HomeMy Public PortalAbout2015_tcmin0811 COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:30 p.m. Mayor Umstattd presiding.
Council Members Present: Kelly Burk, David Butler, Thomas Dunn, Suzanne Fox, Katie
Sheldon Hammier, and Mayor Umstattd.
Council Members Absent: Council Member Martinez. Council Member Fox participated
remotely.
Staff Present: Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Deputy Town Manager Keith Markel, Town
Attorney Barbara Notar, Director of Parks and Recreation Richard Williams, Director of
Plan Review Bill Adman, Director of Planning and Zoning Susan Berry Hill, Director of
Public Works and Capital Projects Renee Lafollette, Deputy Director of Parks and
Recreation Kate Trask, Deputy Director of Public Works Charlie Mumaw, Assistant Town
Manager Tom Mason, Assistant Town Manager Scott Parker, Library Manager Alexandra
Gressitt, Chief of Police Joseph Price, Police Captain Karl Maupin, Police Captain
Vanessa Grigsby, Senior Engineer Nate Ogedegbee, Senior Engineer Anne Geiger, Senior
Management Analyst Jason Cournoyer, and Clerk of Council Lee Ann Green
AGENDA ITEMS
1. CALL TO ORDER
a. Electronic Participation for Council Member Fox
On a motion by Council Member Butler, seconded by Vice Mayor Burk, the
following was approved::
MOTION 2015-012
I move to allow Council Member Fox to participate in tonight's Council Meeting
electronically.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Butler, Dunn, Hammier, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None.
Vote: 5-0-2(Martinez/Fox absent)
2. INVOCATION: Council Member Butler
3. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: Mayor Umstattd
4. ROLL CALL: Council Member Martinez absent. Council Member Fox joined the
meeting electronically after the vote to allow her participation.
5. MINUTES
a. Regular Session Minutes of July 14, 2015
On a motion by Council Member Butler, seconded by Council Member Dunn, the
regular session minutes of July 14, 2015 were approved by a vote of 6-0-1 (Martinez absent).
1 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
b. Work Session Minutes of July 28, 2015
On a motion by Council Member Butler, seconded by Council Member Dunn, the
work session minutes of July 27, 2015 were approved by a vote of 6-0-1 (Martinez absent).
6. ADOPTING THE MEETING AGENDA
On the motion of Vice Mayor Burk, seconded by Council Member Butler, the meeting agenda
was approved after adding an item addressing the fee waiver request after approval of the consent
agenda, by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Butler, Dunn, Fox, Hammler, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0-1 (Martinez)
7. PRESENTATIONS
a. Proclamation—National Payroll Week
On a motion by Council Member Hammier, seconded by Council Member
Butler, the following was proclaimed and presented to Carrie Hovell, representative
of the American Payroll Association:
PROCLANIATION
National Payroll Week
September 7 — 11, 2015
WHEREAS, the American Payroll Association and its more than 21,000
members have launched a nationwide public awareness campaign that pays tribute to
the more than 156 million people who work in the United States and the payroll
professionals who support the American system by paying wages, reporting worker
earnings and withholding federal employment taxes; and
WHEREAS, payroll professionals in Leesburg, Virginia, play a key role in
maintaining the economic health of Leesburg, carrying out such diverse tasks as
paying into the unemployment insurance system, providing information for child
support enforcement, and carrying out tax withholding, reporting and depositing;
and
WHEREAS, payroll departments collectively spend more than$15 billion
annually complying with myriad federal and state wage and tax laws; and
WHEREAS, payroll professionals play an increasingly important role
ensuring the economic security of American families by helping to identify
noncustodial parents and making sure they comply with their child support
mandates; and
WHEREAS, payroll professionals have become increasingly proactive in
educating both the business community and the public at large about the payroll tax
2 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
withholding systems; and
WHEREAS, payroll professionals meet regularly with federal and state tax
officials to discuss both improving compliance with government procedures and how
compliance can be achieved at less cost to both government and businesses; and
THEREFORE, PROCLAIMED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of
Leesburg in Virginia that the week in which Labor Day falls is proclaimed National
Payroll Week in the Town of Leesburg.
PROCLAIMED this 11th day of August, 2015.
b. Proclamation—Commemorating the 90th Birthday of Russell Baker
On a motion by Council Member Hammier, seconded by Vice Mayor Burk,
the following was proclaimed:
PROCLAMATION
Celebrating the 90`h Birthday of Russell W. Baker
August 14, 2015
WHEREAS, Russell Wayne Baker was born August 14, 2015 in Loudoun
County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Baker's career as an essayist, biographer, and journalist
spanned many decades and included such works as the nationally syndicated column
"Observer" in The New York Times, which was awarded the Pulitzer prize in 1979 as
well as regular contributions to many well-known national periodicals; numerous
books such as the Pulitzer prize winning autobiography, Growing Up(1982), the
sequel, Good Times(1989), An American in Washington(1961), No Cause for Panic
(1964), Poor Russell's Almanac(1972), Looking Back: Heroes, Rascals, and Other Icons of
the American Imagination(2002), and anthologies of his various column; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Baker went on to become the host of the iconic PBS
television series Masterpiece Theatre in 1993; and
WHEREAS, through his long and storied career, he enjoyed the love and
support of his wife, Miriam Emily Nash ("Mimi").
THEREFORE, PROCLAIMED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of
Leesburg in Virginia that Russell W. Baker, and his wife, Mimi, are congratulated on
the celebration of his 90th birthday.
PROCLAIMED this 11th day of August,2015.
3 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
c. Presentation—Leesburg Crime Report—Chief Joseph Price
Chief Price reported on the most recent Leesburg Crime Report.
Key Points:
• Crime Report is released quarterly.
• Provides a snapshot of crime statistics at a particular point in time.
• Violent crimes and larcenies are trending downwards.
• Number of officers per thousand residents is also down.
• Leesburg has the least number of officers per resident of any northern Virginia
jurisdictions.
d. Presentation—Department of Environmental Quality Stormwater Report
David Bulova, AMEC, presented the Town's draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Action Plan.
Key Points:
• Action plan is required under the Town's MS-4 Permit.
• Plan must demonstrate how the town plans to reduce its levels of phosphorus,
nitrogen, and sediment from its 2009 baseline levels.
• Plan must reach 100% reduction over three five-year permit cycles.
• Initial 5% reduction plan must be submitted to the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ)by October 15, 2015.
• Any reductions over 5% will carry over to the next cycle.
• All new development must be Chesapeake Bay neutral.
• The Bay Model will be recalibrated in 2017.
• Next step includes receiving public comment on the draft plan and
submission of the final plan to DEQ for approval.
8. PETITIONERS
The Petitioner's Section was opened at 8:43 p.m.
Sandy Grossman, Exeter Homeowner's Association. "I am going to be joined
tonight by Mr.[inaudible]. I am before you tonight as the president of the Exeter HOA. I
have been faced as a board member, as the leader, with a very unique legal situation. It
started when we received a letter back in September last year from the state of Virginia from
the Department of Conservation and Recreations Division of Dam Safety advising us as one
of 300 some odd communities in the state that our stormwater management pond, which we
thought was below grade, was a dam. Not only was it a dam, but it is a hazard dam
because we are adjacent to a very major road. This started us in a whole set of quandaries
that resulted in engineering studies and exploring documents. In particular, as worked out a
legal issue. The deed and the plat with the town of Leesburg for the easement has some
very interesting words that have created a very unique challenge for us. I am here tonight to
ask you and the council to please hear us and I am joined by our legal counsel to present the
situation and request for resolution. It is a legal issue. It is not an environmental issue. It is
not financial. It starts with a legal dilemma for us because we cannot move to comply with
the state if we do not own something.
