HomeMy Public PortalAbout2019_tcwsmin0909Council Work Session September 9, 2019
Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:00 p.m. Mayor Kelly Burk presiding.
Council Members Present: Ron Campbell, Thomas Dunn, Suzanne Fox, Neil
Steinberg, Joshua Thiel and Mayor Kelly Burk
Council Members Absent: Vice Mayor Martinez.
Staff Present: Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Town Attorney Barbara Notar, Deputy
Town Manager Keith Markel, Deputy Town Attorney Christine Newton, Director of
Planning and Zoning Susan Berry Hill, Director of Public Works Renee LaFollette,
Economic Development Director Russell Seymour, Leesburg Police Lieutenant Bob
Thompson, Public Information Officer Betsy Arnett, Management and Budget Officer
Jason Cournoyer, and Clerk of Council Eileen Boeing.
Minutes prepared by Executive Associate Corina Alvarez.
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Items for Discussion
a. Expansion of the Golf Cart Service Area
Mr. Seymour gave a presentation on the golf cart service program in the
downtown area and staff's support of the current request of an expansion to a
limited area.
Council Member Steinberg asked about the concerns the Leesburg
Police Department (LPD) has regarding the expansion. Lt. Thompson stated
that the LPD has not had enough time to evaluate the service and its safety
and it would like more time to make an evaluation. Mr. Steinberg asked if
there have been any issues. Lt. Thompson indicated that there have not been
any reported crashes nor has the LPD issued any traffic summons to the
operators. Council Member Steinberg asked if the LPD's greater concern is
the extension coming down King Street to Fairfax Street as opposed to the
bump out on Madison Trade Plaza. Lt. Thompson mentioned that although
the bump out on Harrison Street is small it is the intersection that would allow
access to the Crescent Station development which is private property, so if the
cart company gets permission from the private property owner to operate on
their property, it will allow carts to drive through the complex. He added that
although it is small on the map it will open up a larger area of private property
and the same goes for Fairfax Street because it opens up the entire Virginia
Village Shopping Center. Mr. Steinberg asked what timeframe is needed to
assess the program. Lt. Thompson said that six months to a full year or two
would provide a better data set to look at. Mr. Steinberg asked if the golf cart
business owner will wait until Council takes an action before approaching the
private property owner in order to ascertain that he has permission to make the
expansion. Mr. Seymour indicated that he believes the golf carts owner and
Virginia Village have had some discussions and that Virginia Village is
interested in the carts servicing this area, but he is unaware if there have been
any discussions with the private property owner.
11Page
Council Work Session September 9, 2019
Council Member Thiel asked if the service hours are going to change
and if the service is only on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Mr. Seymour
indicated that the current hours are Monday through Sunday from 9 a.m. to 12
a.m. with the exception of Monday through Friday where there is a gap from 8
a.m. to 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. in order to keep the carts off the road
during rush hour. He added that the hours for the expansion would be
maintained. Mr. Thiel asked if staff had an idea of the number of requests
received asking for an extension of the service. Mr. Seymour indicated that
during initial conversations the owner stated receiving requests from a large
area comprising residential areas north of Ida Lee and north and west of the
area shown on the map. Council Member Thiel asked if someone wants to go
to Crescent Station or Fairfax Street does the cart just drop him/her off at the
boundary line. Mr. Seymour indicated that the cart operator makes the rider
aware of the service boundaries in advance. Mr. Thiel says he sees this as a
safety concern since he would prefer to see riders taken to their car faster as
opposed to them walking on the streets.
Council Member Fox asked for confirmation that there would be no
access from Catoctin Circle. Mr. Seymour responded affirmatively. Ms. Fox
asked how the application with Virginia Village would affect this expansion.
Mr. Seymour said that at this point it would be accessing off of the interior
road coming into Virginia Village and that he assumes that moving forward
the idea is to have Virginia Village to be served but not through Catoctin.
Council Member Fox asked for confirmation that the LPD needs at least 6
more months to evaluate the impacts of this service. Lt. Thompson said that
the operation of the golf carts during the winter months is unknown and
therefore, at a minimum, it should be evaluated during the summer months
when it is the busiest in order to have two sets of data. Ms. Fox said that the
LPD's argument of not knowing what will happen in the winter months is
pretty compelling to her.
Council Member Campbell said he is not against the program and that
when it came up to Council last year he talked about a pilot so staff could
study the impact, the service implications, and that Council does not even
have the measurables of what might be found or not found relating to the
number of accidents or the number of pickups. He added that the Town has
given no indication to the owner of what the Town believes it needs. Mr.
Campbell said the service is fun, friendly, and convenient and also a source of
economic income thanks to advertising, but questioned if it is a necessary
service. Council Member Campbell asked for the vision and not this
piecemeal approach with additional requests for expansions or other needs,
and even competition, which comes into every area. He also questioned how
many of these services is the Town willing to support. Mr. Campbell said
there are many unanswered questions that Council needs to take responsibility
for, such as:
• Is it just to serve this well-defined area in this section of Town or other
sections?
