HomeMy Public PortalAbout2011_tcmin1129COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:30 p.m. Mayor Umstattd presiding.
Council Members Present: David Butler, Thomas Dunn, II, Katie Sheldon Hammler,
Fernando "Marty" Martinez, Kenneth "Ken" Reid, Kevin Wright and Mayor Umstattd.
Council Members Absent: Council Member Dunn arrived at 7:33 p.m.
Staff Present: Town Manager John Wells, Town Attorney Jeanette Irby, Director of
Planning and Zoning Susan Berry Hill, and Clerk of Council Lee Ann Green
AGENDA ITEMS
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION: Council Member Butler
3. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: Mayor Umstattd
4. ROLL CALL: Showing Council Member Dunn arriving at 7:33 p.m.
5. MINUTES
a. Work Session Minutes of November 14, 2011
On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council Member
Butler, the minutes of the November 14 work session were approved 6 -0 -1 (Dunn
absent).
6. ADOPTING THE MEETING AGENDA
On a motion by Vice Mayor Wright, seconded by Council Member Butler, the
meeting agenda was approved after adding a Certificate of Recognition for Marlena
Schappert and moving an item from the Resolutions section to Consent, by the
following vote:
Aye: Butler, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None
Vote: 6 -0 -1 (Dunn absent)
7. PRESENTATIONS
a. Certificate of Reco ign tion
On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council Member
Butler, Marlena Schappert was presented with a Certificate of Recognition for
making jewelry to sell to raise money for charities benefiting members of the U.S.
armed services.
b. Certificates of Recognition and Appreciation
On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council Member
Butler, Certificates of Recognition were presented to members of Special
Olympics participating in the Fall Championships and Certificates of
Appreciation were presented to the volunteers:
1 1 Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
Volunteers Athletes
Collette Herrington (bowling) Jose Deleon (bowling)
Claire Crook (bowling) Tyler Touve (Soccer)
Joe Korode (volleyball) Adam Bell (volleyball)
Christine Swann (volleyball) Sophia Crook (bowling)
Ryan Korode (volleyball)
S. PETITIONERS
The petitioner's section was opened at 7:42 p.m.
Geary Higgins, Catoctin District Supervisor - Elect, stated he appreciated the
opportunity to speak. He thanked the Council for the work they do on behalf of the
town of Leesburg. He stated he looks forward to working with the Council on matters
of interest to the citizens of Loudoun County and the residents of Leesburg. He stated
the towns are the background and hub of the social and cultural experience in Loudoun
County. He stated his door is always open for communication. He stated his home
phone number and email address are on his website. He wished everyone a Merry
Christmas, Happy Holidays and Happy New Year.
Paul Reimers, stated he is in favor of the motion tonight on Option 5 as it relates
to Residential Parking. He stated this is a good step forward towards trying to create
some small pockets of residential and putting more feet on the street in the town without
adversely affecting the parking situation. He stated out that there has been talk about
raising the parking in lieu fee from its current $3,000 level to some other level and he
pointed out that the $3,000 fee does not guarantee anyone a parking spot any place. He
stated a higher fee would create expectations that an actual space would be reserved.
Ron Rust, stated he agrees with Mr. Reimer's comments. He stated they have a
property and if they want to do residential, parking is a major problem. He stated there
are two costs, capital cost and operating cost. He stated in an apartment building, you
do not expect the first tenant to pay for the building and pay rent also. He stated a
higher payment in lieu fee should create a parking space that will convey with the
property. Further, he stated he is in favor of Option 5.
Barbara Bayles- Roberts, 206 Meadows Lane, NE, stated she was very pleased
with the 30 percent voter turnout for the referendum. She stated there would not be
good attendance at a special election that is held at any time in the spring. She stated it
is her feeling that the voters felt they would not have to come out for another year when
they passed the referendum. She asked that the appointment be made until a special
election can be held in November.
The petitioner's section was closed at 7:51 p.m.
9. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council Member Reid,
the following items were moved for approval as part of the Consent Agenda:
2 1 Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
a. Making an Appointment to the Tree Commission (Wright
RESOLUTION 2011 -140
Making an Appointment to the Tree Commission
b. Making Appointments to the Standing Residential Traffic Committee
(Butler /Reid)
RESOLUTION 2011 -141
Making Appointments to the Standing Residential Traffic Committee
C. Town Hall Art Gallery /Jill Poyerd Exhibit
RESOLUTION 2011 -142
Town Hall Art Gallery — Approval of the Next Art Exhibit by Jill Poyerd
d. Technology and Communication Commission Request to Fund Survey
MOTION 2011 -044
I move to authorize the Technology and Communication Commission to
spend $1,000 for the survey as described
The Consent Agenda was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor
Umstattd
Nay: None
Vote: 7 -0
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. None
11. ORDINANCES
a. None
12. RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
a. Residential Parking in the Downtown
On a motion by Council Member Martinez, the following was proposed.•
MOTION2011 -040
I move that the Town Council direct staff to draft language to amend the zoning
ordinance amendment to incorporate "Option 5" as described in this staff report
and Attachment 1, to not require on -site residential parking for residential
development on parcels that are 4, 000 square feet or less that lie within an area
bounded by North, South, Liberty and Church Streets. I further move that the
Town Council direct staff to amend the Zoning Ordinance to address "Option 2';
3 1 11 ;
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
to extend the payment in -lieu option specified in TLZO Section 11. 4.3 to
residential uses
Martinez: I have no comments on this. I think we discussed it pretty well last night and
I am satisfied with it.
Butler: Just like to say that this helps encourage residential downtown and infill is one
of the best ways we can help the downtown businesses and keep it vibrant.
Hammler: I just wanted to thank, if I may, the Planning Commission. I know they
have worked so hard on this particular issue and staff as well. Also, Mr. Reimers and
Mr. Rust because they have been actively involved for the duration and just echoing
Council Member Butler's point because this really does reflect the main goals of the
EDC, Live, Work, Play in terms of increasing foot traffic in a permanent way.
Wright: I have to apologize, I'll be a little slow since I wasn't here last night. This is just
an initiation, correct? No?
Hill: Last October, the Council initiated...
Wright: Let me clarify my question. This isn't a public hearing, so it's coming back.
So, we are initiating you to draft something to bring to public hearing.
Hill: We will be drafting something. Our intention is to incorporate it into the 2011
Zoning Ordinance batch, which will be coming forward to you approximately February.
Wright: One last thing. I further moved part... are we talking about all residential uses
to allow the payment in lieu with in the B -1?
Hill: Within the H -1 district.
Wright: Okay. That second part gives me a little pause, so I probably won't support this.
Reid: I agree with Council Member Butler that this is going to encourage, we hope,
development of these small parcels. I just hope that when we get to the payment in lieu
fee, that we will look at a smaller fee for those parcels. If we do provide a larger fee, as
the property owners just testified, that there will be an expectation that there will be a
space conveyed with that property.
Hammler: Madam Mayor, Point of Order. Are we just in fact voting on Motion 1, not
all three, correct?