4 1 Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
Bruce Easmunt, Chadwick Washington, representatives for the Exeter Homeowner's
Association. We previously provided a memo to the Council through staff which I believe
was distributed. I have distributed additional copies this evening. I encourage you all to
review them. They will have more detail than I am able to provide in my five minute brief
presentation, but I would like to provide you with a brief summary of the association's
petition based on that August 5 memorandum. By way of brief background, back in 1990,
the town and the developer of the Exeter Community each entered into a deed of easement
that granted certain stormwater management easements to the town which were among
other things for purposes of installing, operating and maintaining stormwater management
facilities. Now, the plat that is attached to that deed of easement, which I have provided in
my memo, has a note on it and I have highlighted that on your memo as well. Plat note
number 4, says that this entire parcel "W", which is located within the Exeter community
consists of a stormwater management easement or storm drainage easement. When we
look at the operable language—the plat is [inaudible] deed of easement, there are two
specific provisions of particular note. The first says that "all lines, channels, inlets,
structures, and appurtenant facilities which are installed in the easements and rights of way
shall be and remain the property of the town. Of more particular note on the very last page
of the deed of easement, the operable language states that the owner, which was the
developer of Exeter, grants and conveys in fee simple all appurtenance and facilities located
within the above sanitary sewer, storm drainage and water easements of the town. That is a
very specific and clear conveyance of an interesting title to those facilities which are
installed again in that entire parcel, which is itself the storm drainage easement. We have
done some additional research looking at neighboring communities within the town and we
have been unable to locate any deed of easement drafted contemporaneously or some time
after the Exeter deed of easement that has this fee simple conveyance language, so this is a
very unique issue to Leesburg. It appears that the original intent of this document was for
the town to actually own and operate not only the dam structures or the inlets and outfall
structures, but the stormwater management pond itself. For that reason, it is our argument
that if it is not pre-[inaudible] if the town does decide to acknowledge it's ownership rights
in these facilities, there is no precedence established as there are no documents [inaudible]
as this deed of easement as far as we can tell in our land records. It is also our position that
this is not a precedent issue or that the town should agree to acknowledge its ownership
rights because this facility itself does not exclusively serve Exeter. By our estimation based
on some engineering reports, it appears that only 1/3 of the water that these facilities serve
come from Exeter. The remaining two thirds appear to come from surrounding
developments and also town facilities. We are not asking the town to accept ownership of
new facilities. We are asking the town to acknowledge its existing ownership rights which
do date back to 1990. With regards to the association, Exeter and the town have had a very
long standing positive relationship and that is why we are here tonight; however, I have
advised my client of their fiduciary duties with regards to association funds and expending
those funds on structures and facilities, they in my opinion, that I have given my client, do
not own. So, I have given them the opinion that they cannot then expend those funds to
maintain this dam without arguably breaching their fiduciary duties, spending the funds of
their association members for purposes not in their purview. So, the board really has no
choice but to seek clarification of this issue from the town. In sum, we are respectfully
petitioning the town to do two things. The first of which is to acknowledge the ownership
of these facilities, the stormwater management pond, the dam and the appurtenances related
5 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
thereto based on the language which is very clear in that 1990 deed of easement. The
second thing we are petitioning and requesting is for the council to direct staff to maintain
and operate these facilities accordingly with regard to that ownership. I have prepared and
submitted a draft resolution and respectfully request that the Council approve this resolution
at the Council's September meeting. I yield the rest of my time for questions—although I
don't have any more time. I thank the Council very much for your time and consideration
this evening.
Council Comments/Questions:
• Dunn: Seeing how this is a legal issue it is probably best to let town legal counsel
take a look at this before we get into too many discussions this evening.
• Butler: For staff, if I recall correctly from yesterday, we do have this on work session
for September.
Staff answer: We do.
• Burk: I agree with Tom. I don't have any questions right now.
• Hammier: Thank you all for coming this evening. We appreciate it. I agree that we
are bringing this up under a work session, but my understanding is that the town
attorney will be providing a memo before that work session with your guidance on
this. Then,just as a disclosure, I am a resident of Exeter and several others of us on
the dais are as well, but may just disclose that it as we have our discussions.
• Fox: No questions at this time. I agree with Tom and Kelly that this should be
taken a closer look at by Barbara.
• Mayor: Mr. Easemunt, Mr. Grossman. You know where I stand. I agree with your
position. We will be taking this up in September at a work session on the 21S`,
because we don't have a work session at the first meeting in September. At that
time, if you all—one or both or all of you would like to join us at the September 21st
work session, we will meet at 7:30. My recollection, and I don't know, Mr.
Grossman, if you were just doing an estimate, but that potentially if Exeter were to
have to bear the full cost of this, it would be a charge of possibly $10,000 per home in
Exeter?
Grossman: I don't have any figures —not something we are in a position to calculate
yet.
• Mayor: If you can be in a position to calculate at that time, it would help Council
understand the potential magnitude of this obligation, but your understanding right
now is you can't do anything because you don't own this property. The town owns
it, so you are in a real legal bind.
Grossman: Yes.
Jan Fearing, 13404 Wilt Store Road. Communications Director at All Neighbors
Group sponsored by Church of the Holy Spirit. The All Neighbors Group is dedicated to
encouraging interaction and friendships between immigrants and established, are we
Leesburgites or Leesburgonians, I don't know how to phrase it. We have a very big event—
our biggest event of the year is coming up this weekend, August 15 and 16. We call it our
India Independence Day Celebration on Saturday and our Pakistan Independence Day
Celebration on Sunday at Ida Lee Park from 3-8 this weekend. We anticipate about a
thousand to as many as three thousand international guests to attend that event. Several
6 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
local churches have worked together and have been working together all year on this event.
The intention of it is to make new Americans of other faiths feel welcome here in the town.
This event is paid for almost entirely by donations from those churches, about 80 percent of
our total budget. We also receive donations from many Muslim and Hindu friends in the
community—about 20 percent of the remaining budget, we hope to gain from ticket sales at
the gate. Although we feel that there—we don't anticipate any security incidents at these
events, we have come to feel that the guests would appreciate a sense of security that would
come from having uniformed officers present. That is why we are here today is to ask you
or to petition you to waive either the total or part of the $1500 fee that we will incur for
having two uniformed officers at the event for both days. It would help us tremendously if
the town could assist us in that cost. This weekend is truly a unique event. I have been
involved in this for many years. I don't think there is another youth event like it anywhere
in the country. But, as I said, we don't anticipate any troubles at all. Just to give you a few
brief stories from our event last year, we had Pakistan Independence Day. We were—all
the volunteers wore t-shirts that said "we love Pakistan". I had a dear Muslim lady come up
to me and she had tears in her eyes and she just said I didn't know any Americans loved
Pakistan. We ended up—I start crying. She was crying. We were hugging and that kind of
interaction just went on and on throughout the day. It was a wonderful day. We had about
500 guests last year. So, the event last year had a 100 percent positive response. I think it
was huge for this community. We have a huge international community here in Leesburg,
praise God. My husband invited a local guy who runs a local mini-mart and he is from
Pakistan and said, you know, we are inviting you. We want to honor your country. The
guy was so excited. He was like we want to donate pizzas. We want to donate sodas. I am
going to invite all my friends, all my family to come, but I want you to know this is my
country now. It has just been this opening up of interactions between neighbors, so we are
here tonight again to ask you to consider waiving some of the fee that we would incur for
having the police officers there, which would be about$1500. If you could waive any or all
of that, we would appreciate it. Thank you.
Ilyas Masih, 117 Halifax Place, SE. First of all give me permission, I want to thank
you so much the last year for your participation in the Pakistani Independence Day
[inaudible] and our international citizens, they enjoyed the program last year and they
enjoyed the Leesburg town beauty and how we love them. So, this year we received the
very best positive response to be more proud to make a more colorful program in Leesburg
town invite our international friends and family so they can enjoy the Leesburg town and
see the beauty here and we hosting the Indian and Pakistan Independence Day this year and
we are looking to have a more international citizens peoples coming. We want to give them
nightly peace, so we are looking for more security so they enjoy the program with family
and friends and children because America is a unique country in the world. We show them
the love. A lot of countries do not have that much heart and we have [inaudible] and I am
proud of that. We have a heart to be loved everybody and feel home here. So, that is my
goal. I am not just the director of the All Neighbors, but also a representative of the
Leesburg town so I want when the international friends and families coming here, they can
enjoy and feel home here. So, I am requesting you please help us and support us so that we
can bring more people so they feel home here. They enjoy America. God Bless America.
7 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
Andrew Borgquist, I am here speaking again on the issue that I have come and
spoken on numerous occasions about. So, I actually had an opportunity to speak to Ms.
