HomeMy Public PortalAbout2019_tcwsmin1125Council Work Session November 25, 2019
Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:00 p.m. Mayor Kelly Burk presiding.
Council Members Present: Ron Campbell, Thomas Dunn (arrived at 7:33 p.m.),
Suzanne Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Neil Steinberg, Joshua Thiel, and Mayor Kelly
Burk
Council Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Town Attorney Barbara Notar, Deputy
Town Manager Keith Markel, Finance and Administrative Services Director Clark
Case, Director of Planning and Zoning Susan Berry Hill, Human Resources Director
Josh Didawick, Director of Public Works and Capital Projects Renee LaFollette,
Economic Development Director Russell Seymour, Information Technology Director
Jakub Jedrzejczak, Leesburg Police Chief Greg Brown, Information Technology
Deputy Director John Callahan, Deputy Director and Treasurer of Finance and
Administrative Services Lisa Haley, Deputy Chief of Police Vanessa Grigsby, Police
Captain David Smith, Police Officer III Wayne Gray, Police Lieutenant Bob
Thompson, Police Lieutenant Jaime Sanford, Police Lieutenant Doug Shaw, Acting
Lieutenant TJ Moore, Police Sergeant Steve Pebler, Communications Technician
Supervisor Cindy Cain, Communications Technician Supervisor Jen Mavis,
Communications Technician Supervisor Wes Thompson, Public Information Officer
Betsy Arnett, Management and Budget Officer Jason Cournoyer, Information
Technology Senior Systems Architect Bill McIntyre, Management Analyst Cole
Fazenbaker, and Clerk of Council Eileen Boeing.
Minutes prepared by Executive Associate Corina Alvarez.
AGENDA ITEMS
Suspension of the Rules
MOTION2019-222
On a motion by Council Member Steinberg, seconded by Council Member Thiel, the
following was proposed:
To suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to move an item scheduled for the December
10, 2019, Council Meeting to the November 26, 2019, Council Meeting Consent
Agenda.
Council Member Campbell said that these kinds of requests are better when
they are backed by staff since the discussion is about a construction project,
which the Airport Director Scott Coffman oversees. He said he did not have a
problem with suspending the rules and voting in favor but that he believes that
it is helpful to have additional information because Council sets a precedent
and a process. Mr. Campbell said that when it comes to a work -related issue
he would rather have a little more documentation from staff involved to
11Page
Council Work Session November 25, 2019
support the request. Council Member Campbell said that this would be helpful
when moving forward.
Council Member Steinberg acknowledged Council Member Campbell's
suggestion.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg, Thiel, and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0-1 (Dunn absent)
MOTION2019-223
On a motion by Council Member Steinberg, seconded by Council Member Fox, the
following was proposed:
To move and place approval for an easement for Washington Gas to provide a gas line
for Hangar B at the Leesburg Executive Airport for SK Aviation to the Consent Agenda
of November 26, 2019.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg, Thiel, and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0-1 (Dunn absent)
1. Items for Discussion
a. Emergency Communications Center
Mr. Dentler gave an overview on the Emergency Communications
Center (ECC) and indicated that:
• Based on Council's direction of October 22, 2019, Town staff is
moving forward with the implementation of upgrades to the Call
Handling Equipment (CHE) and pursuing the Secondary Public
Safety Answering Point (PSAP) Status
• The Town would not be able to transfer dispatching functions to the
County for 3-4 years based on the County's timeline. The Town
would need to relay an existing Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)
system until that time.
• Review of the options and staff's recommendations
Mr. Dentler mentioned that Policy Direction mainly comes down to two
options. He added that there was an option that was brought up by Council
Member Campbell about potential co -locating services and that this is
something that was discussed early in the process. Mr. Dentler stated that the
County responded that it was not opposed to this if there was space available.
Mr. Dentler said that staff went back in the last week or so and the County
indicated that:
a. It does not have space, and
b. It is not interested in co -locating
21Page
Council Work Session November 25, 2019
Mr. Dentler stated the two policy options as follows:
1. Maintain the Town's ECC as an independent dispatching center and
fund a full upgrade of the Town's ECC. Inclusive of the CAD and
Records Management System (RMS) as part of the Fiscal Year 2021
Budget.
2. Enter a Memorandum of Agreement with Loudoun County to allow
the Leesburg Police Department (LPD) to be fully dispatched by the
Loudoun County ECC
• If LPD is dispatched by Loudoun County, staff recommends
that LPD maintain an Independent RMS from County
Council Member Steinberg asked how many employees the LPD needs
to maintain service 24/7, 365 days a year, whether the Town choses to have its
own CAD or not. Chief Brown responded that four staff members are needed
to cover 12-hour shifts and a fifth person for back up. Mr. Steinberg
mentioned that it would take a minimum of four years to integrate with the
County's system and a considerable amount of funds. Council Member
Steinberg asked if the Town were to integrate, how much would the Town be
spending on an annual basis. Mr. Dentler explained that if Council decides
that the LPD will not have its own dispatch center, then the Town would not
be responsible for the CAD system and the Town would have to use its current
system in hopes that it does not break, or the Town could pay the $520K for a
new CAD and RMS. Mr. Dentler added that the recommendation is to get
this into the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP), because it will basically be
four years before being able to move into a new system. He added that if
Council were to choose this option, the LPD cannot wait any longer because it
is too critical of an operation. Mr. Dentler also stated that when the
conversation started, staff was looking into one to two years but the County
has moved on and is using a new system. He added that the County wants to
make sure the system is working properly before taking Leesburg on. Council
Member Steinberg asked what would happen to the investment spent in the
interim. Mr. Dentler explained that the $520K investment is going to have to
be upgraded somewhere and start planning from four to seven years out and it
only has a limited lifespan before it has to be upgraded or changed. Mr.
Dentler reiterated that this is not a waste of money. He added that if Council
decided to stay with the current system and wait two to three more years
before making a decision, who knows what will be learned then and he is sure
that a transition with the County can be scheduled so that the Town
maximizes the lifespan of the investment, because no one wants to waste any
dollars by changing out sooner than needed.