Mayor: Just Motion 1. Motion one does have two parts to it, but we are not looking at
Motion 2, parking fund; motion 3 payment in lieu fee right now. We are just looking at
1, which is the zoning ordinance amendments. I hesitate to support this at this time. I
am concerned by the growing citizen complaints because of lack of parking. I think this
move is going to aggravate lack of parking. If this was just one space, whether owned by
4 1 Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
Mr. Reimers or anyone else, I don't think it would have that deleterious an effect, but as
I understand it there are at least 80 lots that this could apply to and we are already seeing
people getting very testy that other people are parking in front of their homes. I don't
know where all these new folks that might be brought in under this system are going to
park and I just see a lot of complaints and unhappiness breaking out in the downtown as
people with no place to park on site start to move into the existing residential
neighborhoods that are already suffering from lack of street parking. I will watch this as
it develops, but at this time I cannot support it. Marty, you get the final word.
Martinez: Just like to move the motion.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, and Reid
Nay: Wright and Mayor Umstattd
Vote: S -2
On a motion by Council Member Butler, the following was proposed.•
MOTION2011 -041
I move that the Town Council direct the Town Manager to earmark payments that are
made into the Parking Fund, per TLZO Section 11. 4.3 Payments in Lieu, only for use in
creating new parking spaces
The motion was seconded by Council Member Hammler.
Butler: I think this is ... what we are supposed to be doing is using this money to create
new parking spaces. With the new language, this allows us to do things like re- stripe the
Liberty lot and create additional spaces in onesie, twosie, threesie type of scenario rather
than have to bank all of the money and wait until we have millions of dollars to go and
buy a new parking garage. This would be helpful in creating the kind of situation that
Mr. Reimers was discussing... potentially creating parking spaces in smaller quantities.
Hammler: I also support the broader language because it allows greater creativity as we
are moving forward with public /private partnerships. There may be innovative ideas
about how we circulate traffic in order to create more on- street parking that would be
closer to the residences. It is just a broader language to enable us to achieve the goal of
the motion.
Martinez: No comments.
Wright: Nothing.
Reid: I have a question for my colleagues. Would it still not be prudent to at least
specify the kind of new parking spaces so it's not so broad, so staff knows that we are
looking at street parking, re- striping, PPEAs, the whole gamut?
Hammler: I don't think that's necessary.
5 1
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
Butler: The language seems pretty wide open and I think staff is creative.
Reid: Okay, well I think staff has heard my question and I hope that they will look at all
of those things including street parking.
Dunn: I would rather leave it as stated because acquisition is the same thing as creating.
It also mentions here that it is for spaces, either surface or garage facilities. So, I think if
you are looking at creating parking spaces ... and I also would like to respect the intent of
the planning commission which I think was to have these funds directly used towards
acquiring parking and not generally used for maintenance. Maintenance isn't going to
go towards creating additional parking, which as the Mayor said, she is concerned about
a major outcry ... what was it? Cats and dogs living together... something like that. I
don't remember what your words were, but mass hysteria...
Mayor: It wasn't that.
Dunn: Okay, it's in that vein.
Mayor: It was unhappiness.
Dunn: Unhappiness... general unhappiness. We don't want that. So, my concern is
that now all of a sudden this is a fund that rather than being used for acquiring new
parking spaces, what I think the intent is, is that is now going to be used for striping
Liberty Lot, which doesn't add to any new parking. So, that's my concern. I would
rather leave that off.
Mayor: We do have Susan here. I would just like to get a sense, Susan, from you or
from John as to how you would envision dealing with this change assuming the Council
were to pass it tonight. I haven't heard discussed all the ramifications of Dave's
proposed language. I don't know if you have any thoughts on how it would be
administered or how it would change from what's being done now.
Hill: I think the intent... listening to your discussion last night, the Council was
interested in a broad range of options for creating new spaces ... that being perhaps spaces
in new garage facility or expanding surface lots, but also to include perhaps a one way
street system design which might create on street parking or use of metered spaces. So, I
believe that Mr. Butler's motion would include all of those options. The motion that
was in your agenda was intended to be broad enough to include all of those options, but
I would ... I guess the reference to surface facilities was not really ... we weren't really
contemplating one way street designs within that motion. So, I guess Mr. Butler's
motion would be broader to include all of those things.
Wells: If I may add to that, Madam Mayor, I think the key point in this is in the use of
monies from the parking fund, the intention would be to add spaces in some way so that
there is a net increase that could be dealt with in a number of different ways as Susan has
mentioned. In addition, in terms of administering this, I would envision many of these
61Pa e
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
things being items that could possibly be done through the budget process and that the
parking fund would be a fund that... a revenue source that would be identified as part of
the budget process in bringing this forward, so it would be a structured way of doing
this, but it wouldn't preclude the work being done outside of that time in the event that
additional funds would be needed beyond the parking fund. I think the key point is this
provides a wider range of opportunity with the intention of adding spaces, which if I
watched the planning commission meeting that evening I got the distinct impression the
idea was to look at adding spaces and making good use of ones we have, but it was
really designed to add spaces to it. I don't know that there is a lot of difference between
the two, but if I am reading this myself, I would read the creating new parking spaces as
being a little more broader, but again the intent is to add spaces at the end.
Mayor: Thank you, Susan. Dave, do you have any other clarification comments?
Butler: I just want to say the reason why I wanted the new language was because the
old language kind of implies... well, it doesn't imply, it states a new facility. The
acquisition of a new facility means that you go out and you buy something. It could be
a surface facility or it could be a garage facility, but I am not sure that those are the only
options and they also seem to imply the purchase of a large number of spots at once. I
am not sure that it necessarily the best way to do it. As long as they are creating new
spaces, I am not sure I much care how they go about doing it, but it just allows staff
more flexibility to do the onesie, twosie, threesie type approach.
Mayor: Okay, all right. I was leery about supporting this tonight, but I mean I think
there is value in spending money to maintain the spaces you have created and it all
comes out of the same pot at the moment, but I do see some merit in widening the scope
and it doesn't eliminate the other option, so I think I will support this tonight. Dave,
you get final words if you have anything else.
The motion was approved by the final vote:
Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor
Umstattd
Nay: None
Vote: 7 -0
On a motion by Council Member Reid, the following was proposed:
MOTION
I move that the Town Council consider increasing the existing Payment in Lieu fee of
$3, 000 per parking space per TLZO Section 11. 4.3 to an appropriate fee up to $20, 000 per
parking space and direct staff to schedule a public hearing before the Town Council to
consider such an increase
The motion was seconded by Council Member Dunn.
Reid: In light of the testimony tonight and our discussion last night, I would like to offer
a friendly amendment to say ... after we say per parking space ... well I am sorry. After
7 1 Pay
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
the appropriate fee... after 11.4.3 to say to examine the feasibility of spaces conveying to
specific properties and a sliding scale of up to $20,000 per space.
Dunn: I would rather not put the $20,000 in there. I think it's too high and it's too large
a jump. I don't think it's really needed at this point. Again, that's just a fee that is
passed on to the tenant or the owner of the property. I would rather not have the
$20,000 in there, Ken, if we could work on some words and take that out.
Mayor: Do you want to withdraw your second?