2 IPage
Council Work Session September 9, 2019
• Is the Town looking for a new internal transportation service that is
valuable to Leesburg?
• How can it be expanded or should it be confined to a particular area?
Council Member Campbell mentioned that Council needs staffs support and
indicate what the expansion is for. Mr. Campbell believes that moving
forward should be done strategically and not approve just for the sake of
approval. Mr. Seymour said that staff did not want to see this piecemealed
either and that it agrees with the LPD's recommendation. He added that staff
reviewed the Town map, crossed out areas with speed limits over 25 mph and
identified the maximum area that can be served. Mr. Seymour indicated that
staff and the business owner discussed the areas from which most requests are
received and those are the areas that staff has presented to Council for its
consideration. Mr. Campbell asked to see the maximum coverage area that
can be served and with that talk about incremental growth.
Council Member Dunn said that he was aware that staff talked to
various businesses and that he imagines that not many business owners asked
staff not do something that will bring them more customers. Mr. Seymour
said that is a fair statement. Mr. Dunn said that in the past Council had talked
about a shuttle service that would help the downtown by bringing the vast
amount of customers at the outlet mall into town. He added that it would be
interesting to see if there could be something done about that, but he just does
not think that golf carts will be the answer. Council Member Dunn said, in
response to Mr. Campbell's point of where else could this go, if the speed limit
is 25 mph or less he is unaware of connecting streets that connect unimpeded
throughout town at 25 mph that could get people to downtown and there
could be other safety issues. Mr. Dunn said he also has concerns of this
having incremental continuous expansions based more on operator need than
public need and if there is a need to expand then there must not be enough
business currently in that area. Council Member Dunn said that there are
some businesses that are in between and are being bypassed by this service and
now foot traffic is going back to wheel traffic. Mr. Dunn said he thought that
originally this was going to be a service that generally would take people from
parking areas to the downtown, but then again this would only take people to
a few stops and bypass other businesses. He added that he does not know if
this is really meeting the needs. Council Member Dunn indicated that he
would like to know, before going into an expansion, on how the service will
work during bad weather in the winter. Mr. Dunn added that there are
already businesses that are providing this service to individuals such as buses,
taxis, Uber, Lyft. He mentioned that other services that have been mentioned
in the past are bike and scooter rental stands. Council Member Dunn agreed
with the LPD's recommendation to leave this as a test area before looking into
an expansion and instead look into where the Town wants to expand based on
the public's need not the business' need.
Mayor Burk said that this service helps move people from one place to
another, it gets cars off the road, and it provides a service for people who are
trying to go downtown and that a lot of people park in the area of Fairfax
3 IPage
Council Work Session September 9, 2019
Street and the Virginia Village. Ms. Burk said she was surprised to see that the
Safeway parking lot was not included since she knows a lot of people park
there. Ms. Burk added that this is done all over the county; it is not something
new. She mentioned that she appreciates the LPD's input but she does not
believe it is reasonable to expect a two-year evaluation. Mayor Burk
mentioned that:
• the carts have been in service for almost 6 months
• there have been no accidents or issues
• people love it
• it brings people downtown
• it is an attraction
• it helps the businesses economically
She added that this is a high -demand area and it is a safe option and it is an
opportunity to service the public need and that of the businesses. Ms. Burk
indicated that this is a reasonable expansion based on the demand and this
service will be useful to get people downtown once the Pennington lot opens.
Council Member Campbell said this is not about not having the service
but about doing it right and improving the service and whether or not there is a
need. Mr. Campbell said it is important to ask questions so that there is a well-
defined area, defined community expectations and that Council is not only
driven by community need but also by issues of community safety. Council
Member Campbell said that Council needs to discuss if it will permit other golf
cart companies to service the area and have usage numbers and information on
issues that could arise, in order to make informed decisions.
Council Member Dunn said that the item should be taken off the
agenda since he does not believe there is enough support. Mayor Burk said
she would ask after everyone has had his/her three minutes.
Council Member Steinberg said he concurs with the Mayor's opinion
and that these two additional areas are minor and would have probably been
approved if included in the original request. He added that this is meant to
serve people coming in cars and parking them as opposed to Uber and Lyft
users who tend to want to leave their cars at home and do not want to deal
with the situation. Mr. Steinberg said that it is certainly up to the Town to
decide to what degree the program is expanded and in the same way that the
agreement was designed with this particular owner, he does not believe that
the Town is obligated to fill the streets with other golf carts. He stated that he
is willing to allow the expansion to go ahead and gather evidence for the
program as a whole and that he would support moving this item forward.