Notar, the town attorney, yesterday and we had a little bit of discussion. I appreciate her
taking the time to speak with me. I just wanted to ask her a couple of things I was curious
about regarding [inaudible]. So, basically one of the things I want to kind of touch on
tonight, is the idea that some of the things I have been mentioning bringing to Council
regarding an employment action that I believe represents something that the Council
potentially needs to address as an issue of management as an issue which deals with the fact
that there is a certain way things should happen. So, it has been mentioned to me not only
by the town attorney, but also by Mr. Williams who I had a brief conversation with prior to
this right now—this meeting, which is that you know it is my opinion, which I understand
that and you know the idea that there is a certain objective reality that has to be addressed
and you know so we can look at, we can say that well you know in my opinion, this is
green. In your opinion, this isn't green, but at the end of the day, we come up with
objective ways of kind of looking at situations so in that particular instance, the color we
can say well the electromagnetic radiation coming off of this—if it is between this certain,
you know, wavelength then we will call that green. So, we do the same thing for social
situations, which this is not just my opinion. There is actually an objective criteria that we
can apply to this situation and come to a conclusion of what happened was it merit based
employment, was it something that the council should address and it is something that
management should address so when we look at it from an objective standpoint we can see
that there are certain criteria that were maybe potentially not met. And that is the
discussion that I have wanted to have with Mr. Dentler, the town manager. That is the
discussion that I would love to have with Mr. Williams—would come join me in the
meeting. [inaudible] anybody can—I will talk with anyone. Not a problem and so let me
address some of these objective things that I, you know,just want to point out. So, let's
start with the first thing when I have kind of tried this up for the council which is clearly the
reason I have been coming and speaking here is because I spoke up on a prior occasion and
ultimately I have already hinted at it numerous times so I guess I might as well go ahead
and you know fully speak about what it is that happened. I was terminated from the Town
of Leesburg. I was previously an employee for over 14 years—about 14 and a half years,
but a little while back I was terminated from my employment with the town of Leesburg
because of an incident in which I had spoken up about something I felt was a concern
within the town. It can be objectively shown that I was terminated for that speaking up
because if you take out the speaking out of the concern that I had, you can show it
objectively and based on other cases [inaudible] like I said this criteria that you can look at
that it would not have happened. It would not have happened this way. But I did speak up
so then what is it about what I said that was so problematic for the town. You know, I
don't see what that is and I have tried very, very hard to have a discussion with town
management, you know the people related to this like why was this such a problem? Let me
point out a couple of things that did occur that showed kind of an objective way of looking
at it that it wasn't a merit based thing that happened or just that so I had had a conversation,
a disagreement with a Town of Leesburg police officer, which ultimately maybe shouldn't
have been that big of a deal, but it did end up being a very big deal. Part of the reason it was
a big deal was because Mr. Price had alerted Mr. Williams to the fact that I had a
disagreement with a police officer and so that is, you know, like I said something that
happened and potentially there were details that were shared on the incident of which I had
8 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
no knowledge at the point at which I had a meeting with Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams did
not share those details with me so I had no knowledge of what was going on. Then
ultimately the decision prior to even speaking with me and he was not seeking to speak with
me. He made it clear that the meeting was just a courtesy. He was not seeking to have my
side of the story about the disagreement that I had with the police officer. In fact, the
decision to dismiss me was made prior to that meeting, and yet in the meeting Mr. Williams
will tell you that you know the decision wasn't made—disciplinary action wasn't—he has
an email to Mr. Wells two hours prior to the meeting saying that he planned to move
forward with dismissal. Sorry, my time is up so I try to talk fast to get it all within five
minutes and sometimes I just can't. But anyways, so yes, there is objective things that could
be discerned from this, that it is not just my [inaudible]. This is something that is important
and should be addressed.
Tony Mino, 706 Evard Court, SW. I am chief Tony Mino from the Loudoun
County Volunteer Rescue Squad. We were here about a month ago, I believe now to
present Loudoun Rescue's plans, our proposal, our thoughts with regards to the skate park,
our expansion into some of that area and where we wanted to go. So, I don't want to
rehash all of that this evening. We have talked about that a few weeks ago, obviously. I did
want to acknowledge though that we have had a number of discussions since then both with
council members collectively—we have met with Suzanne. We worked through the work
session last night. We met with some of you individually and talked through a number of
different options available. So, I wanted to come here tonight and express our gratitude for
working with us and coming up with options that we think will potentially work for all of
us. Back to our motivation behind all of this. As we learned from the presentation a few
weeks ago, we as a rescue squad, our business is community service. So, we do that now.
We do that 2015. We want to continue doing that into the future. We are landlocked
where we are so to continue doing that into the future, we need to grow and we need to
expand. So, that was our desire behind the proposal we brought forward. And likewise, we
want to work with the town and with the skaters not to displace them. [inaudible] as well.
So, my reason for coming here tonight really is two fold—to acknowledge that a lot of work
has gone on in the last two weeks —the last month actually—specifically the last two weeks
to get us to where we are at and collectively I hope we can find a solution that benefits us as
a rescue squad and community service as well as the skaters.
Rob Fulcer, 309 Whitney Place, NE. I have been a resident of Leesburg since 1998.
Council Member Hammier I am sure your mind is moving. I did move away for a couple
of years, but I loved Leesburg so much I kept an apartment here [inaudible] my wife and
kids would probably be back which they did. So, I kept a place here the whole time. I have
been a resident of Loudoun County since 1972 and a member of the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission for 13 years. I only mention this because this is the first time in all
my years that I have ever come to the dais to speak on a topic. As the chairman of the
Parks and Rec Commission, I take the responsibility—and our commission takes it seriously
but at the same time, we realize we are volunteer advisory commission. We serve at the
pleasure of you, the council. All we have had to do in the past was to provide insight,
perspectives for somebody else. The skate park has come to us three times. In all three
cases, we have voted to keep it in its footprint. There have never been any dissenters on any
of our commission members. So, everybody who is on this council who has a rep, has felt
9 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
the same way. We have even moved new members on—junior members and at our last
meeting they were very vocal. They didn't even know all the history. With that being said,
first it can never be our intention to ever disrespect the distinguished fire and rescue. Second
of all, Mr. Saghafi, I frequent your place, so obviously, there is no intention there either.
Just a quick little fact on the fundational principles that we have on the parks and rec
commission and our time together. First, we have never been in favor of selling land. It is
an asset that we have in our control. They are not making any more land. When Mrs.
Symington graciously gave us her grant years ago, some might recall that our first goal was
not to build a water park or the tennis facility, it was to buy additional land between
Tuscarora and Ida Lee. That is how important we felt land was. Also, we believe one of
our foundational principles on the commission is that we are stewards of the park. Okay?
When the Rust family granted us the land, they didn't simply talk about certain things
except basically a path through the park that could not go through. One of our biggest
concerns is after we put the water park in, the tennis facility in there, we did take a lot of
heat from the people of Exeter. We have attempted—what we don't want is to become
Kings Dominion. One of the things that concerns us, is every time a topic comes up, first
[inaudible], anything like that—let's just dump it into Ida Lee. Let's just dump it into Ida
Lee. We are like the catchall but we are trying to keep some passive nature there too. One
of our other reasons we have been postponing, trying to keep it in the downtown area is for
two things. One, one of the other big principles that the commission has always had is we
are very big on trails and tying those trails together. Of course, some people say well I don't
want to have to drop my son or daughter off there. We don't really want anybody driving
anyplace. We want to have a place where we can park people through town, especially for
people on the southeast. People on the northeast have come to us and said everything is
over here—now we feel like we are being over populated—we push something there. So,
the location of the park downtown, one of the reasons we felt to stay in that footprint is we
could tie into the Crescent District. My own 23-year-old son, who just graduated from
Virginia Tech, when he left four years ago, he said he would never come back to Leesburg.
He couldn't wait to leave. He is now home and he doesn't think it's such a bad place
anymore and that's part of the reason right there. I don't want to go through too much.
Obviously we are concerned about cost. There are additional costs—not just moving it over
to Ida Lee. Staff will talk about that. There are some additional. Lastly, I appreciate you
taking the time. I hope you know no matter what is decided, whether we are disappointed
or not, I think we have shown a track record on the commission and the wonderful staff that
we will build a first class park no matter where you decide to put it.
Mrs. Brown : I really wasn't prepared tonight but, you know, unfortunately,
[inaudible] my son, Eric Brown, [inaudible] in 1995, we both came to Town Council. He is
in Hawaii and everything. Like he's been communicating with all of his friends or whoever,
people on the parks and rec. We have been texting each other. Well, he texted me— says
Mom, there is a meeting [inaudible] so I was like Okay, I'll go. He says Oh, you don't have
to go if you don't want to. So, I texted him back. I said yes I am going and he said tonight
in his text, he says thank you mom for all you did. That is what he said to me. [inaudible]
thank you mom for all you did. I was like, but yeah, but thank you for what you did. And
alis I know is that he said that I [inaudible] one of the things he said was that he learned a
lot about politics and about how the town council at the time, like he was kind of shocked of
how they really wanted to help the kids to have a place to skate and you know, to be off the
10 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
streets. And if you like know he ultimately [inaudible] 1998. He volunteered [inaudible] go
to the skate park and he would volunteer. I just know he has been emailing the council.