Reid: I think we need the $20,000 in there, Tom, because we have to have a maximum
or else they could be looking at $50,000 a space.
Mayor: This does say up to $20,000 and the amount has not been determined and will
not be determined by this vote tonight. It will come back to Council.
Martinez: If I might offer a point of clarification on that? What the $20,000 allows us to
do is to advertise it. It does not say we are going to make it $20,000, it's just that if we
were to say $5,000 and agree that maybe we want to go up to $6,000 that means we have
to have another public hearing. All this does is allows us to have a top limit, but not say
we are going to go there. It allows us to go lower instead of having a low figure and try
to go higher, which would mean another public hearing. All it is is just a ... like Ken says
too, at least there is a limit to what we could do if other people have decided they want
to go higher than $20,000, this at least stops them at that level. But again, all it is is just
a buffer zone from $3,000 to $20,000 and anywhere in between.
Reid: Yes. I would like to thank the gentleman for the clarification, but I am also
proposing that they look at the feasibility and that is all we are looking at of whether
spaces can convey to specific properties and a sliding scale between $3 and $20
thousand. That way it is not just a flat fee per space.
Irby: So, it would be your intent that you are not actually initiating any kind of
legislation at this point with this motion you are just looking to determine whether or
not it is possible to convey public parking to a specific property owner?
Hammler: Madam Mayor, I just personally would need more clarification on how we
would administer a sliding scale.
Reid: That's the idea of staff to look into this. It's not just limited to the planning staff.
I mean we are looking at fees here, so I assume you are going to be talking to Norm
Butts and other departments as well.
Mayor: Before I turn to Kevin, I mean this ... the way this is currently drafted, it's the
Council would consider increasing. It doesn't say Council tonight is voting to increase,
but Council will consider it and direct staff to schedule a public hearing. So, then the
question, Jeannette, becomes is it possible to fashion Ken's language into an
advertisement for the public hearing?
8 1 F'1ge
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
Hammier: Madam Mayor, may I suggest we vote? Because I have a feeling there won't
be support and we can move on.
Mayor: Let's clarify. Kevin... Jeannette if you want to think about that.
Irby: What Mr. Reid has proposed is not an initiation of a legislative action. He is
proposing a study, so you wouldn't necessarily be having a formal public hearing. You
may be wishing to have a public input session, so this is not ... the way he has phrased it
is not initiating any kind of legislative action. It is initiating a study, which is different.
Wright: So, I think we are still trying to understand the proposed friendly amendment.
So, what I am trying to understand is it seems like we have two questions. There is one
of what should the payment in lieu fee be and that payment in lieu fee exists in a couple
of circumstances right now for commercial, possibly for residential and that's a fee to
basically fill in the gap if you are not able to fill all of your parking spaces. What I think
Mr. Reid is trying to get to is there are different tiers of need that may occur so as staff is
doing this analysis, you may have different tiers of need, so based on the quantity or the
use or some criteria that is going to generate certain thresholds of fees, perhaps. At that
highest threshold what that may be, instead of a payment in lieu fee, there may be a
bank of parking spaces that the town is able to sell. Ken can correct me if I am wrong,
but I think Ken is trying to accomplish staff researching both of those to bring back to
Council.
__.. Reid: You are exactly correct, Mr. Wright, because I don't want...
Martinez: Madam Mayor, point of order.
Mayor: Let's not interrupt.
Martinez: There has been no second to the friendly amendment. I never heard Tom
agree to that.
Hammier: No he didn't.
Dunn: I am trying to understand the friendly amendment.
Mayor: We are clarifying... Ken?
Reid: That's exactly correct, Kevin. I probably could have added residential versus
commercial. I believe that this is something that has to be examined in terms of the uses
and conveyance and so forth instead of just raising the fee for the sake of raising the fee,
which could have an impact... a negative impact on people's ability to want to develop
the property. I am looking at something broader. You are absolutely right, Kevin.
Thank you for the clarification.
9 1 Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
Dunn: If we are looking at not taking action and sending this now back to staff and
probably the planning commission, I don't think that was the intent of the planning
commission and I will withdraw my second.
Mayor: I will second Ken's amended motion, then.
Butler: I just want to clarify. So, we have a new motion on the table by Ken, seconded
by Tom that's...
Mayor: That's gone.
Dunn: No, he's correct.
Butler: Okay, then we have a friendly amendment that was not accepted, so what did
you just second?
Mayor: As I understood it, Tom had withdrawn his second for the main motion, but did
you not?
Dunn: The friendly.
Butler: I think the question is does Council Member Reid want to make that as a true
amendment.
Mayor: You are correct.
Hammler: Madam Mayor, could you please repeat the friendly amendment?
Mayor: Ken, it's yours.
Hammler: Excuse me ... the amendment.
Reid: I probably should have drafted something in advance. I apologize. It's to
basically... after Section 11.4.3 to examine the feasibility of conveying parking spaces to
a specific parcel and examine a sliding scale of $3,000 to $20,000 per space and examine
uses based on residential versus commercial uses.
Hammler: Could you please repeat that so it is clearer what we are voting on?
Reid: You are voting on ... can I just explain it for everyone?
Hammler: No. I think you need to state it.
Reid: Verbally? You are basically voting on the staff to look at a sliding scale for the
parking ... for the payment in lieu fee. That's what you are asking to do. They will be
looking at the various impacts of residential versus commercial development and also
10 1 Past.
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
whether, in fact, as Mr. Reimers and Mr. Rust suggested, whether in fact the town can
actually convey space to a certain parcel.
Hammler: Point of order, Madam Mayor. We are trying to get exact language on what
we are voting on not additional discussion on what is now the amendment.
Mayor: I think Ken is trying to lay out ... I think he is now on his third remention of the
language he initially proposed. I think he was interrupted before he got to finish. Do
you want to restate it a fourth time?
Mayor: All right. You want to add the language that staff should also examine the
feasibility of conveying parking spaces to particular properties and examine the
feasibility of applying a sliding scale between $3,000 per space and $20,000 per space in
implementation of this ordinance. Does that capture what you wanted?
Reid: Yes.
Mayor: Jeannette, you are looking at me?
Irby: I think if we are doing a feasibility study, then the section about having a public
hearing before the Town Council to consider the increase should be struck and it should
be treated as for what the intent is, which is apparently to study the issue, bring it back to
Council and then Council can specifically direct what they want advertised.
Reid: Then, I will make that motion to strike that, schedule the public hearing before
Town Council.
Mayor: All right, now is this a friendly amendment?
Reid: Yes.
Dunn: I don't know where we are at right now.
Reid: Based on Council's suggestion, I will make a friendly amendment or offer a
friendly amendment to strike and direct staff to schedule a public hearing before the
town council to consider such increase.
Mayor: Now, no I don't accept that. I was in favor of the original language in that part.
Would you like to make a motion again to amend further? So, what do you anticipate
you have now as your motion?
Reid: So, it would be to move the Town Council consider increasing the existing
payment in lieu fee of $3,000 per space per TLZO Section 11.4.3 and examine the
feasibility of conveying specific spaces to properties and a sliding scale of $3,000 to
$20,000 per parking space. We could direct staff to have a public input session, if that
would satisfy you better, Madam Mayor.