Mayor Burk added that Uber and Lyft came about because the demand
made it happen and this is a similar situation. Ms. Burk said that this is not a
huge expansion and to stifle this would be a real shame. Mr. Dentler said that
staff has listed this item on the agenda for September 10 and it is Council's
prerogative to make a decision that night or on the night after. He reiterated
that the request for the action for September 10 is only to initiate Town Code
amendments with a public hearing and not to expand. Mayor Burk said that
Council will continue the discussion on September 10. Council Member
4IPage
Council Work Session September 9, 2019
Campbell clarified that it is a 3-3 tie and it stays on the agenda because there is
no action to keep it off or keep it on because it is a null vote.
b. Extending Sound Amplifying Equipment Registration Past 8:00 p.m.
Ms. Notar talked about extending the sound amplifying equipment
registration past 8 p.m. and indicated that it is on the agenda for September 10
in case Council wishes to initiate amendments to the Town ordinance.
Council Member Fox asked if businesses need to get a permit every
time that they play during First Friday. Ms. Notar indicated that First Friday
is deemed a Town -sponsored event and a permit is not issued. Ms. Fox asked
if businesses need a permit for every single occasion when it is not First Friday.
Ms. Notar said they do.
Council Member Campbell asked why this item is on for discussion.
Ms. Notar indicated that Council received several requests for extending the
time and that Mr. Thiel asked for this item and Council approved it to be
brought forward. Mr. Campbell said that for a public need, for citizen outcry,
to satisfy a community, for economic development purposes, for everything
that is good and right to consider where this Town is headed Council is talking
about a policy that limits the ability of many in this community to enjoy this
community beyond 8 o'clock. He added that many business owners want their
businesses to be well attended beyond 8 o'clock and so the part that is missing
for him is actually where the Town is heading as a community and the kinds
of lifestyles and people that exist here because the ordinance is not arbitrary so
what is the relevant difference in harm that might be caused by extending the
time limit. Council Member Campbell said this is not related to sophistication
but to quality of life and he hopes that moving forward Council can look at
how these hours can be extended and how they will impact Leesburg's
growing and diverse communities. Mr. Campbell said that it is not just about
the bits and pieces of what can be done with a policy, but it is about
community and lifestyle.
Council Member Dunn mentioned that several discussions took place
after the noise ordinance of 2009 and that these discussions involve a lot of
peoples' opinions. Mr. Dunn talked about the type of resident that lives in the
French Quarter in New Orleans and mentioned that they know what they
bought into. He added that most of the requests that Council is getting seem
to be from the entertainment community, which benefits from longer hours,
and primarily from one business that has had a challenging business model
and probably a couple others. Council Member Dunn indicated that he does
not believe these requests come from every business and that he knows that
there are residences that are right next door that are demanding that they have
a right to music. He mentioned that when the overall discussion of the noise
ordinance was brought up, which went on for years, he was hoping for more of
a compromise that allowed for a decibel level that had to be sustained for a
period of time of up to 4 minutes. Mr. Dunn said that when the Town first
started getting calls, he drove around some of the business, just to remind
himself of the proximity of the residences to the businesses, many of them right
5 Page
Council Work Session September 9, 2019
next door. He stated there would be concerns with amplified music. Council
Member Dunn explained that currently the Planning Commission is having
discussions on noise from both daycare centers and dog care facilities. Mr.
Dunn added that this is not a slam dunk answer unless the long-standing
residents are not taken into consideration and Council needs to be prepared for
this discussion. He added that it is good to consider being business -friendly
but the Town is a unique situation where there are residents right next to the
businesses.
Council Member Thiel said he brought up this item for a number of
reasons and believes this conversation should take place, since the last
conversation on this issue was in 2009. Ms. Notar clarified that in 2009 is
when the sound amplifying equipment section was put in the ordinance. She
added that it was a few years ago, probably 2012, when Council looked at the
noise ordinance comprehensively. Ms. Notar mentioned that there were many
meetings to change the noise ordinance and many of the neighbors came out
and Council did not change the ordinance. Council Member Thiel thanked
Ms. Notar for the clarification and said that the Town has changed drastically
as a Town over these few years from an antique boutique to restaurant -thriving
economy and it has become more of an entertainment -style downtown. Mr.
Thiel said that it is Council's job to create an environment so businesses can be
successful. He proceeded to state the end times for towns, cities, and counties
as follows:
• Manassas — 9 p.m.
• Alexandria — 9 p.m.
• Herndon — 10 p.m.
• Fairfax County — 10 p.m.
• Loudoun County — 11 p.m.
Council Member Steinberg mentioned that there is no question that the
Town has changed in general and specifically in the downtown and that the
demographic is also changing. Mr. Steinberg said there is no question that this
needs to be revisited and he is suggesting moving this item to another work
session for discussion and he does not believe a resolution can be prepared yet
because there is a need for a lot of empirical data that should be plugged into a
future ordinance in order to satisfy businesses and residents alike. Ms. Notar
mentioned that it would be a very vague initiating resolution and Council can
hold public hearings and have other work sessions where staff can provide
more information on other jurisdictions and what has been done in the past.