[inaudible]. He has done all kinds of sports and he still does stuff now where he is living in
Hawaii. [inaudible] even adults. [inaudible]. It is a nice location, of course, for the kids
and I see kids there all the time when I drove past there with whoever I am with [inaudible]
and I talk to a lot of kids at the school and [inaudible]. My son only wants to be able to
come home to know [inaudible] he goes right there. He talks to the kids. He watches them.
[inaudible] all the, you know, people they were interviewing up to how the skate park got
built and I was surprised, he had a whole big box [inaudible] places he skated at [inaudible].
Thinking of the kids of the future of this county or the town. Yes, he has met a lot of kids
that went to Fairfax, Maryland. He has friends from all over. [inaudible] to DC to skate.
Thank you [inaudible].
The Petitioner's Section was closed at 9:17 p.m.
9. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Vice Mayor Burk, seconded by Council Member Dunn, the following items
were moved for approval as the Consent Agenda:
a. Thomas Balch Library Patio Funding Appropriation
RESOLUTION 2015-086
Approving a Supplemental Appropriation of$12,988 from the Thomas Balch Library
Building and Upkeep Fund for the Renovation of the B. Powell and Agnes Harrison
Patio
b. Approval of Art by Thomas Ramsay for Leesburg Town Exhibit Hall
RESOLUTION 2015-087
Approval of Art Exhibit by Thomas Ramsay in the Leesburg Town Exhibit Hall
c. License Agreement between the Town of Leesburg("Town')and Shentel
Communications, LLC("Provider')for telecommunications facilities in Town Right-
of-Way
RESOLUTION 2015-088
Authorizing the Town Manager to Execute a License Agreement between the Town of
Leesburg and Shentel Communications, LLC for Telecommunications Facilities in
Town Right-of Way
d. Appropriation of Donation to the Community Outreach Program (R.O.C.K.)at Ida
Lee Park Recreation Center
RESOLUTION 2015-089
Approving a Supplemental Appropriation of$385.50 Resulting from a Donation to the
Community Outreach Program by the Leesburg Presbyterian Church
11lPage
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
e. Safe Street Task Force Overtime Reimbursement Grant Appropriation for the Police
Department
RESOLUTION 2015-090
Approving a Supplemental Appropriation for a Reimbursement Grant of$39,000 from
the Washington DC Metro Safe Streets Task Force
Aye: Burk, Butler, Fox, Dunn, Hammier, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0-1 (Martinez absent)
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. Amending the Town Code for Electronic Summons
The public hearing was opened at 9:47 p.m.
Barbara Notar gave a brief presentation on the public hearing to institute an
electronic summons system.
Key Points:
• Towns were given the ability to implement an electronic summons system
during the most recent General Assembly session.
• Localities are now allowed to assess an additional$5 in every criminal or
traffic case in the locality's district or circuit courts.
• Fee is used to fund software, hardware and associated equipment for the
electronic summons system.
• Fee will be assessed by the courts.
• Electronic system will eliminate handwritten summons and associated human
error as well as time spent entering summons into the court system.
• Citation data is entered at the point of activity and a paper summons is
printed on the scene and given to the person charged.
• Transaction data is sent electronically to the Court's case management system
usually within 24 hours, which allows violators to prepay their fines promptly
and aids the courts in managing their dockets while tracking caseloads.
• City of Fairfax, Town of Vienna, City of Manassas, and Loudoun County
have all begun using this system.
• Will take 18-24 months to collect enough fees to purchase the electronic
system.
Council Comments/Questions:
• Dunn: Unless, Chief, you really start jacking up the summons you issue, then
you could pay for it faster. I am not encouraging that, at least not in my part
of town, right Dennis? Just a quick question—will the individual receiving
the summons get a paper copy of something on the spot?
Staff answer: Yes, sir.
• Dunn: It is all just about how it is being filed electronically, then?
12 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
Staff answer: What will happen, on the back of your license is a barcode.
There will be a scanner clipped onto our in-car computer. It will be scanned.
That data will automatically populate the fields. The vehicles will also have a
printer installed in them. The printer will then print out all the
documentation - all the information necessary that is currently on an uniform
summons and it will be handed to the violator. The electronic data key is
pushed and it automatically updates our records management system and
more importantly as Ms. Notar pointed out, it will almost immediately
update the courts system, which from a customer service aspect, allows the
citizen to go in and pay. It doesn't happen frequently, but often times enough
that a person is willing to pay their fine on their summons, but the summons
has not yet arrived at the court. So, there is a mismatch. This program will,
hopefully, eliminate that. It will also allow the courts to better manage
dockets because it is an immediate update.
• Dunn: Okay, is there a back up system for when the printer jams? It is
inevitable. You will just go back to the handwritten summons? Then, also
there is going to be an initial cost that is coming out of the department's
budget. Was this budgeted for in the last budget cycle and if not, where are
the funds coming from in the interim?
Staff answer: Our intent is not to purchase any of the software or the
equipment. We will shop and determine the appropriate equipment and
software that we need, but until such time as there is sufficient funds
accumulated in the finance, I guess almost like a capital improvement project,
we will not be purchasing it. So, we are not going to be purchasing it until we
have sufficient funds collected to cover the costs.
• Dunn: So, you are talking 18 months. Or it could come in 12 months if we
put it in the next budget cycle, we could cut off six months.
Staff answer: We are not looking to add to the additional cost to our
taxpayers. The cost is being passed on to violators, so it is not going to be
part of a budget request for additional funding from the department.
• Dunn: Do you know of a—for lack of a better term, return on investment in
that it is a time saving function that officer's time is less spent filling out
paperwork? It sounds like it should save time.
Staff answer: That should be a benefit. Yes, sir, Mr. Dunn. It should also
create a safer environment because both the officer and the violator are—the
time required for them to be on the side of the road lessens.
• Dunn: Okay. Alright, great. I think it's a great idea. Thank you.
• Butler: I think this sounds like a great idea. Thanks.
• Burk: Good idea.
• Fox: I think it is a great idea as well. I like the fact that the cost will be borne
by violators and not by taxpayers. My only concern and it is a small one is
that the capital will be held in an account for a future—we are talking 18
months. I just want to be sure that account is not touched. The money does
stay in that account. I know there is sometimes a tendency to borrow from
Peter to pay Paul sometimes and I wanted to know if there is any
accountability there.
13 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
Staff answer: The department of finance is ready to set up a fund. The
money initially goes into the courts system and they pay over to us.
Price: I believe that the law would prohibit us from using the funds for any
other action other than this particular purpose.
• Fox: Okay. Well then I think it's a great idea.
There were no members of the public wishing to address this public hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 9:58 p.m.
On a motion by Vice Mayor Burk, seconded by Council Member Dunn, the following
was proposed:
ORDINANCE 2015-0-014
Creating Chapter 2(Administration), Article IV(Finance), Section 2-166(Electronic
Summons System Fee)and Appendix B(Fee Schedule)
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye.• Burk, Butler, Dunn, Fox, Hammier, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None.
Vote: 6-0-1 (Martinez absent)
11. RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
a. Request for Waiver of Fees
On a motion by Vice Mayor Burk, seconded by Council Member Butler, the following
was proposed:
MOTION 2015-013
I move that we waive the fees for this event[India Independence Day Celebration and
Pakistani Independence Day Celebration]—a one-time fee waiver of$1500.
Council Comments/Questions:
• Burk: This is a pretty new event. It started last year. This is only the second
year they are doing it. There is a possibility there could be a lot more people
than they originally thought so it sounded like they hadn't planned for having
security, so it would help them out for this year. I think that is something we
can do. Perhaps next year, they need to make sure that is part of their budget.
• Butler: I just had a quick question for the folks related to this. I just
wondered how many people they expect to attend.
• Burk: They said 2000-3000.
• Dunn: I think they said 500.
Staff answer: They said 1000-3000 over the course of both days.
• Butler: So, yeah, I support this as a one time thing. But I think next year so
between 1000-3000. Let's say they had 1500 people attend and they charged
$6, then they could cover the cost of security. So, but I understand it is way
14 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
too late since it is this coming weekend. For this one time, I don't have a
problem with it.