11 1 Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
Hammler: Madam Mayor, can I ask a question? Call it a point of order. Because this is
now a different motion because we are moving a different action all together, would this
not be more appropriate under new business for a work session that should have
happened previously in lieu of what the intent was of this particular motion?
Mayor: Well, any other member of Council, regardless of what happens to this
particular version, any other member of Council is certainly welcome to make the
motion as originally drafted or another motion. Ken has stated exactly what he would
like to have on the floor at present. He does not, at this point, have a second for that. Is
there a second?
Dunn: Ken, just one more time, can we hear the motion that is being considered?
Mayor: Ken, it's all yours.
Hammler: Madam Mayor, I thought you seconded what you thought Ken was about to
articulate. I may have misunderstood.
Mayor: No.
Irby: She withdrew her second.
Reid: She wants a public hearing.
Mayor: Yes. I do.
Dunn: And Ken's original friendly motion did not include a public hearing.
Mayor: Ken's original motion did include the public hearing. Because it was....
Reid: Then I will add that back to the original motion.
Wright: I am so confused.
Reid: Despite counsel's advice, I will add that back to the original motion.
Mayor: All right, let's go through this one more time. Ken, would you please read
what your current motion is?
Reid: I move that the Town Council consider increasing the existing payment in lieu fee
of $3,000 per parking space per TLZO Section 11.4.3. and to examine ... to have staff
examine the feasibility of conveying parking spaces with specific properties and examine
a sliding scale of $3,000 to $20,000 per parking space and various uses of those spaces
and direct staff to schedule a public hearing for the town council to consider such
increase.
12 t',�
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
Irby: Madam Mayor, I don't need to have time to examine the feasibility of selling
public right of way to specific properties for parking. It's not going to be allowed, so we
don't need to spend time examining that particular question. It would be an open
process if the town determines it would like to start selling right of way, so with respect
to the feasibility of that, I don't think that needs to be part of this motion.
Reid: So, we have a legal interpretation that what I am asking for is not legal.
Irby: That's why I was trying to encourage you to send it back to staff to let them flesh
out the ideas more specifically because there may be different options that may have not
been contemplated, but you haven't... there isn't ... but I don't think there is Council
interest in that. I don't mean to muddy the waters.
Reid: I think that's what Katie wanted...
Martinez: So, has that friendly amendment been withdrawn? Are we now going back
to the original motion?
Irby: Well, you can include the sliding scale items, but you can't convey right of way to
specific property owners.
Reid: Then I will just look at the sliding scale and look at the uses of each parcel based
on residential versus commercial use.
Wright: Just one point of order because we had a bunch of amendments in there. As I
understood it, we had the original motion, which was the language as presented,
seconded by Tom. Then, I think Tom had withdrawn his second for the couple of
amendments we have been talking about, so now Ken is proposing an amendment that
is simply adding that staff also consider the sliding scale and that sliding scale might
consider the types of uses. That is being proposed as an amendment and then we will
see if that's friendly?
Reid: That's correct.
Martinez: Has there been a second to that?
Mayor: I don't think Ken has a second at this point. To anything.
Dunn: I will go ahead and second it for discussion purposes.
Mayor: All right, we are back to the original Ken and Tom. Any discussion? Let's go
down to this end of the dais.
Butler: At this point, I think looking at sliding scales and all that would muddy the
waters and not get us where we need to go. In addition it's not clear to me that a
residential parking space is any smaller than a commercial parking space, so the parking
spaces are all the same size and it's my hope that commercial parking spaces would be
13 1 Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
used in the daytime and residential would be used more in the evening and nights so
they are sharing spaces so I don't see where we could justify a sliding scale. So, I am not
in favor of the amendment.
Hammler: I am not in favor of the amendment primarily because of the confusion
surrounding the additional language which is counter productive. We want to broaden
the ability to get input. The more we constrain the limits of the motion, we will not be
able to get that level of input. I do agree with the sentiment and ironically I was going to
provide a very simple statement about the intent that the fee would for the purchase or
conveyance of dedicated spaces, but that definitely has been lost in the entire discussion.
Martinez: Well I have to agree with Katie on some points. Any amendment we make,
we have to go over it a half of a dozen times and we are still not clear on the language
and what the implications are, I think we need to take it back. Also, on the sliding scale,
I think when you start getting into that, you are going to have a lot more opportunity for
people to be unhappy with whatever decisions we make. Also, the conveyance of
parking spaces. I understand the sentiment of having dedicated parking spaces for
residential, but not a dedicated parking space. I think we need to make a clarification
that there may be a bank of parking, say at Liberty Street or the top level of Town hall
that after 5 p.m. residents can park there, but I think we will get into trouble if we start
dedicating a parking space to a resident. So, that's one of the reasons that I can't
support it. I am also going to ask Susan isn't it implied that in your study that the Town
Council consider some of the information that you are going to come back with would
include what has already been discussed? So in other words, do we have to
micromanage your going back and looking at all of the options available for us today?
Hill: What we can do if the Council wishes to have some options reviewed and
commented on in a public hearing, we can bring forward some different options for what
has been called a sliding scale or different tiered options for residential versus non-
residential. I don't know if the Council would wish to look at what those options are
before we schedule a public hearing. I am not certain.
Martinez: The point I am making is that with the discussion you have heard tonight,
that when you go back to look at this and bring it back to Council for a public hearing,
you will definitely have some different options available.
Hill: We could, the problem is if we are going to advertise that for public hearing, we
need to be pretty specific about what we are advertising.
Martinez: And right now, we are not there. Then the other question I have, is I noticed
in the amendment, there was no date certain or date for having a public hearing. Is there
is an urgency in getting that date?
Hill: It's at the Council's pleasure.
Martinez: In other words, we are not hemmed in by a March deadline or a June
deadline or any kind of deadline to get some of this stuff in the ordinance taken care of.
14 Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
Okay, so that was my other concern ... was the date. In summary, I don't think I can
support the friendly amendment.
Wright: Let me make sure I know where we are. Are we voting on an amendment or
do you think that...
Mayor: Thank you, I agree. I don't think we are on a friendly amendment right now. I
think we are on Ken's main motion which has gone through a couple of changes.
Wright: Because Tom accepted his latest version with the edit as friendly.
Mayor: Yeah, then this is a different motion than the one that is written down in your
agenda, but I do believe it now stands as the main motion on the table, it's not a friendly
amendment. So, we are about to vote, potentially, on a main motion that is different
from what you have in writing in front of you. That's my understanding.
Wright: Okay, and the main motion that I understand is on the floor, is that we have the
appropriate... changing the appropriate fee of up to $20,000 with staff considering as
they consider the fee, considering possibly different tiers for that based on a criteria to
include residential or commercial. I think ... the challenge I have with where we are at
right now is I think in general everyone agrees the fee needs to be changed. We have
agreed on that for a while. What I heard Susan say when Marty said based on
everything we have talked about, don't you have enough to come up with something
anyway, I think what I heard you say was no. I think you are looking for something a
-- little bit more precise. I think what this was, is move the fee from $3,000 to up to
$20,000, give me a justification for it and we will go from there. I think the conversation
on the dais is a little bit different and I don't know as we go around everyone is agreeing,
so I don't.... (a) I am not convinced this motion is ready, but I don't think the... as
amended this makes sense because I am not sure staff wants that big of a swimming pool
to figure out that many variables. Is that fair to say?