Ms. Notar also suggested having a Police Officer to answer any questions
regarding complaints.
Mayor Burk said that Council has to balance being business friendly
and family friendly since the Town is changing and some of these houses are
right on top of these businesses. Ms. Burk said she has no problem beginning
this process but by no means is she ready to vote or make a decision on
anything. She added that she wants to hear from the community at large and
the word needs to get out there to anyone that has an interest and has no
problem with an initiating resolution.
6IPage
Council Work Session September 9, 2019
Council Member Dunn suggested that if there is going to be an
initiating resolution that some of the topics be:
• Consideration of time limits
• Decibel levels
• Uninterrupted time of the decibel levels
• Proximity to homes
Mr. Dunn said that Council will be sending direction to the Planning
Commission. Ms. Notar clarified that the amplified equipment registration is
in the Town Code and not the zoning ordinance.
Council Member Fox asked if the zoning ordinance and the Town
Code need to be copasetic. Ms. Notar clarified that the zoning ordinance is for
construction noise and loud sounds occurring because of construction. Ms.
Fox asked if there could be a change in the Town Code without there being a
parallel item in the zoning ordinance. Ms. Notar confirmed affirmatively.
Ms. Notar asked if Council wishes to review the entire noise ordinance or only
the section relating to the sound amplifying equipment, which could possibly
have decibels to it.
Council Member Campbell asked if the discussion on the amplifying
equipment is for usage outside or inside and if whether it is disturbance or how
one hears the sound. Mr. Campbell also suggested looking at the seasonal
nature of the potential permits and opportunities. He added that Council will
have a very broad discussion, but now if the Code says use of sound
amplifying equipment, it does not tell whether it has to stop at 8 o'clock inside.
Ms. Notar mentioned that this is for outside use, and suggested that the Code
could be cleaned up so everybody understands that it is for outside amplified
equipment.
It was the consensus of the Council to initiate amendments to the noise
ordinance to consider extending the night time period for sound amplifying equipment.
c. Annual Capital Funding Requests to the County of Loudoun - Fiscal
Year 2021
Ms. LaFollette gave a presentation on the Town's requests to the
County for Capital Improvements Program (CIP) funding for local pedestrian
or transportation -related improvements that benefit the County or
improvements to County facilities located within the Town. She mentioned
that the requests are due September 30 and require a resolution from the
Town.
Council Member Dunn asked about requesting funding for the West
Market Street sidewalk project. Ms. LaFollette responded that the West
Market Street project is entirely funded by the Northern Virginia
Transportation Authority (NVTA). Mr. Dunn asked if this funding could be
used for something else, since it is not earmarked for the specific project and
ask the County for the funding. Ms. LaFollette responded affirmatively.
Council Member Dunn asked if the Morven Park sidewalk funding could also
be requested from the County. Ms. LaFollette mentioned that when staff was
7IPage
Council Work Session September 9, 2019
looking at the projects they were looking at those with ties to County facilities
but staff can ask about this project. Mr. Dunn said that he is in favor of
putting as much as possible on the CIP because last year the County gave the
Town zero dollars and therefore he does not see why the Town does not ask
for more since he rather know that the County denied the Town a huge
amount than a small amount. He also encouraged staff to continue asking for
funding because eventually the County will have to see it the way the Town
does and Leesburg residents are County taxpayers. Council Member Dunn
mentioned that the residents of Aldie, Ashburn, and Sterling are getting
County funding for their projects and suggested that Council consider adding
projects to the list.
Council Member Campbell said that for a large part he agrees with
Council Member Dunn but his concern is going through the folly of the
exercise of just asking because if the Town is asking for funding for important
projects, it should be serious business. Mr. Campbell said that these projects
have been on the CIP for a while and if they are not that important and if the
Town keeps asking for the same thing, even the County gets tired after a while
of the Town just asking for the same thing when the County keeps saying no.
He mentioned that none of the projects have a date associated with them as to
actual completion of the project. Council Member Campbell said that the
Veterans Park at Balls Bluff was approved for $4M about 4-5 years ago and
nothing has been done and now the cost of the project has gone up because it
takes time to come through. Mr. Campbell said that going through the same
exercise every year and the same dates and deliverables is not doing justice to
our citizens and that sending a letter does not make it happen. He added that
Council does not meet on this issue and does not strategically understand what
the Town's competition is like so why are others getting funds and not the
Town. Council Member Campbell said that he knows that the Town does not
enjoy a particularly pleasant relationship with the County but at the same time
the Town has a right to ask. Mr. Campbell said that if the County provides
funding for a project Council then needs to vote to move it up and get it done,
but to have the Veterans Park project sitting in the CIP for 4-5 years does not
sit well. He said he hopes that the Town can do better with identifying fiscal
year priorities, as well as the "ask" and put those two together and have
reasonable outcomes because the outcome every year cannot be that the Town
gets nothing.
