already reached out today to the state's broadband office to see if they can begin work under this new project as soon as possible.

because they've already got their design crews, their make-ready crews, construction crews, and their subcontractors are already in place in a number of these counties very near to where the new project areas are.

And they just want to keep rolling.

So we'll hopefully be able to provide you with more detail about that in terms of the work on 2024 when we have that more formal update for you.

Thank you.

And agreed.

Great news for everybody.

And Firefly has been amazing.

They're really a wonderful partner for Fluvanna and I'm sure for all the other counties.

And I'm pretty sure that we're now taking over Nelson County as far as the most subscribers in that county.

So we have the best.

Okay, I don't think we have any old business right now.

And the next meeting is September 5th, which will be my wedding anniversary.

I just wanted to confirm that everyone is okay with canceling the August meeting.

It would be exactly a week from now.

Thank you.

And Christine Jacobs did send her regrets to you all for not being here tonight.

Excellent.

All right.

Well, you all have a wonderful rest of the summer, and we'll see you in September.

Thank you very much for making time for this meeting tonight.

Motion to adjourn, please.

All right.

I don't think we need a roll call for that one.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Anybody against?

The motion passes.

Thank you very much.

Y'all have a good evening.