Hill: Suggest that we come up with some options that you could consider in work
session and we narrow it down and then advertise that for public hearing.
Wells: Madam Mayor, let me suggest a motion. Forget whether it is an amendment or
anything. Let me state what I think you want to do then you can figure out how to get
there if I am close. If not, I'll be quiet. I move that the Town Council consider
increasing the existing payment in lieu fee of $3,000 per parking space per TLZO Section
11.4.3 to an appropriate fee up to $20,000 per parking space to include options for a
sliding scale and direct staff to report back to Council on those options before scheduling
a public hearing. Basically it's study how a scale would work, show you before it is
advertised, which is what Susan is asking for and then we schedule the public hearing so
you know what is being advertised. That is what I thought we heard. Some people say.
Hammler: But we are going to vote that down.
15 1 Pag
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
Reid: If I may, Katie. Kevin wasn't here last night, but the fact is all of us had different
ideas ... I think we are all concerned about the $20,000 space. If Dave will listen up for a
second. If you are going to direct that they look at all new parking spaces in the parking
fund, why would you not look at different values for those spaces. So, I think the way
that John stated it is perfectly fine. Just have staff come back with some options for
different tiers. To use Mr. Wright's term, tiers. That's a good term, Kevin. Thank you
for that. Because if you want to expand parking for these small parcels, you are going to
have some spaces that will be striped at Liberty Street, some in the garage, some on the
street. Whatever. So, wouldn't it make sense that developers when they develop a
property would have not just a flat fee to pay and there are some people who might have
a hardship situation. So, there are different impacts...
Hammler: Madam Mayor, was that Council Member Reid's closing comments, or do
we get...
Reid: I am trying to explain for John Wells, because I think John's right...
Butler: We don't want an explanation. What we want is someone is to move John's
motion and second it and then we can have....
Mayor: Hey guys ... guys...
Reid: I will withdraw my motion and I will move Mr. Wells' motion.
Dunn: Madam Mayor, point of order. I haven't had a chance to comment on the last
motion before we start making new motions.
Mayor: It's now gone though. Ken has withdrawn it. It's gone. So the question is is
there a second to Ken's new motion to adopt John's suggested language. I'll second it.
Ken, do you have anything more you want to say on this before we take it to vote?
Reid: I am sorry for speaking out of turn, but it's just that the way John described it
gives him the option to look at different pricing structures. That's all it is. I think that's
a good thing especially when you are moving, Dave, to have a broad fund to create new
parking spaces in a variety of areas.
Mayor: Okay, guys. I can take that as Ken's initial comments. If the rest of you want
to weigh in on this new language, or I can just take it to a vote and let it be his final.
You want to weigh in? Dave and then Katie.
Butler: I can't support this because while it's ... while it may sound seductive to say well
let's charge more for a parking garage spot or a street spot or a Liberty Street spot, those
aren't the spots ... you don't know what spot somebody is going to park in. So, if you
have a new residential unit go above a store for instance, then where are those people
going to park? You don't know. You don't know where anybody is going to park. So
you can't have a tiered structure based on how the quality of the parking space. That
doesn't make at all sense in here because I don't know how you would determine that.
16 Pa c
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
So, only other option is to have some kind of a sliding scale based on residential... we are
going to give them a break over commercial. I don't think that's appropriate because
while you are promoting residential, you might be hurting commercial and
disincentivizing them from coming and at the same time, every parking space is equal.
They are all the same size. Anybody can park in whatever spot they want so you can
hardly justify having a different pricing structure. Then, if we start to convey and all this
kind of stuff we are turning into an HOA. That's how HOAs work. People have
numbered spots. They all like that. They all pay for their spots. That's not what we do.
We have collective parking so I can't support the motion. It's too bad it has taken so
long to get to this point.
Hammler: I cannot support the motion because there is fundamental value in moving
forward in a succinct, easy way to direct the public hearing. By having the public
hearing, you will hear from the important participants who have important information
to bear on what will be the final decision of this Council. This Council has now spent a
ridiculous amount of time basically crafting language to narrow down ultimately what
we may want to chose based on never having had a public hearing. This should have
been very simple. We direct staff based on what was listed here simply to initiate a
public hearing. End of discussion.
Martinez: Ditto.
Wright: I think we continue to struggle because as I have heard... and granted I wasn't
here last night, but I am not convinced that would have mattered because as I have
heard some of the justification for this, I have heard statements that we are creating a
parking fund. We are not creating a parking fund. It has been there. That requirement
in the ordinance has been there for a while. We talked about having spaces to deal with
Option 5, which the majority of Council voted to proceed. Option 5 indicates not to
require on site residential parking. There is no payment in lieu. There is no fee. There
is no nothing, so this has nothing to do with it. We have blended, I think, three
conversations together so I can't support this motion because I don't think we are ready
for it. I somewhat agree with Katie that we are simply trying to get to a public hearing
to figure out where we are going to get, but if we look at the history and all due respect
to everybody involved, but if we look at the history of this discussion, I think we have
had more conversations come back with staff throwing their hands up in the air going I
don't know what you want me to do. If we vote this through and go to public hearing,
we are going to get that same memo again. We either need to do the short version
which is yes, we acknowledge that we need to raise the fee or we need to have another
work session to talk about how we want to raise the fee.
Dunn: As we mentioned, or at least I did last night. Kevin, you weren't here, but as
you mentioned, I had made a suggestion that we go to a fee of $9,000 which is more
equivalent to what the rate of inflation would have been since the last time we had this,
it was some 23 years, I think, since this fee was raised. That was really what the
question is being brought up. We have had a fee that has been laying on the table for 23
years. It is out of proportion for what would be current for today and yet we want to say
let's go up $20,000. Well, why do we need to go up to $20,000 today when we have
17 1 Pa,;c
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
nothing to base that on. The value of parking spaces in a property. The property's value
is in the property's value. It is not in the parking space. By the way, parking is not equal
in Leesburg. You pay more in the garage whether you have a reserved space or a daily
space. Even our meters do not have consistent pricing. So, the parking in Leesburg is
not equal and I don't think that we have to act like it is; however, the ... I would still like
to have us consider that staff is saying we need a little more direction because we have
got this broad scale here and Ken is trying to create a scale to create different pricing. I
don't necessarily agree that pricing should be different in this regard. It's not like a
parking meter where it could be nickels and dimes but I think in this regard, developers
and potential renters and property owners should know when they are going in to
purchase a property what they are getting into. The same goes for a developer. They
should not go with some mystery sliding scale that is going to be the double whammy
laid on them by the Town of Leesburg because we just decided that's what it's going to
be. My proposal was that and I'll throw this out. I'm not going to say it's a motion or
anything at this point, but if this may be some additional direction to staff, then so be it
but that it is to read an appropriate fee up to $9,000 with an annual increase not to
exceed 5% per parking space and direct staff to have the public hearing. Now you have
given them direction. We have got a number that we can base it on something that is
specific because it is based on staying within the rate of inflation that would have been
from 23 years ago up to today and staying still within that 5% or staff could decide that
hey, the rate of inflation is only 2 %, so we only raised it 2% last year, but we have
something that developers can go out and know exactly what they are dealing with, not
getting surprised by some sliding scale that we have no idea what it is. By the way, are
we going to make this sliding scale... for example we have got to go out and figure out
every single parking space and know what that number is going to be today? I mean you
have to have something to work with. I would not support this sliding scale concept at
all. Give them a number today that we have said we have gone from point A 23 years
ago to now we are at point B and here is what the number is. Here is what we are
willing to look for to a number that we can work with going forward based on a
percentage of our new starting point, the $9,000 today. So, if you want me to make a
motion on that, I'm happy to or if staff would rather just have that as a direction for us
to work for, I can go with that, but I don't think I can support the motion either. The
$20,000 I'm not supporting. If that is in any motion, I am not supporting it.