Council Member Fox asked for the initial cost estimate for the Veterans
Park. Ms. LaFollette mentioned that the initial cost was slightly below $4M
and when it was redone in 2016 it was slightly over $4M and the original "ask"
to the County was for $4M. Mr. Cournoyer stated that the funding was
approved in 2015 but it was appropriated in the County's FY22 CIP. Ms.
LaFollette explained that the Town shows the project in FY21 to begin design
and staff has looked at the project again and based on the economics of
construction costs it was reestimated with the appropriate inflation factors and
what the Town has gotten with similar type work for roads and parking lots
and came up with a new estimate and staff is therefore asking for that delta.
8IPage
Council Work Session September 9, 2019
Ms. Fox asked if inflation is accounted for when the CIP is approved. Ms.
LaFollette said inflation is accounted for. Council Member Fox asked what
accounts for the extra inflation. Ms. LaFollette responded that prices are being
driven up because of the economics of the area, the labor market and the fact
that companies are so busy and therefore estimates are coming in 20-25%
above the original engineering estimates. Council Member Fox asked for
confirmation that from 2008 to 2015 it was just conceptual and nothing was
done. Ms. LaFollette responded affirmatively. Ms. Fox asked what has been
done from 2015 to date. Ms. LaFollette indicated that no design work has
been done because it has followed its path through the CIP and it is now in the
Town's CIP to begin design work in 2021. Council Member Fox said her
concern is that the Town is not taking into account projects six years out and
that boom and bust years cannot be anticipated, but asked staff is there is
something that can be done because $2M is a huge increase. Ms. LaFollette
mentioned that when staff does the CIP it does its best to escalate the cost to
midpoint of construction and uses what has typically been shown in the
Engineering News -Record (ENR) of 2.5 to 3% inflation per year from the
initial estimate to when midpoint construction is estimated. Ms. LaFollette
added that if 3% is used in January, February, and March the ENR inflation
factor was close to 4.9% so when there is a jump this high there is an increase
of 2% and on a $13M project, for example, there is a $2-$3M dollar range for
additional costs on projects. Ms. LaFollette said that staff is doing everything
it can to take this information into account but that there will be projects that,
hopefully not in the next couple of fiscal years, will need additional funding
and they are accounting for them now by asking for additional County, NVTA
funding, revenue -sharing, and smart -scale funding. Ms. Fox asked what
happens if the Town does not get the funding. Ms. LaFollette said that staff
will be then coming to Council to figure out what will have to be done, with
staffs recommendations. Council Member Fox asked if the County gives
additional funding for various projects, is the funding put into what the
County wants or the Town wants. Mr. Cournoyer explained that the County
staff presents its recommendations to the Finance Subcommittee, so every
project is voted on by that subcommittee and their recommendation goes back
to the Board of Supervisors, so they are making decisions based on a project.
Council Member Thiel asked if there is room for negotiation with the
County. Mr. Cournoyer said that if Council were to prioritize its projects then
they would be weighted that way but in years past it has just been a list, so it is
Council's discretion on how it wants to request funding. Mr. Cournoyer
added that through this avenue it is an application based on a project that has
been identified, so that is how the County is making its assessment and staff is
making its recommendations. Mr. Thiel asked if the projects are lumped all
together or are they presented separately. Mr. Cournoyer stated that the Town
treats it as a grant application and the County will grant funds to a specific
project, a known use, and they are going to use the same criteria for all he
Towns based on proximity to County facilities and improvements to County
facilities within the Town limits, so the standard is set for the project and the
9IPage
Council Work Session September 9, 2019
staff makes recommendations to the Finance Committee. Mr. Thiel said that
prioritizing a couple of these projects and asking for additional funding for
other projects will provide a better chance of getting some funding. Council
Member Thiel asked if staff knows what other towns have received in the last
couple of years. Mr. Cournoyer said he can provide the information at the
September 10 meeting. Mr. Thiel said this would be a great talking point that
Council can take to the BOS and say that Leesburg has not received adequate
funding as opposed to other towns.
Council Member Steinberg asked how the Sycolin Road project ties
back to the County. Mr. Cournoyer indicated that staff went through a few
lists determining the proximity to County facilities and felt that some of the
traffic, as a result of the Douglass Elementary School, and also the expansion
of the County facilities down Sycolin Road would contribute to cars. Mr.
Steinberg asked what the developer's obligation is in terms of a proffer for the
widening of Evergreen Mill. Ms. LaFollette indicated that if the developer
does not have his application in and if the Town's project is ahead the Town
will be building the frontage improvements. Mr. Steinberg said he presumed
that the developer would reimburse. Ms. LaFollette said potentially but she
could not answer the question. Ms. Notar said she would have to get back to
Council with the response.