Council Member Thiel asked if the equipment that was voted for by
Council last month was to get the Town's system more compatible with the
County's system. Mr. Dentler explained that it provides the Town with a new
CHE that will allow the LPD to receive the Automatic Number Identification
(ANI) and the Automatic Location Identification (ALI) data for the first time.
3 IPage
Council Work Session November 25, 2019
Chief Brown added that right now the LPD does not know the location of
where the calls are coming from. Chief Brown said that the County does
receive the information but it cannot be transferred to the LPD and that the
CHE will allow the LPD to receive the ANI/ALI data. Mr. Thiel asked if this
has already been voted for and if funding is available. Mr. Dentler confirmed
that Council already approved the upgrade of the CHE. Mr. Dentler added
that the most critical item that the County was looking for when it did the
study was for the Town to get the CHE. Council Member Thiel asked if the
hardware will be compatible with the software. Mr. Jedrzejczak responded
that there is a required configuration change on the County's side and
therefore the LPD needs to purchase some new equipment. Mr. Thiel asked if
this was hardware and software. Mr. Jedrzejczak responded affirmatively.
Council Member Thiel asked if training is included in the quote. Mr.
Jedrzejczak indicated that the CHE has training included. Council Member
Thiel said that he has asked police officers he has met with in Town regarding
the ECC and they have all said that it would be counterintuitive for the Town
to switch and move to the County, that it is imperative that the Town keep its
own system, and that it is essential for the LPD to do its job and serve and
protect Leesburg. Mr. Thiel added that a potential new County Police
Department would just add chaos to the mix and that Leesburg needs to stay
the course and it will be less of a headache for the Town to just stay true to the
LPD and CAD system than getting thrown in the mix with a potential County
Department working with the Sheriffs Department. He added that this leaves
the Town with the flexibility, in case it wants to become a city. Council
Member Thiel says he is in favor of the LPD having the right tools and set up
for success and agrees with staffs recommendation for Leesburg to keep its
own communications system. Mr. Dentler said that one of the County's
recommendations is the four years because it has its own policy decision to
make which he believes will be fully played out over the next few years.
Council Member Campbell said he knows that there have been
conversations on this topic several times and that Mr. Dentler was right to
mention that he, Mr. Campbell, had proposed a third alternative and look at
other options because it is a vision issue, not a financial one. Mr. Campbell
said he wants to go back and talk about the relationship with the County.
Council Member Campbell says that the Town is always at risk and is
reactionary to what the County does and then the Town has to somehow
respond. Mr. Campbell asked if the Town has any confidence that five years
from now it will be the same technology and if it will be compatible or will the
Town be upgrading all over again. Council Member Campbell said that if the
Town takes this on it should be willing to invest in its ECC. Council Member
Campbell said that this is one of the most critical aspects of the service
provided to the Town residents. Mr. Campbell says he appreciates the
numbers, but for him the numbers are not big enough because the investment
should be larger than five years. He added that the vision is that there will be a
need to invest money in people, training, technology, programs, services, and
eventually space. Council Member Campbell said that this is what it means
4IPage
Council Work Session November 25, 2019
for the Town to take on its own system and at some point the Town may be
doing it without the County. Mr. Campbell asked how long will the Town be
at the mercy of the County in regards to citizen safety. Council Member
Campbell said he would like to see beyond the five years and spend the money
that needs to be spent. Mr. Campbell said he would like to see step two of the
Town owning its own system beyond the five years and get it into the Capital
Asset Replacement Program. Council Member Campbell suggested investing
now for the long term in the Town's own program. Mr. Campbell indicated
that he is ready to move forward, but ready to move with solid information
and a solid direction about the future. He reiterated that this is not a five-year
deal, this is a long-term vision of the Town. Mr. Dentler mentioned that once
Council gives the policy direction, the Information Technology staff and the
Information Technology Commission members can implement the IT
Strategic Plan and then it goes into the Capital Asset Replacement Program so
that they are included into every appropriate cycle, be it five or six years. Mr.
Dentler added that this is not something that has been done in the past and
that is why the Town is where it is, unfortunately, with the ECC. Mr. Dentler
added that there has to be a better job done with managing this so that costs
can be anticipated.
Council Member Fox asked how much was spent annually on the
system that the Town currently has. Mr. Cournoyer said that for the current
platform, New World, the cost is approximately $164K a year. Ms. Fox asked
for confirmation on the costs if the Town went on its own. Mr. Dentler
explained that the costs on Option 1 are the costs for the Town going on its
own:
• Initial Capital Costs: $520K
• NET Recurring Costs: $34.1K
o Debt Service: $106.1K (5 years)
o Annual Maintenance Budget Savings: ($72K)
■ Currently $164K annually, upgraded CAD/RMS is $92K
Council Member Fox asked for confirmation that it would cost the Town less
if it went on its own. Mr. Dentler confirmed affirmatively and explained that
the Town has an old system so the maintenance costs are high and the
maintenance costs will be less with the new system. Mr. Dentler added that it
is to the Town's advantage to go ahead and upgrade this system and the Town
will save money annually over the next five years. Council Member Fox asked
if the 911 services are part of this package or does the Town depend on the
County. Chief Brown explained that the calls are still going to the County and
this is the deficiency that Federal Engineering found regarding the CHE. He
added that the 911 calls will still be going to the County, but because the LPD
will be able to receive the ANI/ALI data, it reduces the amount of time, which
was the concern through the actual assessment of the original services. Ms.
Fox asked if there is a scenario where the Town could receive its own 911
calls. Chief Brown indicated that the LPD is moving forward in seeking the
secondary PSAP status. He added that if the Town was the primary PSAP it
5IPage
Council Work Session November 25, 2019
could receive its own 911 calls but Leesburg is unable to do this because it falls
under the County's umbrella. Ms. Fox said she is in favor of Option 1.
Vice Mayor Martinez said he has no questions and that there have been
enough discussions on this topic. He added that he is in favor of the Town
having its own system and he would like Leesburg to be a primary PSAP
sometime in the future.