• Dunn: I don't have a problem waiving the fees, but I guess I do have a
question as to exactly how many police officers are needed for this and two,
and three and that's for—how do we get to $1500 for three police officers. I
know even my Arkansas math, I can figure out that is $500 each, but I didn't
realize it would cost that much.
Staff answer: Mr. Dunn, it is the number hours for both events. Initially
when it went through the special events committee, it was determined they
needed one for traffic control and then the organizers came back and
requested additional police staffing for the internal security. So, you are
looking at the two days, three officers for the number of hours the event runs
and the only way to staff it from us is to bring officers in on over-time because
in addition on this weekend, we have a major race that is already occupying
21 officers to support the race that is going on— a 5k and 20k.
• Dunn: So, the $1500 is the actual cost for the three officers for that length of
time. Okay, it seemed high, but I guess you know better. One other quick
question—when there is events like this and they don't want additional staff,
do you do anything extra knowing that there is an event in town that you
have extra coverage in the area, or is it people work their normal beats?
Staff answer: It is the latter. As resources are available, we may increase the
patrol around it, but without having dedicated resources specifically to the
event, we can't guarantee that there is any additional coverage and what
workload may happen during that same time period.
• Hammler: If there is 1500 people, how is Ida Lee going to accommodate the
parking? Has that been worked out logistically from a planning perspective?
Staff answer: Our parking field will hold that.
• Hammier: Okay, so that has all been anticipated. Well, you've answered a
couple of questions by handing out the flyer, because I was wondering if it
were open to the public, which it is. All will be welcome, $5 per person
admission fee. Appreciate kind of how the motion has been framed relative
to it being a one-time waiver and anticipating you know perhaps growing
numbers of people. I certainly appreciate the tone that it is going to send
relative to diversity and would certainly encourage us to make sure that the
Diversity Commission is aware of this —perhaps they already are,just has not
come up through that chain. And that it is also highlighted in the flyer that I
see, you know, coming to, you know, enjoy great music, dancing, food,
games, shopping and other economic benefits to the town. I will support at
this time.
• Fox: I have a couple of questions. Madam Mayor, you indicated that the
town—this is the normal practice to do fee waivers?
• Mayor: Yes, we have done them in the past.
• Fox: And so there is precedent for it. My only other question is does it get to
be an expensive proposition if we keep doing it?
• Mayor: Of course. I mean there is—they are all cumulative. They all have
an impact on our budget.
15 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
• Fox: My only comment would be I would be a little leery of waiving the
entire fee. Just because of that, I can see where if we have done this before
and we keep being asked to do it, it could be a drain on the budget and I am a
little worried about that. I think that we weren't in that position, though, so
at this point, you know, if we could [inaudible] from here to go ahead and
make sure this is in their budget from now on, I guess a one time thing I
wouldn't have much problem with.
• Mayor: I will be supporting this.
• Burk: I would just like—Kate, is there any way we could keep track of the
actual numbers? Will we know by the end of the weekend, exactly how many
people will be attending?
Staff answer: As they get the people to pay at the entrance gate, there will be
doing wrist bands, so they will provide us that at the end.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Butler, Dunn, Fox, Hammier, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0-1 (Martinez absent)
b. Skate Park Direction
Council Comments/Questions:
• Mayor: We do have an item for action, but there is some sentiment for
deferring any vote. My hope was that we would vote tonight to direct staff to
immediately start developing a skate park at Ida Lee but Marty is not here.
He feels strongly about this issue.
• Butler: I would have no problem with deferring. There is just a small thing
that I think might be helpful for probably the rescue squad. From listening to
folks at the work session, it doesn't seem that there is a lot of enthusiasm to
leave the skate park on its current footprint, but there seems to be a lot of
enthusiasm that no matter which option we pick, that it would be moved at
least far enough that the rescue squad will be able to get half the land.
However, right now, staff is currently—there is a current resolution requiring
staff to work on putting the skate park in the current footprint. Now, staff
hasn't done anything on that in the last 11 days, have they? I think Tom
brought up a good point last night that technically staff is violating the
resolution that we passed earlier. So,just wondering if there is any
enthusiasm on Council to just officially tell staff to look—stop working or
don't work on moving or replacing the skate park on its current footprint, you
know, until we make a decision one way or the other.
• Mayor: I could support that. Since I want to see the skate park built at Ida
Lee, I could support directing staff not to go forward at this time with
building it on its current footprint.
• Butler: It doesn't have any effect on whether we want to move on the current
lot or move it to Ida Lee. We still at least—that might make the rescue squad
feel a little bit better and also staff will not have to continue wringing their
16 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
hands and violating our resolution. So, I guess I would like to make that
motion.
On a motion by Council Member Butler, seconded by Council Member Fox, the
following was proposed:
MOTION 2015-014
I move to direct staff to not continue work on the current footprint for the skate park
until a decision is made in September.
Council Comments/Questions:
• Butler: I just think its harmless regardless of what we want to do with the
skate park, it just helps staff and I think it helps the rescue squad.
• Mayor: Right now, we have not designated which September meeting, so
theoretically, it would appear on the first agenda in September and then it
could appear on the second, if we can't make a decision at the first meeting.
• Butler: I would expect a decision on the first meeting.
• Burk: I won't be here on that meeting date.
• Butler: Which one, the first one?
• Burk: I won't be here on September 8.
• Mayor: The trouble is, you know that could keep happening for months that
we are down a council member. I think the sooner we make this decision, the
better.
• Butler: Is there no chance of being remote?
• Burk: No, I won't be anywhere I can do that.
• Dunn: The only thing is I think it does clean up from our previous motion. I
guess my question for staff is —is staff doing anything right now with the
development of the park and would this motion stop any of the work that we
are doing, regardless of where the park actually ends up?
Staff answer: Currently, all I am able to do is just keep interested skaters
informed as to what progress is going on. I do recognize there are a number
of different site locations that are being discussed and so from a design
standpoint, we are not making any progress at this point at all. We are not
doing any work. Our consultant has not conducted any work other than
gathering information and feedback through the Facebook page from our area
skates as to what sort of elements they want.
• Dunn: Our consultant isn't going to be paid more during the down time?
Staff answer: No.
• Hammier: I would just request if this is approved by Council that staff get an
official update on what has happened at the school board committee relative
to the discussion and you know, hopefully get it in writing versus kind of
second hand information.
Staff answer: I can tell you, Council Member, an email I sent out tonight—
the school board committee did discuss it extremely briefly. There was
generally no discussion. I can't tell you exactly what they did—Mr. Williams
was there—but in essence, it died in committee or it sits in committee. There
17 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
is no movement, there is no direction. There is no action follow-up from the
school board at this time unless they take it up again.
• Hammler: Okay, well that certainly gives Council an opportunity to follow-
up and get more direction on that. I did have a question given that Kristen
has specifically mentioned her personal view on where she would like to
direct the location—what about the master planning process for Ida Lee. Is
that an issue relative to making that decision, if it were to be moved by
Council?
Staff answer: Within the master plan of the area that we actually have
identified for the skate park to be located within Ida Lee, there is a parking
lot. There is parking spaces, so there is a concrete area within that space, so
we would have to go through formally adjusting the master plan to effectively
reflect the skate park in that location; however, if we are given the direction
that Ida Lee is the site for it, we can do that concurrently with the design
work that would have to be done before the park could be built, so those two
things could happen at the same time.
• Hammier: Okay. I will support the resolution. I think it also provides an
opportunity for the community to be aware of the options that council is
considering, certainly relative to those who have communicated a desire to
move to Ida Lee.
• Burk: I won't be voting for this. I think we have dragged these people out
long enough. I think we should get to some action tonight, so I won't be
voting to support the postponement.
The motion to direct staff to cease work on replacing the skate park on its current
footprint until the end of September was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Butler, Dunn, Fox, Hammier, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: Burk
Vote: 5-1-1 (Martinez absent)
On the motion of Council Member Dunn, seconded by Vice Mayor Burk, the following
was proposed:
MOTION 2015-015
I move to defer action on the skate park location until the second regular meeting in
September.