Mayor Burk asked if in the past the Town has received money for
projects. Ms. LaFollette responded affirmatively. Ms. Burk asked if the bus
routes have been set. Ms. LaFollette stated that the current route will stay a
little while longer and there is still work on what is to be done with the routes.
She added that the six shelters that were proposed with the Community
Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) application fall on a route that
might be modified but the route will remain in the same corridor. Mayor Burk
asked if the projects on the list are the same projects put in every year. Ms.
LaFollette said they are not. Ms. Burk asked if they are all new and different
projects. Ms. LaFollette said they are not all new and different because staff
did ask for Evergreen Mill Road widening and the Town received $6M from
the County for the section in front of Heritage High School and goes by the
other cluster of schools so it fits right in the house of the standards for the
application. Ms. LaFollette mentioned that one project that was listed
previously was Veterans Park. Mayor Burk asked for confirmation that the
Town does not have the money for the Veterans Park but that it is in the
County's CIP to give to the Town at a later date. Mr. Cournoyer responded
affirmatively and said it would be appropriated in 2021. Ms. Burk mentioned
that the Town has not been sitting on this project. Mr. Cournoyer clarified
that the Town has not yet received the funding but it has been earmarked for
the Town in the County's CIP. Mayor Burk indicated that the Supervisor for
the Leesburg district and the Chair both asked that the Town be judicious in its
"ask" and that it not be loaded up with lots of different projects and
prioritizing would be helpful to them. Ms. Burk said that the Town needs to
be careful because if it is overloaded, the Town will not be taken seriously.
10IPage
Council Work Session. September 9, 2019
It was the consensus of the Council to support the funding applications to the
County of Loudoun for Fiscal Year 2021.
d. Fiscal Impact Analyses for Land Development Applications &
Financial Ability of Developer
Ms. Berry Hill and Ms. Arnett gave a presentation on the issues and
difficulties related to fiscal impact analyses for land development applications
and the financial ability of the developer.
Council Member Thiel said he would prefer option 4 which seems like
the best -rounded option (Create a fiscal impact team that includes members
from involved departments to create a fiscal impact analysis template for
applicants to use while providing their own development assumptions).
Council Member Steinberg asked if staff was prepared to indicate which
option is the most cost-effective versus the most effective. Ms. Berry Hill said
staff is not prepared at this point. Mr. Steinberg asked if the Town is in a
position to say that a project has to go forward under a certain timetable
otherwise the developer will be required to redo the entire fiscal impact
analysis and at what point does the Town decide that all the analyses that were
done a decade ago are no longer relevant. Ms. Notar said that the legislative
application would have been approved so she does not know if a time period, a
proffer or a condition that the development be built within a certain timeframe
can be done; this is something that she has not seen before. Council Member
Steinberg said that it probably has not been done before, but that it is not a bad
idea since the longer a project takes to get going the less that is actually known
of how it benefits or does not benefit the Town, since economic conditions are
subject to change fairly quickly. He said he is in favor of pushing this forward.
Council Member Fox asked what the usual time lag is between the
acceptance of an application and the developer getting started. Ms. Berry Hill
said this is hard to answer because there are huge variations since some get
started immediately on the site plan while others, for various reasons such as a
change in land ownership, take longer. Ms. Fox asked if there has ever been
an analysis done by a developer indicating a deficit to the Town. Ms. Berry
Hill responded that none have been received. Council Member Fox indicated
that she is in favor of option 4.
Council Member Campbell said that he agrees that there needs to be a
greater understanding of the impact on Town services be it utilities, police, or
schools and the idea of verifying financial information and not just taking it at
the developer's word. Mr. Campbell said that he believes that staff has the
talent to develop option 4. He added that it is important to know what the
developer is selling, in terms of numbers, and what the impact will be on the
roads, services, and schools. Council Member Campbell said he is supportive
of option 4.
Council Member Dunn stated that putting together a team would be
helpful but that he is a bit leery because the only constant that can be
determined is change and as long as that is happening there will never be an
exact number. Mr. Dunn also mentioned that he does not consider it a good
111Page
Council Work Session September 9, 2019
thing that the HUBZone is increasing, since it is a district that is in need and
not one that is flourishing. He added that the discontinuation of HUBZones is
the goal because that means business is great. Council Member Dunn said
that knowing the fiscal impact is important but anything more than a couple of
years is just guesswork. He added that while the Town could ask for a
developer to submit another fiscal impact study as a proffer he does not believe
that the Town could get away with having the developer adjust the project as a
result of a change in the study. Mr. Dunn said that he has received resident
requests that the Town should demand that the developers have the liquidity
or the ability to follow through with their projects, but the developer that
comes before Council today may not be the developer that builds tomorrow.
He added that he would not want to see taxpayer money go towards creating
more analyses that are hypotheticals, but the Town does know what its fixed
costs for police, streets, and roads are and that those can be factored into the
budgets and match those costs against what the developers is suggesting it will
bring to the Town.