Mayor: Let me, before I turn to Ken for final comments. As this appears to be going
down to defeat, I do believe that it ... the original motion is something I can support and
even if nobody else wants to make that motion, I will make it after we vote on this one.
Ken, you get final comments.
Reid: Just a question for staff first. Mr. Wright said that the payment in lieu fee does
not apply to parcels 4,000 square feet. I thought based on our discussion last night, there
is just no requirement for on site parking. If someone wants to build a three story condo
or something like that, they are still going to have to do the payment in lieu fee, aren't
they?
Mayor: Well, not if it's residential at this point, as I understand it.
18 1 pa-
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
Hill: Option 5 is very specific in the areas. It is the areas between North and South
Street, Church and Wirt Street ... not Wirt Street, Liberty Street, sorry. So, within that
area, no on site parking is required and no fee in lieu. So, fee in lieu would apply to
areas outside of that specific boundaries within the H -1.
Reid: Well, very good. Well, folks I am sorry that I have lost these votes for my
proposal but all I was trying to do was try to ....it seemed from discussion last night,
there were a lot of people who were against the $20,000 per space. So, my only intent
here was to look at a sliding scale. That's all I am asking staff to do. But it seems like
that is not going to pass. You know, if you want to bring it back to a work session, I can
make a motion to table, which I will do now. I would like to make a motion to table to
a work session. And have staff look at all the different options.
Mayor: Is there a second to Ken's motion to table his motion, which is not the one on
the agenda. Second, going once, going twice. No second? All right. We are going to
go to a vote to Ken's motion, which is as amended with language crafted generously by
John Wells.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Aye: Reid and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, and Wright
Vote: 2 -5
Mayor Umstattd made the following motion:
MOTION2011 -042
I move that the Town Council consider increasing the existing payment in lieu fee of
$3, 000 per parking space per TLZO Section 11.4.3 to an appropriate fee up to $20, 000 per
parking space and direct staff to schedule a public hearing before the Town Council to
consider such increase
The motion was seconded by Council Member Martinez.
Mayor: We aren't saying it's going to be $20,000 per parking space. I think Tom's point
on $9,000 has merit. We are just saying we can't go any higher than $20,000. Marty,
did you have any comments?
Martinez: I was just going to reiterate that. There is no way I would ever vote for a
$20,000 parking space, it just gives us the ability to go lower if we want. Again, I think
Tom's $9,000 might be a little high myself. It just gives us room for discussion and
that's what I am looking for. I also believe the information that we have here and I am
sure after all the discussion that we are going to have another work session item on this
and we will be able to talk about narrowing down what options we want to look at?
Dunn: Can I make a friendly amendment?
Mayor: Not at this time. I have got Kevin.
1917
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
Wright: I think this is the best spot we can get to at this point. We have talked about for
a long time ... we need to fix the fee. We can have the discussion of where that fee gets
to. I have appreciated Council Member Hammler's point of lets have staff do the due
diligence, figure out where the fee is, throw it on the wall. Have the public come in and
talk about it and then that's why we have public hearings. Let's see where we go from
there. There are a lot of other things that we could hang onto this, but as we have seen
from the past however long it was, now is not the time to do it. Let's keep it simple.
Mayor: Tom, you wanted to suggest a friendly amendment?
Dunn: Can we just remove the words up to $20,000?
Mayor: I would not accept that. But thank you for trying. I think we are..I think that is
quite possible to come out of this. I would be a little surprised if the Council voted to go
to $20,000 but it gives leeway and I like to have the leeway.
Hammler: Thank you, Madam Mayor and I appreciate your bringing up the motion
that is in our agenda. To me this was clear, direct as it relates to not the specifics of any
motion that Council will ultimately decide based on the public input that is a motion
about the process. Often times, we realize that government doesn't have all the answers.
It is important to get to those who are most deeply impacted and certainly those that will
help us achieve the goal, which as many of us have already stated is in fact to encourage
residential development and infill development in the downtown. I appreciate the fact
that we need to be specific as relates to a public advertising in terms of the upper limit. I
will not be on record saying I won't support anything as high as $20,000 because 1
appreciated the comment that if it goes up, then the intent would be an actual space
possibly could be conveyed and we could figure out whatever parameters that might get
us to the actual solution if there is one relative to this kind of process by which we can
look at the actual parcels that would be impacted by this. So, I look forward to
supporting this.
Butler: No further comments.
Reid: Well, I'm going to have to vote against this because what I am concerned about is
that staff came to Council last year with a proposal to have us automatically endorse a
$20,000 fee. Unless we direct staff to look at something else, which is all I was trying to
do and I guess folks didn't get their heads wrapped around it easily, at least some, what
is going to happen is staff is going to come back with all these arguments and pictures of
parking garages that we can charge $20,000- 25,000. What's going to happen
is ... hopefully there will be a public hearing and the property owners will come out and
say, you know I don't think I can afford $20,000. I would hope that staff would look at
something less. I would hope that they would look at the uses and intensity, but that is
not what this motion does. So, what's going to happen is they are going to come
back... my prediction ... I won't be here, of course. They are going to come back with the
highest fees they feel they can get and the Council will endorse that. So, after all that
effort, I am sorry guys, I tried to see if I could work something out, but it probably could
have been executed a little bit better at a work session. I am sorry that the table motion
20 1 Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
did not pass, but I can't support something like this which I believe is going to essentially
discourage development in downtown Leesburg.
Dunn: I would... should staff come back with a fee anywhere even approaching
$20,000, I would not support that, so therefore I cannot support staff telling them to even
go into looking up to $20,000. I think that's completely out of line and I will be having
to vote against this.
Mayor: Very good. Thank you. All in favor of the motion as drafted on your agenda,
please say Aye.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Butler, Hammler, Martinez, Wright and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: Dunn and Reid
Vote: 5 -2
b. Process for Filling Council Vacancy
Mayor: There is a motion to advertise the potential Town Council vacancy until such
time as a special election can be held. Interested applicants may submit letter and
materials of interest to the Clerk. Is there a motion?