Council Comments/Questions:
• Dunn: I think that if we could, in the interim, we don't have a meeting in
August, so that is why it is going to September and then we are hoping to get
all of Council involved in this because it does sound like it is going to be some
close votes and we would hate to have it being decided by an absent vote, but
I think that in the interim, if we could get a few of the other issues that have
been brought up, especially by the rescue squad as far as I would like to get
more definitive answer on funding of the additional cost to move the skate
park to another footprint, whether that footprint be one foot away or 100 feet
away at Ida Lee or to the school grounds. Where is the rescue squad
18 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
officially on helping with the payment of that additional cost. So, if you want
to address it now, that's fine, but I was just saying if by September, if you
need to poll your team and get an official—but if you have an official now,
that's fine.
• Mayor: Chief, before you say anything, I just got an email from a member of
the Rescue Squad, she is asking all of us to please talk into the mic because
she can't hear Tom.
Mino: I will reiterate the same thing I mentioned to Council Member Butler
and Hammier Sunday night when we met with them. We have some funding
that we could attempt to make available, but we would obviously need to go
back to our membership and show what that funding would be used for to
attempt to offset or defray costs of moving the park. I am not in a position
right now to talk numbers, but there are options on our end as well.
• Dunn: And maybe if by September, if you can have that, that would be
helpful in our decision— at least for mine.
Mino: One of the things we talked about on Sunday is let's see what those
numbers would be used for—what those costs would be and balance it out
with a list of how we could potentially offset some of that.
• Dunn: And then along with that for consideration is if it were moved to Ida
Lee, how much of that property would be used then for the rescue squad
because now it is all open and who would be on the hook for the additional
cost of moving it to Ida Lee. Should the rescue squad pay the $260 to move it
to Ida Lee, or is that going to be taxpayer or are we going to seek the county
on that? Again, where is the extra cost going to be absorbed by going to Ida
Lee. So, if we could have that answer also by September, that would be
helpful too.
• Burk: I appreciate the motion. This most certainly is important and I would
like to be here for the vote. I wouldn't be opposed to having a special meeting
—setting up a special date just for a meeting on this. If anybody else is
interested, I don't know, but I most certainly would appreciate being here to
vote.
• Butler: I suggest that maybe staff could come up with a couple of specific
options like if we, you know, moved it somewhere it would be $260,000—
what does that represent exactly as far as debt service, you know like per year
for 20 years so my back of envelope calculations come up to $18k. Staff, their
back of the envelope, you know, rule of thumb said$20k, what would it really
be. Thanks. That would help, you know, what Tom said.
• Hammier: I had one quick question. The town manager mentioned that staff
needed an answer by the 8th to stay on schedule, so what happens to the
schedule if we vote at the later meeting?
Staff answer: If it moves the current site, and you don't make a decision until
after September 8 —then obviously we can't meet your original schedule in
the budget; but what I have heard over the last few meetings is that Council is
not as focused on that at this point. So, that's just where we are. We won't
meet your original schedule, but that's okay—that is your process.
16.
19 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
• Hammler: And my other quick question is if there aren't hypothetically seven
members of Council and my understanding is we need six out of seven to pass
a resolution to move something...
• Mayor: To sell it. Potentially even to donate it, we may need six votes out of
seven.
• Hammler: So, it is six votes out of seven, so we would be required to have all
seven members. It isn't a question of, you know, the proportional number of
those who are present.
Staff answer: Well, you could have six here but all six would have to —it has
to be 3/4 of the elected governing body, so you would have to have six votes.
If all six were here and voted yes, then you could sell or donate.
• Hammier: Of the governing body present or the governing body?
Staff answer: Of those elected to the governing body.
• Fox: I have a quick question just as follow-up to Katie's question. The rules
that Barbara just read, are those rules that the previous town council put in
place or is that a state rule?
• Mayor: State law.
Staff answer: Constitutional and state law.
• Mayor: I have one question for rescue chief, or lieutenant or Mr. President.
We received a lot of emails from Rescue Squad members asking us to move
the skate park to Ida Lee. Is the rescue squad still comfortable with that
approach? It is not the only approach, but are you still—would you still be in
support of that approach if that is what Council decided to do?
Mino: Of moving the park to Ida Lee? Yes.
The motion to defer the vote on the skate park location take place at the second meeting
in September was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Butler, Dunn, Fox, Hammier, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None.
Vote: 6-0-1 (Martinez absent).
On a motion by Vice Mayor Burk, seconded by Council Member Dunn, the following
was proposed:
MOTION
I move to take the option of selling or donating the park off the table.
Council Comments:
• Burk: We have just been talking about that you have to have the sixth vote
and you don't have the six votes. I think we need to let Mr. Saghafi know that
there isn't enough votes to sell the property or donate the property for his
business expansion so I think just out of courtesy to him, we ought to at least
take care of this issue if we can't take care of the other parts.
• Mayor: Well, you are also including in there you are saying we won't even
consider donating the land to the rescue squad—is that your intent?
• Burk: No.
20 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
• Mayor: Well, then you need to reword that one.
The motion was withdrawn.
c. Extension of Fixed Based Operator Agreement at Leesburg Executive Airport
On a motion by Council Member Fox, seconded by Council Member Dunn, the
following was proposed:
RESOLUTION 2015-091
Authorizing the Town Manager to Execute a 10 year Lease Extension between the
Town of Leesburg and ProJet Aviation, LLC,for Fixed Based Operator Activities at
the Leesburg Executive Airport
Council Comments:
• Fox: Just a few quick comments. I had a few minutes to speak with Mr.
Boykin about this. I think it is in the town's best interest to extend the lease.
I don't want to see operations interrupted in any way, shape or form, so I
really think this is the best course of action.
• Dunn: Just real quick, I think ProJet has been a great business partner and if
we can move this along quickly, Dennis can speed on home.
• Burk: I'm just glad that we were able to work it out and that we are still
working with you.
• Hammier: I just wanted to thank all of the parties for their spirit of
cooperation to get to a resolution so that we are able to vote on this this
evening on things such as the maintenance. I do think you are a great
business partner for the town, Mr. Gilad, and I do want to thank the airport
commission and staff.
• Mayor: I will just say, Shye, thank you for being here tonight. Thanks for
everything you do for the airport. Dennis, Scott, thank you guys for all your
hard work on this and thanks for reaching an agreement on this. We really
appreciate it.
• Fox: No final comment. I'm just happy that it has come to this resolution.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Butler, Dunn, Fox, Hammier, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None.
Vote: 6-0-1 (Martinez absent).
d. Downtown Parking Recommendations
Council Comments/Questions:
• Dunn: Looking everything over one more time, and I may want to make a
motion. I just wanted to double check.
• Butler: Just a general question from the last work session. I know we had
some audio problems, so I wasn't able to connect in for that, but it seems like
most of the items even though there seems to be majority support for most of
21 1 Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
the items based on the survey feedback, that the majority of the large items—
virtually all of the significant items were deferred. What did we mean by
deferred? Did that mean that Council couldn't get the four votes to do
something or they decided let's do some of these ones that we all agree on
now and we will have another work session later or what was the...
Staff answer: That was outcome. We wanted to go with the items that had
broad-based support in this resolution still identifying all of the different
recommendations from the task force and then come back for what was
scheduled for September 21, that work session, to invite the downtown
parking task force to actually meet with you during a work session and
discuss those items that were a little more detailed.
• Hammier: I have to admit I haven't been able to pull this back up tonight so
if we are discussing this again at the end of the September, I have no problem
doing everything in one fell swoop or are we separating it?
Staff answer: ...to create some momentum so that we can start progress on
some of the items that were easier and everyone agreed to —certainly from a
staff point of view if you all feel more comfortable doing it all at once in
September, we can do that also.
• Hammier: Between the Sharepoint site being down and just trying to keep
track of where these things are—thank you very much. Is there a resolution
on the table?
• Mayor: Nobody made a motion.
Ona motion by Council Member Dunn, seconded by Vice Mayor Burk, the following
was proposed.•
RESOLUTION 2015-092
Authorization to Implement the Recommendations of the June 8, 2015 Downtown
Parking Task Force Report
Council Comments:
• Dunn: It looks like the issues that we discussed that were more detailed are
being deferred and the things that are moving forward tonight, I won't say
basic, this hasn't been a basic process, but it looks like things we can easily
move forward on.
Staff answer: Some things are just to direct us to gather more information or
develop more information for you at a later date—not actually [inaudible]
order.
• Dunn: And I think if Marty was here, he would be glad that we were moving
forward on something.
• Mayor: You are making a motion to move forward with all 24 items that are
in this draft resolution?
• Dunn: I don't have —I gave my sheets over to Katie. Well, the 24 are the
ones that aren't deferred.
• Butler: Right, you are saying the 24 ones as outlined in there. The ones that
say deferred, are deferred.
22 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
• Dunn: Yes, that's fine.
• Mayor: Let's go over what they are. The ones that we are being asked to
vote on tonight, that are not being deferred, that is that staff proceed with the
zoning ordinance modification to eliminate the County of Loudoun garage as
a qualifying facility since public parking is not allowed during work/business
hours. Number two, town staff is directed to develop a capital improvement
project for council consideration as part of the FY2017 budget. Three, town
staff is directed to provide passenger pick up and drop off zones where feasible
to benefit those with mobility limitations. Four, is to increase the fee to get a
parking meter bag from $3 to $10, I assume that is per day. Right, Keith?
Staff answer: Yes.
• Mayor: Five, town staff is directed to investigate options to implement a
graduated parking violation fee for habitual offenders and report back to
Council. Next two items are deferred. Then we move to eight. Staff is
directed to investigate the use of mobile payment apps and report back to
Council. The kiosks are deferred. Free parking on the second, third floors is
deferred. Parking rate for the first floor, deferred. Remove gates and
payment booths, deferred. Reallocate town parking attendants to parking
enforcement, deferred. We get to 14. Staff is directed to reconfigure parking
spaces where feasible in order to increase the user friendliness of the parking
garage, and I assume that just means make them bigger? Fifteen, paint the
interior walls of the town garage. You are authorized to paint them a bright
white color in FY 2016 if funds are available or to request an appropriation in
the proposed FY 2017 budget. Sixteen is to develop design options and cost
for exterior signage on the town garage wall. Seventeen is to develop a plan
to install welcome and informational kiosks for council consideration.
Eighteen and Nineteen are deferred. Twenty is to continue to rent the
basement level of the garage. Twenty-one is deferred. Twenty-two develop
and install additional signage that alerts the public to other parking areas
using FY2016 funds. Twenty-three is to develop a list of improvements that
can be considered by council during FY2017 budget discussions and twenty-
four, the town manager is directed to delay relocation of staff to the Liberty
Street lot at this time. If changes to town garage operations create parking
shortages in the garage, the town manager may need to relocate town
employee parking in whole or in part to the Liberty Parking Lot. The bright
white garage, okay. That is a clear directive. That is what we've got.
• Butler: I wasn't at the work session. I might have a minor quibble, but I am
fine with these.
• Hammler: First I want to thank Council Member Dunn for giving me the
hard copy. I very much appreciate your chivalry. Just a very minor point—
number three, the way it has been articulated, this passenger pick up and drop
off zones it says specifically to benefit those with mobility limitations. I
would suggest that we not market it as such in such a limited fashion because
it really is to encourage as many citizens and visitors as possible to car pool
and be able to drop off anybody for any reason and make it very, you know,
welcoming and promote it as a way to really encourage the need for fewer
parking spots and bring more and more people downtown. So, I would just
23 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
suggest that we edit that accordingly so that is what you are doing. You are
promoting it and however you physically create that, that is the intent.
• Fox: I was actually going to say almost exactly the same thing except I was
going to ask for a friendly amendment to defer item#3,just because I don't
think it is clear and I think, you know, how would we know that those with
mobility limitations are going to be the ones using—I thought it might need a
little more conversation, that's all.
• Mayor: Are you comfortable with Katie's request that staff not market it as
such?
• Fox: I think it needs more discussion. I can see where she is coming from,
but I feel like it should be deferred.
• Mayor: Alright, you would like to make a motion to amend to defer that
particular issue, which is number 3?
• Fox: [inaudible].
• Butler: I second it.
• Fox: It is a pretty simple way of looking at it in my opinion. I am not clear
on it. I don't think Katie is clear on it. I think I know where she is going with
it, but I feel like it warrants more discussion.
• Butler: Yeah, that happened to be the one little quibble that I had, so I agree
with what Council Members Hammier and Fox said. So, yeah, I think it is a
small thing. I think it can be deferred for a month without, you know, undue
problems.
• Dunn: Well, I would just say that's fine, if we want to defer it, but it does say
there is nothing in there about how it is being marketed. It just is asking staff
to look into the feasibility of these zones, so I think to start looking into how
we are marketing things might be putting the car before the driver. So, if you
want to defer it, I am fine with it, but I really don't think we have to.
• Mayor: It actually is not directing them to look into the feasibility, it is
directing them to establish those zones where feasible.
• Burk: But we will look at it next month?
• Mayor: Nobody said next month, but yes, we could look at it next month.
• Burk: I don't think I have an issue with it. I was okay with it. But you know,
as long as we get it done.
• Mayor: Okay. Alright. I am going to ask for a vote.
• Hammier: I didn't get to comment after Council Member Fox. I would
prefer not to defer it, rather and I appreciate staff has just gone off and
provided a succinct edit which is to delete to benefit those with mobility
limitations. I think it is one of the most important ones to get started because
it is ultimately the goal being to bring more people downtown and reduce the
need for parking—so if we can just get started doing it and you can take out
that limitation with those words, I would prefer not to defer and would
encourage my colleagues not to defer and I will make a friendly amendment
to make it succinct to simply delete those words up on the screen and Council
Member Fox just to delete "to benefit those with mobility limitations" which
I think is much more clear.
24 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
Council Member Hammier made a friendly amendment to delete the words "to benefit
those with mobility limitations". The amendment was accepted as friendly.
The motion to approve the resolution was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Butler, Dunn, Fox, Hammier, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None.
Vote: 6-0-1 (Martinez absent).
e. Capital Intensity Factors (Proffer Contributions and Appendix B)
On a motion by Vice Mayor Burk, seconded by Mayor Umstattd, the following was
proposed:
RESOLUTION
To Solicit Consultant Assistance to Develop a Capital Intensity Factor(CIF)for the
Town of Leesburg and to Update Appendix B in the Town Plan (Off-Site
Transportation Costs)
Council Comments:
• Burk: This is just to hire a consultant to start putting it together. It is not to
do anything at this point. It is just to begin the process—to hire the person to
get it together and bring it back to us in a timely manner. So, I don't see why
we would put it off. Why don't we take care of it, get it done tonight and
move on.
• Butler: I have some concerns with this and there is three concerns. One is
that it is a significant amount of money to come out of the undesignated fund
balance and so what that basically is saying is that we are spending fiscal 2017
money ahead of, you know, fiscal 2017 without actually comparing it to
anything else we are going to spend in Fiscal 2017. You know, if it is a small
amount, that's one thing. But you know it is $70-80 thousand and who
knows, it could end up being$100,000. I think it is a lot of money to come
out of undesignated fund balance. The second thing as I have said before, it is
not clear to me that this will end up being—having us get more money in
proffers. I know for a fact that there has been at least one application that we
have had that we lost money in parks and rec proffers because we had a set
impact fee that I was discussing with the applicant—well what about, you
know, such and such. I forget what it was specifically, for this area and their
response was hey, look we paid you your impact fee. We are done. There is
not going to be anymore parks and rec stuff unless it is something that we feel
that we need for our specific development but not something that you think
because we pay our impact fee, we are done. So, there is concerns that it
certainly makes it easier. It makes it easier to approve development. It makes
it easier to get through the proffers. It makes the whole process smoother for
people who want to develop things. It is not clear to me that we end up with
more money at the end of the day or that it is more fair at the end of the day.
So, I have that concern. So, my preference would be to defer this to the next
budget and so that we can actually put it into the budget and have it as part of
the plan and then who knows by that time, staff may feel that they have the
25 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
bandwidth to do it and then we would save the $80,000 completely. So, I
don't think there is any particular rush. I mean, some of these things are
really old and okay, maybe we did it in 1990 or something like that. Well, if
it is 25 years old, then if it is 25 and a half or something like this, it is not
going to be very different. I don't see a particular reason to rush and spend
such a significant amount in the undesignated fund balance at this point.
• Mayor: Can I ask you a question, Dave? Do you feel that it is not a good
expenditure at this time because you don't anticipate the town getting much
bang for the buck because much development has already been approved and
we don't anticipate that much more? Is that part of your concern or do you
just think the timing is wrong?