Mayor Burk asked about the pros and cons of the options. Ms. Berry
Hill said that staff would provide the pros and cons of the option or options
that Council selects.
Council Member Steinberg said that regardless of which of the options
is chosen, money will be spent either on staff time or on a consultant, so he
finds it hard to make a choice not knowing which one may cost less since
hiring a consultant, with probably a higher level of expertise, may be able to
accomplish the same in a shorter period of time.
It was the consensus of the Council to allow staff to create a fiscal impact team
that includes members from involved departments to create a fiscal impact analysis
template for applicants to use while providing their own development assumptions.
e. Council's Ethics Policy and Potential Disciplinary Process
Ms. Notar stated that the Council's Ethics Policy was initially adopted
in October of 1996 and that the current policy was adopted in November of
2009 and provided an overview of the current policy.
Council Member Fox asked for confirmation if what is being asked is if
Council wishes to come up with an ethics policy. Ms. Notar said that her
understanding is that Council wanted to discuss whether it wanted to update
the current ethics policy and if so does it want to include a disciplinary policy
or process. Ms. Fox mentioned that she was in on the last discussion and
remembers thinking that Council is pretty good at governing itself. She added
that there have been some issues that have come up and looking around she
has seen that most municipalities do have a code of ethics and she probably
would be for a code of ethics and having Council sign something to that effect.
Council Member Fox said that hammering out what Council is going to do is
another issue but this is something that she is willing to take into
consideration.
12IPage
Council Work Session September 9, 2019
Council Member Campbell mentioned that there is no doubt in his
mind that the current policy falls short and that section 2 on Council
Correspondence appears to be a section on stationery use but that it is certainly
not the intent of that paragraph. Mr. Campbell added that maybe the word
correspondence is even misleading because it also talks about personal and
verbal behavior and this is not a section on the use of letterhead but about
behavior and the direction of that behavior and even distinguishing that
behavior from official Council votes to personal use. Council Member
Campbell said that he is in favor of clarification. He mentioned that the Code
of Ethics talks about treatment of each other and treatment of the public and
that treatment should be accountable in a disciplinary procedure which
Council always knew it had a right to engage in but at the same time it is not
spelled out in terms of a process. Mr. Campbell said that for him when the
public sees Council's behavior or misbehavior and Council fails to provide any
recourse he thinks it does a disservice to the integrity of the body. Council
Member Campbell said that all these positions need to be clarified as well as
the Council Correspondence paragraph, change some of the terms and
terminology, and look at the behavior as it relates to treatment of the public
and other Council members. He also asked to talk about discipline and that
when there is a violation there should be accountability. Mr. Campbell said
that Council needs to vote on whatever changes might be suggested.
Council Member Dunn mentioned that in Robert's Rules which
governs Council, there is the ability to reprimand members of the body. Mr.
Dunn said that usually those are done in an effort to bring the meeting back
into order or to ensure the smooth flow of meetings and citing from Robert's
Rules that "Where there is no law but every man does what is right in his own
eyes there is the least real liberty". Council Member Dunn stated that just
because some members might feel that things are right in his/her own eyes
that therefore that gives one the right to find somebody at fault because he/she
disagrees. He added that this is where caution needs to be drawn when
Council wants to consider disciplining each other. Council Member Dunn
says he is cautious about discipline because then Council members may find
themselves making this their goal. Mr. Dunn said that one of the areas in
which many Council members could be found in violation of the Ethics Policy
is in the area of disclosures. He reminded Council members that they all take
an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and of Virginia and all
work to follow the policies of the Town and Town Council. Council Member
Dunn said that he and Vice Mayor Martinez who sat in a work session
deciding the last changes to the Code of Ethics and when it comes to
correspondence and the use of letterhead it was specifically stated by everyone
at that meeting that it dealt with letters. Mr. Dunn added that it is not how
one wants to interpret the rules it is how when the rules were interpreted what
those people made that decision from what they were going by. He mentioned
that if Council thinks that changes to the rules are needed on a regular basis,
then it should be considered every time new Council members come in.
Council Member Dunn indicated that the Ethics Policies as they have been for
13 IPage
Council Work Session September 9, 2019
the Town of Leesburg under many Councils and Council members have
basically been the same and have worked just fine and it is only as of late that
tolerance is none and to disagree with him means to be called a range of foul
names and he cautions Council to move forward in that vein.
Council Member Steinberg asked for confirmation that there is a
general Ethics Policy in place but that it does not have a succinctly defined
disciplinary policy. Ms. Notar confirmed that he is correct. Mr. Steinberg said
that any new member would be well -served if Council had a fairly succinct
Ethics Policy and a fairly succinct disciplinary policy attached. He added that
he does not believe that there would be personal vendettas and that obviously
it takes a majority to make any of these things happen and he believes that all
Council members are reasonable individuals and does not foresee this as a
danger. He indicated that he would be in favor of making this happen and
having Council members read and sign. Council Member Steinberg asked if
someone on Council was needed to write this policy. Ms. Notar mentioned
that if the majority of Council would like to move forward, there would be a
resolution directing the Town Attorney to draft a new ethics policy with a
disciplinary policy and/or process in it.