Mayor Burk said that she visited the County site and the Town dispatch
site and it became apparent to her that community service is a huge
component of the dispatch system and to do without it by moving it to the
County would be a detriment to the residents. Mayor Burk mentioned that the
stories she heard from the dispatchers about people coming in late at night and
the numbers she received from staff are outstanding and they confirm that the
24/7 service is a very important component of the customer service that the
Town provides. Mayor Burk also mentioned that the response time is also
very important and that she thinks there will be a delay in the response time if
the Town's dispatchers are not handling the calls. She mentioned that the
LPD's dispatchers are tremendously dedicated and that the Town needs to do
right by them since they are loyal, hardworking and are dedicated to keeping
residents safe. Mayor Burk said that if the Town closed down its service, she is
not completely convinced that the County would absorb the staff and is
therefore concerned. Mayor Burk said she is in support of keeping this service
within the Town.
Council Member Dunn asked if the LPD needs a full staff to deal with
walk-ins after hours or is one person able to field walk-in issues. He also asked
how many walk-ins the LPD is getting. Chief Brown indicated that in 2018,
out of 1,500 calls for service after hours, 664 were walk-ins and in 2017 there
were 665 walk-ins. Mr. Dunn asked if the walk-ins are for issues in walking
distance or are people driving to the station. Chief Brown responded that it is
a combination of both. Council Member Dunn said that he is in favor of
whatever situation results in the maximum safety of the residents and the
officers. Mr. Dunn indicated that he believes this falls into one of those
categories of an overall strategy that needs to be included in the Town's
funding and it comes down to whether Council and staff are going to continue
to basically have more of a quasi -city status or be a part of the County status.
Council Member Dunn stated that if Leesburg is either going to actively seek
to become a city, and thereby there have to be full -city services, or if Leesburg
is going to be willing to continue on with the quasi -city status and having a lot
of city services but still be dependent upon the County for various items. Mr.
Dunn said that if it is the latter then the Town needs to have a set amount of
County dollars to come back to the Town for it to spend or a set amount that
the County spends on the Town. Mr. Dunn stated that this should be part of
the plan and part of the Town's everyday life when it comes to budget time.
He added that it makes it very difficult to try to have big dollars, city -type
spending, and not really have the full benefit of Leesburg residents' tax dollars
spent in the Town. Council Member Dunn indicated that he thinks it comes
down to the Town developing a strategy of where it wants to be. Mr. Dunn
6IPage
Council Work Session
November 25, 2019
asked if the Town asks Richmond to lift the moratorium on city status and
seeks city status and have the full funding that the residents deserve or have to
continue going back and request that the County provide a set amount of
money to spend on the Town or give the Town a set amount of funds that the
Town spends on its own needs. Mr. Dunn considers this to be part of an
overall strategy, otherwise the Town has to keep coming back to these stopgap
measures and reinventing the wheel every three to four years. Council
Member Dunn said he believes this would be easier on staff and specially the
LPD, which has the biggest ticket item on the budget. He believes that if the
Town is goes down the path of purchasing its own system, then the Town
needs to be prepared to fund it and actively demand funding from the County
or be prepared to have the residents pay more.
It was the consensus of the Council to have staff prepare a resolution for the
Town to maintain an independent Emergency Communications Center at the Leesburg
Police Station and upgrade the Computer Aided Dispatch system and the Records
Management System to be presented to Council on November 26, 2019.
b. Loudoun County Volunteer Rescue Squad Request for Debt
Forgiveness
Mr. Dentler stated that the Loudoun County Volunteer Rescue Squad
(LCVRS) has requested forgiveness of the debt that it has to the Town for the
land that Council gave the LCVRS, adjacent to the Skate Park off Catoctin
Circle for an amount of $260K to be paid over five years. Mr. Dentler added
that the LCVRS has made two payments and the balance is $156K and staff
recommends not to forgive the debt because if granted, the Town will have to
make up for this amount in the Fiscal Year 2020 budget. Mr. Dentler stated
that if Council wants to, it can use $70K from the proffer funding that is
currently available, to pay for a portion of this outstanding debt.
Mayor Burk asked for staff to provide an explanation regarding the
proffer funding. Mr. Cournoyer explained that for every rezoning application
the Town collects proffers from the developers for certain items, one of them
being fire and rescue. Mr. Cournoyer also mentioned that the Leesburg
Volunteer Fire Company has requested the disbursement of proffered
contributions for their organization and that this item is on the agenda for
November 26. Mr. Cournoyer added that Council's Proffer Disbursement
Policy states that the proffers be equally divided between both companies.
Council Member Dunn asked if staff is suggesting the use of half of the
proffer funding for the LCVRS. Mr. Dentler indicated that the memorandum
of agreement, which the LCVRS accepted, states the reimbursement of $260K
in costs associated with the exchange of the land. Mr. Dentler stated that the
LCVRS is requesting the forgiveness of the remaining $156K but that staff
recommends that this balance be paid. Mr. Dentler added that if Council
wants to forgive the debt then the Town's budget will be negatively impacted
by $156K, because these funds are expected to come in. Mr. Dentler indicated
that to help soften the blow, the Town could keep $70K of the proffer money
7IPage
Council Work Session November 25, 2019
and it will reduce the LCVRS's debt and the remaining debt can be
restructured over a longer period of time. Mr. Dunn asked if the expectation
was that the remaining balance be paid off in a five to six -year period in $52K
increments. Mr. Dentler clarified that it is five years to pay off the $260K, and
the LCVRS has already made its first two payments and year three is what is
due. Council Member Dunn asked why the LCVRS has not just requested the
forgiveness of the $52K that is due this year or not pay anything this year and
extend it out to seven years. Mr. Dentler indicated that staff has not had any
detailed discussions with the LCVRS and that to date it has only requested the
forgiveness of the remaining debt. Mr. Dunn asked if there have been any
discussions about extending the term and reducing the amount. Mr. Dentler
indicated that he has not had any discussions on the terms. Council Member
Dunn asked if there is interest being paid. Mr. Dentler indicated that there is
not. Mr. Dunn asked if there are any other situations in Loudoun where
rescue squads have received or required funding from the County in exchange
for vehicles, land, or any real property and if they have been required to pay it
back. Mr. Dentler indicated that as far as property, they do have funding
options available for different capital needs or equipment, but that he does not
know what they are but that the LCVRS can address that. Mr. Dunn asked if
this represents an additional cost outside of their normal costs, since they get
funding from various sources. Mr. Dentler indicated that the LCVRS bought
land and therefore it has a bill to pay. Council Member Dunn asked Mr.
Dentler to explain what was going on at the time and some of the land
concerns that come up and resulted in this agreement. Mr. Dentler explained
that the Skate Park was in need of renovation and through a long public
process a decision was made to shift the Skate Park from the old tennis courts
closer to the dealership and this freed up space between the current Skate Park
and the LCVRS building that it could use for its needs. Mr. Dentler added
that during the discussion a variety of options were considered but Council
decided to offer the location where the LCVRS is currently situated. Mr.
Dunn asked if rescue squads within Loudoun usually ask the County when
they are in need of additional funding. Mr. Dentler said the County has a
program which assists volunteer companies with capital needs. Council
Member Dunn asked what part of Town staff is part of the rescue squad. Mr.
Dentler responded that it is a County function, not a Town function.
Council Member Steinberg indicated that he wished he could say yes to
this request but understands that these agreements were made several years
ago and as a result the Town entered into other agreements for which the
Town is financially responsible. Mr. Steinberg said he hoped that everyone in
the room realizes that the Town's pockets are not nearly as deep as the
County's and stated that Leesburg's annual budget is in the $16M range while
the County's is in the $3B range. Council Member Steinberg stated that $156K
matters to the Town so he believes that an appeal to the County to cover this
debt would be better positioned. Mr. Steinberg asked how proffers are
traditionally used. Mr. Dentler explained that the process requires a request
from the volunteer company, then it goes to the zoning administrator to
8IPage
Council Work Session
November 25, 2019
confirm if the use is approved, based on the proffers, and then if the
recommendation from staff is affirmative then the Town Manager can
recommend it to Council. Council Member Steinberg stated that he has the
utmost respect for the men and women who serve on these departments and
that he wishes that he could grant this request but he does not believe he can
support it at this time.
Council Member Fox requested confirmation that the $500K that the
Town decided it will no longer contribute to the fire and rescue companies
would be back filled by a County contribution. Mr. Case explained that the
money that the Town was contributing to these companies was used by the
County to reduce the amount of funding the latter was providing. Mr. Case
added that when the Town does not contribute the funds, the County is still
obligated to meet the companies' needs. Ms. Fox asked if there is a loss of
revenue for the rescue squad. Mr. Dentler explained that the debt forgiveness
and the algorithm are two separate things. Council Member Fox said that,
according to the LCVRS letter, the squad is tying the loss of revenue with the
debt forgiveness. Mr. Dentler responded that they are two separate things.
Mayor Burk clarified that what Council Member Fox is asking is for
confirmation that the County is, or is not, providing the $300K funding that
the Town is no longer providing. Mr. Dentler explained that the County will
be providing a percentage of the funding, but not all of it, because it is based
on a three-year rolling average based on revenues and expenditures. Mr.
Dentler added that there will be a gap, based on the Town's funding reduction,
but that the County has already discussed funding the gap with the volunteer
companies.
Council Member Campbell thanked the men and women of the
LCVRS. He indicated that he hoped they have a chance to speak because half
of the story is being told and Council has not heard the other half. Mr.
Campbell indicated that there are unintended consequences when land is being
traded or when there is a boundary line adjustment (BLA). He indicated that
he agrees with what the letter states and mentioned that he does not find it
irrational for the LCVRS to be looking at ways to deal with the debt, mainly
because it has lost a source of revenue. Council Member Campbell said he is
not opposed to considering the debt forgiveness, and is in support of looking at
other options to help the LCVRS.
Vice Mayor Martinez said he would like to know why the LCVRS is
looking for debt forgiveness and what is the impact if Council does not support
the request.
Ms. Tami Bredow, LCVRS Chief, indicated that when the agreement
was originally signed the Town was providing the annual contributions. She
added that the LCVRS not only allowed for the boundary line adjustment, but
that it also gave up the back part of the land. Ms. Bredow mentioned that the
land was not sold to the LCVRS and that the transaction was not about getting
the land. She explained that it was about a delta between the Skate Park cost
and the time that it took to come up with the plan. Her understanding is that
91Page
Council Work Session
November 25, 2019
the LCVRS was helping in meeting the delta. She clarified that the County is
not funding dollar for dollar the revenue loss from the Town.
Vice Mayor Martinez said that he would like to have a one-on-one
meeting with Ms. Bredow and that he is not against the debt forgiveness,
especially if the Town has $70K if proffer funding that could be applied to the
debt. Ms. Bredow said that she does not believe that the proffer money can be
used against this debt. Mr. Cournoyer confirmed that the mechanism that staff
suggested for using the proffers would go through the same process as the
Town policy and the request would have to come from the LCVRS to use the
proffers to pay back some of the debt. Mr. Cournoyer added that proffers are
generally for building capacity and expansion of services and the Town's
zoning administrator, Mr. Watkins, would have to give the ultimate
determination. Mr. Cournoyer added that this is why Mr. Dentler presented
this as a potential option for the LCVRS. Mayor Burk asked if Mr. Watkins
has been asked the question. Mr. Cournoyer said it has not and it must go
through the proper process and the request needs to originate with the LCVRS.
Ms. Bredow said that the proffer money is supposed to be used for expansion
but now it would be used for the debt. Vice Mayor Martinez stated that either
way the money will be used and the LCVRS should decide what suits it better.
Mr. Martinez said that if the proffer money is used to pay the debt, then
Council might be able to rework the terms of the balance. Vice Mayor
Martinez said that this was not a BLA. Mr. Cournoyer explained that the land
was conveyed through a property line adjustment. Ms. Bredow added that the
Town also took the right-of-way at the back of the lot. Vice Mayor Martinez
said he is in favor of this request as long as there are proffers that can offset the
cost. Mr. Martinez asked that staff present Council with what is in the
Undesignated Fund Balance. Mr. Dentler explained that staff will present a
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) at the next Council meeting
and mentioned that the surplus money has been spent by various decisions that
the Town has made, therefore the balance is really small.
Mayor Burk said that she is in favor of using the proffers and
restructuring the balance so that it is not an astronomical cost all at once. Mr.
Dentler suggested that staff meet with the LCVRS and confirm with the
Town's zoning administrator to see if the proffer use is allowable and look into
other options that could work.
Council Member Dunn said that regarding the restructuring of the debt
balance, it is up to Council. He added that to keep this in perspective this is
only 1 / 10 of a penny on the tax rate and the Town has already spent its
expected overage. Mr. Dunn believes that it is important to get the money for
the land even if it takes 15 years. He added that he is glad to see that the
LCVRS is pursing funds with the County, since this should be a County
function. Council Member Dunn asked when this item would be brought back
to Council. Mr. Dentler said it would be brought back during the budget
process in February -March 2020. Mr. Dunn asked when the debt payment is
due. Mr. Dentler said it is due the first of December but staff will work with
l01Page
Council Work Session November 25, 2019
the LCVRS. Mr. Dunn asked if this was a written contract. Mr. Dentler
confirmed affirmatively.
It was the consensus of the Council to discuss this as part of the budget Work
Sessions after meeting with the LCVRS.
c. Fiscal Year 2021 Preliminary Budget Discussion
Mr. Dentler mentioned that this is a preliminary budget discussion in
preparation for the budget process which will start in February 2020 and talked
about the following:
• Revenues
o Real estate tax
o Potential sources for additional revenue
• Increase in meals tax
• Refuse & recycling collection fee
• Downtown refuse & recycling fee
• Admissions tax
• Increase Non-resident parks and recreation admission
fees
• Increase Town Hall parking garage fees
• Increase Parking fines
• Expenditures
o Fully funding the six positioned with delayed hiring
o Funding snow removal and other initiatives
o Provisional budget of 2"d year of biennial budget
• Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
o Increasing construction costs
Council Member Fox thanked staff for coming up with ideas for
potential sources of additional revenue. Ms. Fox asked about the increase in
the personnel budget of $1.3M. Mr. Case indicated that the $1.3M is for the
3% merit and health insurance cost increase. Council Member Fox asked
what the increase was for last year. Mr. Cournoyer indicated that it is a 2%
overall for personnel, which includes the 3% merit. Mr. Cournoyer said that
what is being seen in the job market is that starting salaries are up and the
enrollment in health care has changed to employee plus one and family, so
there is an inherent cost increase in health care that is built into the $1.3M.
Ms. Fox asked how retirement is factored in. Mr. Cournoyer said the
retirement is directly impacted by the starting salary because it is based on a
contribution percentage of the employee's salary and the Virginia Retirement
System (VRS) establishes annually what the contribution should be, based on
the return of their investments and the Town's actuarial liabilities. Mr.
Cournoyer said that the Town should be getting the rate from the VRS soon.
Mr. Case added that the State has announced that it has reduced its return on
investments assumptions from 7% to 6.5% for all the state -supported units
which will raise the local unit's contribution if it is rolled back down to the
political subdivisions, so the Town's contributions would increase. Mr.
11 1Page
Council Work Session
November 25, 2019
Dentler added that in regards to the bullet regarding the competitive job
market, he wanted to point out that in engineering, information technology,
and police are three highly competitive sectors. Mr. Dentler mentioned that
the County has upped its game in regards to hiring and retaining its staff. Mr.
Dentler also mentioned that the Town is now losing officers to the County and
this will continue, and so the Town will be challenged on how to respond to
this situation. Mr. Dentler said that the Town's starting salaries are no longer
at the top and that they have even dropped. He added that even if the Town
increases the salaries, it creates a compression issue with other officers who
can move to the County and get an additional 5 to 10% in pay. Mr. Dentler
said that staff is talking about the issue and it is a big concern for Chief Brown
and his senior staff. Mr. Dentler added that he has had employee meetings
over the last 2-3 weeks and this was the number one issue that he heard from a
couple of departments, primarily the LPD. Ms. Fox asked Mr. Case for the
numbers for the Town's contributions regarding the VRS. Mr. Case said that
staff would have the information in mid -January and that it would be included
in the budget discussion.
Vice Mayor Martinez asked for the current contribution that the Town
puts towards retirement. Mr. Cournoyer said it is 10% of the base salary. Mr.
Martinez asked for Ms. LaFollette to put in place an education program so
that residents can better understand how to properly recycle so that the Town
is not paying extra fees for sending what could have been recycled to the
landfill. Ms. LaFollette indicated that Patriot has spent from its own funds
over $150K for contaminated load fees through Waste Management. She
added that Town staff is working with Patriot and after January 1 the Town
will be rolling out an education program on not bagging recyclables and also
Toters® that have bagged recyclables in them will be tagged and will not be
collected. Vice Mayor Martinez indicated that the Town could see some cost
savings because Patriot will start charging the Town for these additional costs.
Ms. LaFollette indicated that Patriot does not have a contract mechanism to
start charging the Town for this but Patriot has started charging the Town for
the increase recycling rates. Ms. LaFollette also mentioned that based on her
recent conversations with Patriot, along with other Northern Virginia residents
that are dealing with trash and recycling, staff is not anticipating that the $98
per ton for recycling will go down, even if the contamination issue is
addressed. Ms. LaFollette said that the cost per ton for the various
commodities is market -driven. Vice Mayor Martinez asked if the biggest
contamination items are glass and plastic bags. Ms. LaFollette responded that
it is primarily the plastic bags and shredded paper and glass also becomes a
contaminant when it breaks. Mr. Martinez said that Council really needs to
look at the revenue options and added that unfortunately the Town maxed out
the cigarette tax. Mr. Dentler indicated that cigarette tax has been dropping
because of the decrease in usage. Vice Mayor Martinez said it was too bad
that there was no vaping tax. Mr. Martinez added that he hopes that one or
two of the BLA projects that are coming on line will increase revenue sources.