On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council Member Butler, the
following was proposed.-
MOTION2011 -043
To advertise the potential Town Council vacancy until such time as a special election can
be held. Interested applicants may submit letter and materials of interest to the Clerk
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None
Vote: 7 -0
C. Date of Special Election
On a motion by Vice Mayor Wright, seconded by Council Member Butler, the following
was proposed:
RESOLUTION 2011 -143
To Direct the Town Attorney to Petition the Loudoun County Circuit Court for a Writ of
Special Election to Fill the Council Vacancy for a Term Ending December 31, 2014
Wright: Since I was so rude and cut you off, I will put the "therefore resolved" on the
record. This is asking that the Town Attorney petition the Loudoun County Circuit
Court for writ of special election as soon as practically and legally permissible.
Hammler: Could I just clarify that the Vice Mayor was pointing out ... you are not
amending anything? Okay, thank you.
21 1 Page
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
Dunn: I would like to make a motion to strike the words the last whereas ... I guess it's
the last set of words after the semicolon to avoid the confusion of holding a special
election on the same day as the general election in November. I think that is
presumptuous that there would be confusion. That there is nothing to say that there
would be confusion. I know that was an argument used by most of Council for not
having the election changed to November because of mass confusion, which is not true
and so that sentence I don't think should be in there at all and I would actually support
that the special election be in November because that is a day when most people are
used to voting and the appointee can be appointed from whenever we chose within 90
days of the vacancy up until the new position is filled. I would make a motion to strike
to avoid the confusion of holding a special election on the same day as the general
election in November of 2012.
Mayor: Alright, there is a second to that. Anybody want to comment on this before we
take this motion to amend to a vote?
Reid: I support the motion because it's the court that is going to make the decision, so I
don't see why we have to put something like that in there.
Dunn: I think I get the final comment. I think this is an effort by the majority of
Council to steer the election towards a date that is really going back to the cronyism
elections that the town has had prior to this. I think it would be better for us to go ahead
and have an election in November since the voters who we will all be facing shortly have
said that they appreciate November elections more than any other time.
The motion to amend was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Dunn, Hammler, Reid, and Mayor Umstaud
Nay: Butler, Martinez, and Wright
Vote: 4 -3
Wright: In editing the whereas, I think the confusion around the special election as it
has been described in the various staff reports that we have had, is that you would end
up with three questions on the same ballot. Who do you have for mayor? Easy enough.
Pick three for Council. Easy enough and then you have the question pick one for the
special election. The issue you run into there is nothing prohibits candidates from filing
in both races, therefore nothing could prohibit the same candidate from winning both
races. Therefore, you are back to when are we having another special election. The
reasonable and makes sense way to do this would be pick four. Last place gets the two
year term. That's reasonable, makes sense. Jeannette has researched it at length. Not
allowed to do it under Virginia State code. Thank you very much, Virginia and my
belief about Virginia State Code continues to be reaffirmed. Therefore, that is why I
support the therefore resolved language which has not been changed of having the
special election as soon as practicably and legally permissible. In the course of a seat
having been vacated, special elections happen all the time. They happen in January,
February, March, April ... I don't believe we will end up with this one in the summer. I
am disappointed that we can't have it as early as January, but thanks to the Federal
primary season, yay us! And we have the appointment in the middle. With the issues
22 1 Pay,
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
that we have to do a special election no matter what, I prefer to get the special election
completed sooner rather than later.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Reid, Wright, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: Martinez
Vote: 6 -1
Hammler: Madam Mayor, I apologize, but I never got to comment on the main
motion.
13. NEW BUSINESS
a. None.
14. COUNCIL COMIl ONTS
Council Member Butler: One quick item ... well maybe two. Anyway, I had fun on
Black Friday. I got to go and shop at Walmart in the evening, Staples in the morning
and it was a record Black Friday and I hope that Leesburg took full advantage of all of
that, although I don't know specific sales figures for Leesburg, but that may be a sign
that the economy is headed in the right direction. I look forward to having a special
election as soon as possible so that we don't need to appoint somebody. I am concerned
that we would have appointed somebody for basically two years and I don't think that is
in the best interest of the electorate to have an appointed person for two years. So, if we
can just have an appointed person for three or four months, I think that serves us much
better. I hope that the circuit court takes that into account and does it as soon as
possible.
Council Member Hammler: well, I was not shopping on Black Friday. Certainly there
has been a lot of discussion but I have heard that I think so many people are concerned
that Black Friday has now moved into Thanksgiving Thursday just kind of begs the
question about the fundamental values behind what we celebrate with the family
holidays. The key point that I wanted to make about the last motion, if I may, is in fact
that key that Dave just mentioned which is appointed. To me, that's why it was so
important that we put the words in. We acknowledge that the circuit court in fact has
historically chosen the earliest possible date for a special election. But this is an elected
office. It is not an appointed office and there are some very important decisions that we
need to be assured are reflected in those who vote for the person who will fill Ken's seat,
so I look forward to hearing back from the circuit court and moving on that. I just
wanted to finally thank all of the legislators, Senator Herring, Senator elect Black's aide
who came as well, Delegate Minchew, Delegate May and Delegate Rust for joining us
yesterday and also for staff. I know they worked very hard organizing that over the
holidays so that we could be ready right when we got back. I thought that was a very
productive evening and it sounded like... certainly there was a lot of even good
discussion about the process in terms of the original amendment about eminent domain
and how it was passed and how we might make some progress on that and some of the
other key priorities that we have and on a lighter note about the holidays, I just wanted
23 Pa;e
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
to thank Parks and Rec for the lovely wreaths on the monument sign coming in north of
Town. The town looks beautiful.
Council Member Martinez: On the main motion, the last motion that we talked
about ... I voted no merely because we never got a chance to discuss the motion and the
fact on the confusion stuff ..the changing of the main motion. I fully supported what it
was. Also, I am really tired about the conspiracy theories that everything is political. If
you all remember, when Bill Mims was appointed to be deputy state attorney general,
was there not a special election held within 45 days of that appointment? What's wrong
with that? We need that position filled in the special election as soon as possible. If I
remember right, there were some residents here that were really upset with the fact that
if we moved the elections to November, the people they elected or did not vote for
would get an extra six months of free time and I agree with that. So, I think we should
have a special election as soon as possible to one, and I will tell you when you sit there
and you have three Council seats, a mayor and then a special council seat, there will be
some confusion. There will be people upset about that. I think just by having the special
election as soon as possible, get that person in the position elected. This thing about
everything being political I think is just...
Council Member Wright: I had a very good thanksgiving. I had a nice black Friday as
well. I didn't go shopping. I did, however, in the course of dropping my daughter off at
her employer... also on Thanksgiving ... wasn't a fan. Her job, her employer, her
fun... did do the lap around town. I was interested to see in front of our two mega
stores, if you will, the set up they had for the lines-they basically had those big concert
type steel barricades in place. They didn't have the big line. The folks with the rope and
stanchion at Best Buy had the big line. By the time I drove by that Thursday night,
because they were open at 10 or midnight, the line was around the side and around the
back of the store. If that's the way you want to spend your Thanksgiving ... happy
Thanksgiving. Not me, but grateful for them supporting our economy. I am sorry I
missed the work session last night. Heard it was fun. I was sad when I drove back
through Town at around ... I will just say a very early hour in the morning. I was sad
you all had already left. I did drive by.