Council Member Thiel believes that this is trying to recreate the wheel
since there are already rules in place that allow Council to censure and
discipline its members therefore he does not believe he will be supporting this
item.
Mayor Burk mentioned that she placed a copy of Section 6. General
Legislative Process of the National Association of State Legislatures on
Censure, Expulsion and Other Disciplinary Actions. Ms. Burk said that
signing a code of ethics is a great thing to do and that she would like to have
that. She added that the problem with the disciplinary process is that it is not
very clear and is difficult to understand and what is missing is what does one
do and how does one do it, so having this brought forward and cleared up
would be useful in a future situation.
Council Member Fox agreed with Council Members Dunn and Thiel
that Council already has rules in place so she is not sure it is needed again.
She added that she was not clear when she read the Ethics Policy that what
was being considered was censure for was actually censurable and it was very
vague to her so she thought that Council needed to craft more succinct
language and this could be added to the Code of Ethics that Council members
would sign. Ms. Fox mentioned that Council already has the disciplinary
action in place but Council needs to know exactly what it can discipline.
Council Member Campbell said that the intention is to clean up the
waters and not muddy them. He added that Robert's Rules is not the ethics
policy and because one thinks one has the authority to do something with no
process it does not give one the ability to act. Mr. Campbell said that if a
person is entitled to a fair hearing they are entitled to understanding what it is
that someone is trying to hold against them and to hold them accountable for
what. Council Member Campbell believes this does nothing but to clearly
state the values of this Council and that it is not a limit on free speech. Mr.
141Page
Council Work Session September 9, 2019
Campbell says it is necessary to be better educated and aware in this day and
age how one will be held accountable.
Council Member Dunn said he looked into Robert's Rules regarding
censure and disciplinary measures and he read an analysis of the rules and he
thought it was a very good position and it basically states that "... when your
brother offends you, go to your brother..." Mr. Dunn said that if someone has
an issue with a member one should take it up with that member initially. He
added that Robert's Rules says that if there is a situation, then it must be
brought forward in a work session and the Council member would have to
state the issue it has with the other Council member, preferably in a closed
session. He stated that people should not be censured just because they do not
agree with someone's views.
Council Member Thiel said that if Council wants to add a process for
censure like the one in the Robert's Rules of Order into the Town Council's
into the Code of Ethics for Council, then it would be adding something that is
already in the Council's rules.
Council Member Steinberg concurs with Council Member Campbell
that there needs to be more clarity but admits that he has not read Robert's
Rules from cover to cover and taking what Robert's Rules has to say and
reducing it to a couple of pages that are much easier to read and understand
would be the way to go. Mr. Steinberg mentioned that on several occasions
where there have been questions about Robert's Rules of Order and someone
is at a loss on how to proceed. He believes that taking what the Robert's Rules
of Order suggest and Council making its own process as part of the Ethic
Policy would be a rational way to go.
Council Member Fox asked if this is something that Council is crafting
together to include a disciplinary process other that what Council already has.
Ms. Notar said that the resolution would be very broad stating that the Council
wants an updated Ethics Policy with a disciplinary process included and once
the item is added to a future session, she will have a draft of the policy and the
process for Council to review.
Council Member Dunn said that the placeholder is for Ethics Policy
and he does not know that a disciplinary measure is simply just part of an
Ethics Policy and he believes that they should be two separate things.
It was the consensus of the Council to allow staff to update the Ethics Policy
with the inclusion of a disciplinary process for discussion at a future meeting.
2. Additions to Future Council Meetings
Council Member Campbell asked to address the letter from the
Loudoun County Rescue Squad.
It was the consensus of the Council to add this item to a future work session
(Campbell, Fox, Steinberg, Thiel, Mayor Burk).
15IPage
Council Work Session September 9, 2019
Council Member Fox asked to discuss the information memo regarding
the congestion issue at East Market Street intersections at Fort Evans Road
and Plaza Street at a future work session.
It was the consensus of the Council to add this item to a future work session
(Campbell, Fox, Steinberg, Thiel, Mayor Burk).
Mayor Burk asked for a discussion on preparing a letter commending
the School Board and the Superintendent for doing a study to confront racism
and hate at schools.
It was the consensus of the Council to add this item to a future work session
(Campbell, Fox, Steinberg, Thiel, Mayor Burk).
3. Adjournment
On a motion by Council Member Steinberg seconded by Council Member Thiel, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:31 p.m.
Clerk of Council
2019_tcwsmin0909
16IPage