12 IPage
Council Work Session November 25, 2019
Council Member Thiel thanked staff for bringing forward new revenue
ideas and agrees with Mr. Martinez on the BLA revenue income.
Council Member Dunn asked to stop using examples of numbers from
other towns/cities during budget discussions, since they are irrelevant to
Leesburg. Mr. Dunn mentioned that he added up all the anticipated revenue
increases and they add up to approximately $550K. He stated that, generally
speaking, the Town has been running a surplus of $1.4M at the end of the year.
Council Member Dunn indicated that the biggest expense in the budget is
usually due to personnel. He said that the General Fund anticipated increase
is $1.4M and asked what the increase was for last year. Mr. Cournoyer
reiterated that staff has used the same factor for projecting and it represents 2%
increase for personnel for the General Fund. Mr. Dunn asked if when the
budget is prepared there is the expectation that this increase is going to be there
even though the increase has been budgeted the Town continues to end up
with well over $1M in surplus in most years, and especially within the last five
or six. Council Member Dunn said that, if he understands this correctly, this
year the Town has already spent almost $400K in increased personnel costs
due to additional positions that were partially funded and that are going to be
fully funded by $360K. Mr. Dunn cautions that when costs are increased they
impact users, especially businesses if their costs are increased even if it is not
their cost but the Town's cost. He added that if the Town is causing a business
to collect more money on its behalf it could have an impact on the business
users. Mr. Dentler responded that he agrees with this statement. Council
Member Dunn said that the Town might be increasing revenue at the expense
of losing revenue. Mr. Dunn indicated that he would not be in support of
meals taxes and an increase in refuse fees. Council Member Dunn asked for
the total cost for trash and refuse. Ms. LaFollette said that per the current
contract, the cost is approximately $3.58M. Council Member Dunn said that
the contractor is already providing trash service to the downtown, included in
the current contract, but that staff is saying that the trash is being collected
every day but that the businesses are not paying for it. He asked if the
businesses are not already paying for this service through the real estate tax.
Mr. Dentler explained that there has never been an additional assessment for
trash collection in the downtown and that other commercial areas are paying
for their trash removal. Mr. Dentler said that one can argue that the Town
should be doing the same elsewhere in the Town or it should not be provided
in the downtown. Council Member Dunn asked that staff bring forward the
Undesignated Fund Balance during the budget cycle because even though it is
said that the Town does not plan for this fund, it is occurring every year in the
amount of $1.1 to $1.4M. Mr. Dentler stated that the Town is also counting
on the economy doing well because if revenue does not come in this number
drops. Mr. Dentler added that the economy has been good for several years
but if it changes, the Town will not be in the same position.
Council Member Steinberg mentioned that refuse and recycling is a
town -wide service for the residents and it is provided to the businesses outside
the historic district for a fee but the Town does not charge businesses in the
13 'Page
Council Work Session
November 25, 2019
downtown. Ms. LaFollette explained that collections for the downtown
businesses are six days a week and that there are five to six businesses outside
the historic district that also receive collection. She explained that refuse at all
other commercial establishments, apartment complexes, and shopping centers
are not collected by the Town. Ms. LaFollette stated that they have their
property management associations to which they pay fees and they also have
dumpsters. Mr. Steinberg asked if this applies to bulk pick up as well. Ms.
LaFollette responded affirmatively. Mr. Steinberg asked if bulk pick up for
residents is done at no charge. Ms. LaFollette confirmed he was correct. Mr.
Steinberg asked if the Town had bulk pick up within the historic district would
the refuse be mainly office furniture and renovation construction debris,
among other things. Ms. LaFollette indicated that anything that is on the
acceptable list is collected but no construction debris, which is what would be
part of the $170K increase to the contract if the Town were to start picking up
the non -acceptable items. Mr. Steinberg asked what it would take to charge
the downtown businesses per pick up. Ms. LaFollette said she has not thought
through the mechanism of how to do it. Council Member Steinberg asked
what the water pollution facility dryer is costing and when is it coming back on
line. Mr. Cournoyer responded that there is a sludge removal contract that is
$80K to $90K a month and he does not know when it will be back on line.
Mr. Markel stated that this is one item that has a lot of moving parts because it
is an Austrian firm that develops the equipment and it is required to be
approved by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality so there have
been a lot of reviews taking place. Mr. Markel added that the good news is
that the equipment was ordered in the past week and that staff is hoping that it
will be in operation within the next 8 —12 months. Mr. Markel also said that
the production of pellet size fertilizer is also stopped and it would be required
to get back up and running. Council Member Steinberg asked what the
administrative cost difference is between charging fees and collecting a tax.
Mr. Dentler responded that if a fee was established, staff would probably build
it into a water statement. Mr. Steinberg stated that he was referring to sales
tax or admissions tax. Mr. Case explained that in the case of the meals tax,
the burden is on the business which collects the tax and then gets to keep 5% of
the collection as part of its administrative fee. He added that the business will
report and pay the tax to the Town on a quarterly basis.
Council Member Campbell stated that he appreciates the new ideas put
forth by staff. Mr. Campbell said that the nickel-and-dime way is not the path
the Town should take and besides, there are already substantial fees in place.
He added that he is unsure if the Town is putting its savings towards a
designated use. Council Member Campbell asked how much was saved from
reducing the trash pickup from two days a week to one. Ms. LaFollette said it
was approximately $370K and Council decided to use these savings to provide
the Toters® to each resident. Council Member Campbell asked if there are
ways in which contracts can be leveraged to save on purchasing volume. He
understands that there are a lot of stand-alone contracts but the Town may also
think about how to have useful contract relationships developed. Mr.
141Page
Council Work Session
November 25, 2019
Campbell also asked for the amount spent on outside consultants last year,
since he believes this is not an insignificant number and evaluate what can be
done in-house versus hiring a consultant. Council Member Campbell
suggested looking at ways for leveraging savings such as purchasing, taxes, and
trash in the downtown areas versus another cent on the meals tax. Mr.
Campbell also stated that no municipality can tax its way to the future, not
with all the financial obligations that the Town has. Council Member
Campbell said he is unaware if there is another situation out there, like the
snow removal contract, where historically the Town has suppressed what the
real cost is until the time that it has to be paid. He added that he is one that
likes to see what the real cost will be.
Council Member Dunn asked what staff was referring to as admissions
fees. Mr. Dentler explained that it is related to admissions at theaters, sporting
venues, etc. Mr. Dunn asked if someone was paying for classes at ION, would
this be considered admissions. Mr. Dentler said it would depend on how it is
defined. Council Member Dunn said that staff mentioned that the Town has
to make sure to have funding when times are tough, but when times are tough
it means that it is also a tough time for the residents. Mr. Dunn added that the
Town does not give itself enough overage to get through truly tough times.
Council Member Dunn mentioned that there have been tough times when
taxes were lower because property values went down and staff and other types
of cuts had to be made.
Council Member Thiel suggested reaching out to the commissions and
asking them for a simple report, in their areas of expertise, on how they think
that the Town could generate revenue.
d. Fiscal Impact Analysis for Development Applications
Ms. Arnett indicated that the item for discussion is the fiscal impact
analysis related to land development applications. She explained that
currently when someone submits a land development application it is the
applicant that submits the fiscal impact analysis and these analyses are
inconsistent from one application to the next. Ms. Arnett mentioned that
based on a request from Council Member Campbell staff has been discussing
whether or not these should be done in-house and what the process should be.
Ms. Arnett stated that at the last work session Council asked staff to come
back with a plan for doing the analyses in-house and not hiring a consultant to
build a model for staff to run. Ms. Arnett explained that the idea is that staff
would develop a model in-house that would analyze or estimate the direct
fiscal impacts of development. She added that it would not be a total
economic impact because it would not include indirect or induced impacts or
spin offs, but only direct revenues and costs to the Town.
Mayor Burk said that she is a bit confused because she does see the
taxes that the developer will bring, and that she does not see how much the
development will cost the Town. Ms. Arnett explained that in order to
calculate the costs of Town services, staff will take the current year budget and
look at each department's budget. She added that staff would then estimate
151Page
Council Work Session November 25, 2019
what percentage of the services provided go to businesses versus residents and
then based on the number of residents currently served and the number of
businesses, staff would come up with an average cost per household or a cost
per capita; whatever makes the most sense depending upon the services
provided. Ms. Arnett said that obviously there will be a need to make some
estimates and some judgements on what percentage of police services are
provided to residents versus business. Ms. Arnett added that some cost
calculations, like trash, are easier to make while others will be estimated costs.
Mayor Burk asked how road maintenance would be calculated. Ms. Arnett
said that staff knows how many miles are currently maintained and this would
be the base to calculate the cost for additional lane miles. Mayor Burk said
that there would be no cost for schools, for example, because these would be
costs only for the Town. Ms. Arnett confirmed that there would be no costs
for social services, courts, or schools, only Town costs. Mayor Burk asked if
there are other locations that have implemented this. Ms. Arnett confirmed
affirmatively. Mayor Burk asked if there is a locality that she could visit. Ms.
Arnett said that she can ask the developer of the model, TischlerBise about
other localities. Mayor Burk asked how long this process will take. Ms.
Arnett said that it would take several hours of staff time for each of the 11
sources and an additional 24-30 hours for staff to go through the budget and
calculate the cost of services, for a total of 60-70 hours of staff time.
Council Member Steinberg asked if these models need to be location
specific. Ms. Arnett explained that at some level there needs to be a significant
amount of customization because what Leesburg spends its money on is
different from what Falls Church could spend its money on. Mr. Steinberg
asked if it is possible to develop a model with enough flexibility that it could
sustain certain changes in the input data and still provide the needed output.
Ms. Arnett said that staff is proposing not to rebuild the model every year, it
would just be adjusted based on revisions in the budget. Council Member
Steinberg asked if staff has the capability of building its own model. Ms.
Arnett said that she believes so but that it is a significant investment of time.
Mr. Steinberg asked what the difference would be in regards to staff cost time
and hiring a consultant. Ms. Arnett said that she has not recently investigated
the cost of building a model but when TischlerBise updated the model it was in
the neighborhood of $30K and that would be significantly more than what
staff would be paid but one also has to consider how it will affect staffs work
plan.
Council Member Thiel asked how granular will the report actually be
and will it be segmented by geographical locations. Ms. Arnett said it would
be Town -wide, not location specific and staff has included in the information
memo the different types of development (for sale residential, owner -occupied
non-residential, leased space) and staff would be coming up with averages, for
example the average strip center provides a certain amount of sales per square
foot and therefore a certain amount of Business, Professional and
Occupational License Tax (BPOL). Mr. Thiel asked who would benefit the
most from this being done. Ms. Arnett explained that this analysis would be
16IPage
Council Work Session November 25, 2019
presented as part of a legislative land development application which would
come in as a rezoning application to the Planning Commission and then to
Council to decide if what the developer is proposing is better than the by -right
development.
Council Member Dunn said that when he looked at this he started
thinking that a lot of this has been done already through previous applications
and staff very often will give Council an analysis of what the economic
impacts are for that property. Mr. Dunn thinks that if this should go forward
staff would refer back to those reports and the analysis that both staff and the
applicant brought forward for those properties, rather than recreating the
wheel for every location in town, which seems like a lot of additional work.
Ms. Arnett explained that what Council is seeing in rezoning applications and
the fiscal analysis that staff provides is really just a review of the analysis that
the applicant has submitted. Ms. Arnett stated that while staff knows some of
the applicant's assumptions it does not mean that staff necessarily agrees with
all of the assumptions. Ms. Arnett added that the difference between the
applicant and staff doing the analysis is that staff will be basing its analysis on
actual numbers. Council Member Dunn asked how often the model be
updated. Ms. Arnett indicated that staff is recommending a yearly update,
based on the budget.
Council Member Campbell asked if there is an easier way to get to a
factor that can be used and applied versus having to go through 11 different
variables and categories and avoid using 30 hours of staff time for every
application. Ms. Arnett clarified that it would not be 30 staff hours for every
application. She added that staff would build the model and for each
application it would request certain inputs from the developer that would be
plugged into the model, so it would be 2-3 staff hours per application to run
the model and meet as a group to verify and validate. Council Member
Campbell said he was not looking to create that much work for staff. He
added that this might not be a perfect tool, but it is certainly better than the
tool currently used. Mr. Campbell added that he agrees with the categories
presented by staff.
Council Member Fox mentioned that she did not see items like
walkways in the matrix. Ms. Fox also stated that there is a huge disconnect
between what the developer is saying that the fiscal impact will be versus what
the Town is saying and asked if the Town's impact study will trump the
developer's study. Ms. Arnett explained that the intention is to not require
applicants to submit fiscal impact studies and that it would actually save the
developer money in the process. Council Member Fox asked if the developer's
analysis would be taken into consideration if they offered it because her
concern is that these studies are usually worlds apart. Ms. Arnett said that it
would be Ms. Fox's decision.
Vice Mayor Martinez said that there are some variables that he thinks
should be added to the matrix and he will suggest these to staff at a later time.
Vice Mayor Martinez also indicated that there is no mention of one of the
biggest headaches when dealing with development which is traffic and how it
171Page
Council Work Session
November 25, 2019
affects the fiscal impact. Vice Mayor Martinez said that the model should
include the transportation impact of any development. Mr. Martinez asked
how the results of these analyses can be shared with the County so it can
understand the issues that the Town is facing. Vice Mayor Martinez said that
the model looks a bit simplistic, but that if this is the intention, then he is fine
with it. Ms. Arnett said that staff deliberately proposed a model that is limited
to direct fiscal impacts, revenues and costs of services and does not consider
indirect, induced or spin off impacts.
Council Member Steinberg asked under what circumstances would an
applicant not offer or want to offer its own analysis. Ms. Arnett said that if the
Town's results did not indicate that it would be fiscally positive to the Town,
then it is possible that the developer would want to rebut the Town's analysis
and present its own. Mr. Steinberg asked if the developers usually present
their analyses with their application as opposed to waiting for staff's analysis.
Ms. Arnett said that staff currently does not do the analysis and since part of
the requirement for a rezoning application is a fiscal impact analysis the
developers present it when they submit their application. Council Member
Steinberg asked how the Town's model would be substantially different than
the model used by the developer. Ms. Arnett said that it would probably
function very similarly other than the fact that staff would control the inputs.
Ms. Arnett added that the impact analysis that the Town receives usually
includes one-time revenues and a 20-year cumulative analysis. Ms. Arnett said
that the Town will know with its model, once the development is completed,
year after year after year, what is generating in revenue and what it is costing
the Town in services in current day dollars. Council Member Steinberg asked
if the Town is in a position to tell the applicant that this is the model it should
use. Ms. Arnett said that it can be offered but the Town can also give the
developers the opportunity to provide evidence or documentation as to why
they do not agree with the Town's assumptions. Mr. Steinberg mentioned that
since these applications take a while to go through the process, how current
does staff expect the analysis to be to approve or disapprove. Ms. Arnett
suggested that it should be within a couple of years. Council Member
Steinberg asked if the Town has the right to request a new impact analysis.
Ms. Arnett said that to her knowledge the Town has never asked for an
updated analysis. Ms. Berry Hill said that currently the Town requires the
developer to provide a fiscal impact analysis and if the Town is to move
forward with this model then there will be consistency on how it is done
between applications. Ms. Berry Hill added that if an applicant does not want
to provide a fiscal impact analysis (FIA) but relies on the Town's analysis, then
the Town can waive the requirement to submit a fiscal analysis when
submitting the application. Ms. Berry Hill mentioned that the developer will
not have to spend money on an FIA, but if the developers want to provide it to
substantiate their application, it is up to them. Mr. Steinberg believes this
model would aid Council greatly with current data as opposed to data that is
two to three years old.
181Page
Council Work Session November 25, 2019
Council Member Thiel said that he prefers that Council use its own
numbers and not the developers' data and therefore supports the model.
Mayor Burk said that she is excited about this since it will provide
Council with more information for consideration.
It was the consensus of the Council to direct staff to move forward to prepare the
fiscal analysis model (Campbell, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg, Thiel, and
Mayor Burk).
3. Additions to Future Council Meetings
Mayor Burk said that the Loudoun County High School Girls Volley
Ball Team won its 8t-straight state title for the Ladies Raiders and the 12th title
in the past 13 years.
Mayor Burk proposed a proclamation for Inova Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center since it received a designation from US News and
World Report. She added that there are only 19 nursing facilities that are
designated as excellent facilities with the US News and World Report.
Council Member Dunn said that proclamations should be brought up for vote
during the regular meetings and not during work sessions. Council Member
Campbell said that proclamations do not need to be brought up during the
Additions to Future Council Meetings section. Mayor Burk said that she
would straighten it out during the November 26 meeting. Mr. Campbell said
that one cannot put something on the agenda for the next day like before that
is why the process was changed. Ms. Boeing clarified that it requires one
business meeting prior and a Council sponsor, but that it does not require four
head nods. Ms. Boeing added that once a Council Member sponsors a
proclamation staff will include it in the regular Council agenda, so that
Council can vote to approve it and those that approve it will have a signature
block on the proclamation. Mayor Burk asked if she had to ask the other
Council members for their approval to put the proclamations on the agenda for
November 26. Ms. Boeing explained that the Council agenda was already
published so if Council wishes to put the proclamations on the agenda for
November 26 there has to be a suspension of the rules to add it to a vote, so
that they could be presented at the December 10 meeting. Mayor Burk
indicated that she did not want to suspend the rules.
Council Member Dunn proceeded to read the Rules of Procedure as
follows: Proclamations must be requested a minimum of one business meeting
in advance of the scheduled presentation. Mayor Burk said she would bring
the proclamations up during the meeting of November 26.
19IPage
Council Work Session
November 25, 2019
4. Adjournment
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez seconded by Council Member Steinberg, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:•16p.m.
Clerk of Council
2019 tcwsmin1125
20IPage