Mayor: We would have stayed if only we had known.
Wright: No you wouldn't have. Which I appreciate. My family was able to take the
opportunity to visit the Chick -fil -A cow. They are not officially open yet. They open on
Thursday, which should be a town holiday. John slacked off. I do have a lovely picture.
I did get to go over with them before I came here of me and my family with the Chick -
fil-A cow dressed up for Christmas. So, Chick -fil -A as I jokingly said to my sister -in-
law... she was in town this weekend and we were driving past and I said... see our new
beacon of hope. So, as you can tell, I am a Chick -fil -A fan.
Council Member Reid: Yeah, I think when it comes to these complexities on the dais, I
think that what we have to remember, and I think that I probably should have done
this... certainly what I did was if you can't draft it in advance and sort of shop it around,
just move for a committee of the whole discussion. I think that might have worked in
241 Pag
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
these two cases and it's something maybe Madam Mayor, you can sort of coax people
because when you are constrained by Robert's Rules of Order, I think there is a tendency
of people to want to go ahead and defer. But, I think if we move to a committee of the
whole, which I believe the Board of Supervisors does because they don't have work
sessions, you might be able to come out of the restraints from Roberts and then everyone
gets a chance to comment and so forth. Again, the execution I regret the way it
happened. I want to really thank Geary Higgins for being here tonight and coming out
and showing his interest in working with us. Of course, the big elephant in the room the
water rates did not come up, but I have had conversations with him and I have conveyed
those to the mayor and other members of Council. Hopefully we can work out
something so we are not in the situation where the Catoctin District supervisor is
constantly coming after us on our out of town surcharge and we can look forward to
hopefully something will come up with the URAC discussions next month. 1 see it is on
for a work session and we are also going to have some action. Hopefully this will help a
lot. This bill that we discussed briefly last night with our delegation. I was very pleased
that all of our representatives were there in one way or another. Senator elect Black at
least sent his aide, which was good. Tom Rust, so appreciative of him coming all the
way up from Herndon to talk with us. We did not get into a deep discussion of that, but
I am going to do my utmost to ensure that at least the Loudoun Board does not take a
position in favor of whatever legislation comes up. Again, I am only one vote, but I am
going to try to do my best to make sure ... because I think that will set a very bad
precedent for one town in particular in Mr. Higgin's district, Hamilton, because they do
sell water outside of town limits. But, again ... when he says the door is open it's true.
He gets right back to you. Email, phone call... he travels a bit, but he is very, very
responsive. I think you are going to find that you are going to enjoy working with him a
lot. This Thursday, I will be at Chick -fil -A at 9 o'clock. I will not be camping out the
night before as my daughter and I think Randy Minchew's boy scout troop were talking
about doing. I will be lighting the menorah Friday. I am going to try to keep it brief.
Staff decided to buy an electric menorah. So, they decided to buy an electric menorah. I
am really going to try to be very, very brief and I will be doing this in future years and
again, I will try to be brief. I will have my own little Hanukkah mobile in the parade on
December 10. So, if there is anyone out there who can loan me a decent convertible
because my aide, to whom I introduced you tonight, Chad Campbell has a convertible,
but he informs me it's a 2001 and it's really beat up. I don't know if I want to use that. I
need to say decent convertible, not a classic convertible. Thank you very much.
Council Member Dunn: Make sure you are near the back of the parade because those
dreidel wheels ... they just don't go fast. You try and try, but they just don't move. The
only thing I would say as far as the election change ... and I am encouraged by Marty's
comments about things not being political, so it will be great to see that none of Council
will be involved in this upcoming election for a new Council member. I often find that
those who claim non - partisan and non - political tend to be the most partisan and political
among us. So, it would be interesting to see how these things pan out. But, I did my
black Friday shopping on yellow Tuesday so I got that all done ahead of time, at least
most of it. It is encouraging to see that folks are still coming into Leesburg to do their
shopping and it helps out our economy and hopefully they got a lot of good deals. I
recently joined the ... rejoined the ranks of dog owner again and Marley and me, Marley
25 P��
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
doesn't have anything on this dog. He ate my car charger, he ate my sofa deck furniture.
He ate the $49 collar they made me buy when I adopted him. He started to eat my easy
chair. He has gone through all of his chew toys and ate those. He doesn't chew them.
He eats them. I bought him much bigger ... they said he was crate trained and I thought I
never used a crate with my other dogs... I thought why the crate? Now I know why the
crate. So I got him a bigger crate so he could stretch out. I had a canvas crate and he
never realized he could have gotten through that thing in a heartbeat. Now he has a
good steel crate and he is trying to chew through that. So, anyway I asked my son ... you
know we could adopt another one if you like and take this one back. He says, well with
some good training, he will make a good dog. I'm like ... thanks son. So, I will be
spending money on training too in addition to everything else. But, the dog did assist
me in my major foot injury stepping on the Christmas tree. So, anyway it might be
Kirby and me stories. His name is Kirby Smith after the civil war general and Kirby for
short. Hopefully he lives a long life. That's all I have.
15. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
I just want to disclose that I met with members of the Village at Leesburg team on their
updated plans to reduce the number of residential units in their yet unbuilt section and
just like to echo Ken's comments. December 2, which is this coming Friday we have the
Christmas Tree and Menorah lighting at 6 p.m. on the Town Green. The day before
that, December 1, is the Chick -fil -A ribbon cutting at 9 a.m., although I am being told it
will be very crowded so any Council members are being advised to get there '/2 hour
early, which means now the entire public will probably have beaten us all there anyway.
But, we are looking forward to that.
16. MANAGER'S COMMENTS
None.
17. CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Umstattd made the following motion:
Pursuant to Section 2.2- 3711(A)(]) and (3) of the Code of Virginia, I move that the
Leesburg Town Council convene in a closed meeting for the purpose of receiving information and
discussion regarding:
(a) Dominion Virginia Power Settlement
(b) Matters involving Real Estate
(c) Town Manager's Evaluation
The motion was seconded by Council Member Reid and approved by the following vote:
Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None
Vote: 7 -0
The Council convened in Closed Session at 9 :15 p.m.
The Council reconvened in Open Session at 10:05 p.m.
26 1 Pa c
COUNCIL MEETING November 29, 2011
Mayor Umstattd made the following motion:
In accordance with Section 2.2 -3712 of the Code of Virginia, I move that Council certify to
the best of each member's knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from open
meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom oflnformation Act and such public business
matters as were identified in the motion by which the closed meeting was convened were heard,
discussed or considered in the meeting by Council.
The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Wright, and approved by the following vote:
Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None
Vote: 7 -0
19. ADJOURNMENT
On a motion by Vice Mayor Wright, seconded by Council Member Martinez, the meeting
was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
7 + 1
n C. mstattd, Mayor
Town of Leesburg
A E
^• 1 i
Clerk of C in
2011 tcmin1129
27 1 Page: