Loading...
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