• Butler: I think the timing is wrong definitely. But I also think it is not that we
don't have much development left—it is that there is an assumption that if we
come up with these capital intensity factors, that it is going to increase the
amount of money that we get in proffers. I am not sure that I buy that based
on my experience dealing with applicants and like I said, there is at least one
or two instances where I know we have lost money on parks and rec because
we have had basically the impact fee. If we didn't have an impact fee, we
would have actually gotten more dollars, I think, out of the applicant. I don't
know for sure. The big advantage of doing this, is it takes a lot of the guess
work out. It takes a lot of the discussion out. You don't have to be talking
about things specifically. I think it's not clear to me that we are going to make
out on it. It may end up not being the win that we think. It may encourage
new development that we don't necessarily want. I don't know. The
problem is if we go through this process and we come up with a report. Barn!
Here is all the data, then whether we approve it or not, it is pretty much done
because if we have consultants come in and say, of course Barbara can correct
me if I am wrong, but if we have consultants come in and say, yeah, we
figured it all out. It's X thousand per person for off site road improvements
and we say now we don't like it, but then development comes in and the
developer looks at the report and say hey look, I am offering you X for offsite
transportation improvements, that's my offering. You prove me wrong. I'm
not sure we have a leg to stand on in that case. I think it's risky to do this.
So, I just don't want to rush into it. I think, you know, we think about it a
little bit more and use the budget process that we have in place and like I said
we may end up saving$80,000 because staff may look at it and say yeah, next
year we have enough time.
• Dunn: Yes, I would rather not move forward with this resolution this
evening and I am not sure I'd want to move forward with it at all because I
think that we do have a proffer system that is already in place. It seems to
have been working well. I think that there are calculations that staff is already
using that is getting us to where we need to be anyway and then I do feel that
this is a substantial cost in bringing in a consultant in that I am wondering
how much more we would get in impact fees to warrant a break even point on
the cost to find out if we need to make more money on impact fees. They
may come back and say well, generally you could have done $2,000 more in
impact fees versus proffers and then you have a long break even point with
26 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
III IIII IIIIII /1111 I
the high cost. So, I can't support this motion at this time and I think that our
current process is working fine. It does seem like a lot to spend for a
consultant, so I would have to pass on that.
• Mayor: Question for Barbara to clarify, or Susan. My understanding is we
really don't have the authority to impose impact fees and we are not talking
about impact fees, we are talking about guidelines for proffers?
Staff answer: Correct.
• Hammier: If I could get clarification how long will the research take before it
comes back to Council?
Staff answer: The research—are you talking about how long it would take to
go out for a request for a proposal?
• Hammler: No, the entire process for the research to come back to Council.
Staff answer: Once we have gotten a contractor to do this, probably about
four to six months.
• Hammier: So, the total process would be four to six months.
Staff answer: Once we have it under contract.
• Hammier: And how long does that take. I am trying to get a sense of when it
is coming back.
Staff answer: [inaudible].
• Hammier: I do agree that it is a lot of money to be pulling from a source that
hasn't been budgeted properly. But that being said, I am not convinced
because it is important to understand that we haven't done the analysis that
we have all the intensity factors that we need to be able to communicate
effectively to the development community and I think the other benefit of
getting started is of course that we don't have the delay of having data that we
need to support to make good decisions as a council one way or the other and
that therefore we would be able to justify them as well which I think we need
a source to be able to do that. The other thing that I think is a benefit is it
would create consistency across councils for councils to see what has been
researched and either voted or not voted on. Additionally, I think there may
be changes relative to things like annexation which would open up other
opportunities that we would need to be prepared for to have these type of
intensity factors so you know again I wish we could just have staff be able to
do this and bring it back. I will go ahead and support it this evening.
• Fox: [inaudible] his comments and I too have concerns about the risk and
prematurity of it all and think it would be best to wait [inaudible] staff's
position and how stretched they are, but I feel like we don't need an outside
person to do this at this point, anyway and the price point we are looking at it
is premature.
• Burk: A couple of things. You know, thank you for clarifying that this isn't
an impact fee. This is an attempt to get the data to find out what we need—
what is the impact of the developer's development. We all talk about how
important it is to make sure that we are taking care of the impact of what this
development means. We have no idea at this point, so we are simply asking
staff to ask for things based on formulas that are so old. Some of those
fir... formulas, gas was 32 cents when we created that formula and now how much
27 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
is it all these years later. If you think that developers are going to give you
more money, I am afraid—I think you are dreaming on that one. Their job is
to create—to make money to make sure that what they are doing creates a
profit for them and it is our responsibility to stand up for the taxpayer and to
say to the taxpayer that we got the impact of this development whether it is
transportation, whether it is schools, whether it is fire and rescue or whether it
is recreation, whether it is any other of the components and by saying that we
don't want to get that information floors me because we should be taking this
opportunity—we should have been doing this a long time ago, but we should
be taking this opportunity to get the most that we can and to make sure that
the taxpayers aren't carrying the load and they are, at this point. We are
talking about moving a skate park and we are talking about moving it from
$500,000 to $260,000 and that's not going to bring us any money. This is
something that is going to bring us an opportunity to make some impact into
what is happening. I think that we are just blind at what we are doing now
and we are reaching at things and as I said, to use a formula that was created
25 years ago when gas was 32 cents a gallon and now it is, you know, close to
four, we are not getting anywhere near what we should be getting. There are
all sorts of examples of that when you look at the other counties and what
they are getting, and what they are asking for. So, to me this $80,000— 70-80
thousand dollars is an investment. It is an investment that we will get back
and I think it is just something that we should be doing and we should have
been doing it before and it seems like this is an opportunity that we are losing
but everybody is going to have to vote the way they feel the best.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Hammier and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: Butler, Dunn, and Fox
Vote: 3-3-1 (Martinez absent)
12. ORDINANCES
a. TLZM 2015-0001 Poet's Walk
On a motion by Council Member Dunn, seconded by Council Member Fox, the
following was proposed:
ORDINANCE 2015-0-015
Approving TLZM 2015-0001 Poet's Walk, a Concept Plan Amendment and Proffer
Amendment to Allow Development of a 38,000 square foot Nursing Home in Oaklawn
Landbay MUC2
Council Comments:
• Dunn: Looking over the report and discussion with my planning
commissioner, I think that it is a good use for this property. I think that it is
worth moving forward, unless staff wants to have a huge presentation tonight,
I would rather pass on that too.
28 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
• Fox: I think it is a good use for the property. I do like the fact that it is being
used for transition between residential and commercial over there in Oaklawn
and I think that is a benefit so that I why I am supporting it.
• Butler: I just had a question for staff. This was deferred two weeks ago I
think so that the applicant could provide updated proffers. I just wondered if
you could summarize what those changes to the proffers were compared to
last time.
Staff answer: Proffer #11 was added—Landscaping in landbay MUC1.
Landbay MUC1 is the park that is across Oaklawn drive from the site.
• Butler: And you probably have a nice picture of that.
Staff answer: I do. So, the arrow points to Poet's Walk and across to the
north in the light purple is the park, MUC1. That park has right now about
30 canopy trees—I went out and counted them today. I am not sure quite
where exactly the boundary is, but about 30-35 canopy trees. We had asked
during the review—staff had asked for additional trees and landscaping there
in that park. The applicant, up until the time this came to you had not
proffered such but agreed to that night at the public hearing two weeks ago so
we now have a proffer that the applicant shall install a minimum of 15
additional large canopy trees in the vicinity of the pedestrian walkways in
MUC1, the park, and that they shall also install at a minimum 20 shrubs up
along the right of way along Oaklawn Drive. So, we have those
commitments now for additional shrubs and canopy trees.
• Butler: Okay, and you think that is a reasonable mitigation of the minimal
impact that this would have?
Staff answer: I do. That is what we had requested originally.
• Butler: Okay but the original—it is the same net increase in density per
square foot?
Staff answer: Yes, this has the potential because it is traffic neutral and not
based on square footage, this has the potential to allow up to 36,500 square
feet of additional development somewhere in the Oaklawn Development. It
is a trade off system that they had written into their proffers, so not
necessarily would it be in MUC2 in this landbay.
• Butler: What other landbays could it be in? Any of them?
Staff answer: It could be in the PRC landbays, which are MUC2, MUC5,
some of the phasing proffers, I believe, allow some of the uses to go into the
PEC landbays so it is kind of a complex formula, the way they have written it
in the proffers. They have written it to maximize their potential for flexibility.
• Butler: Okay, so there is a not unreasonable chance that that 36,000 square
feet could end up being utilized.
Staff answer: There is a chance that some of it could be, but to do so would
require on the overall Oaklawn site—would require with our parking
standards and our landscaping standards, it would require some pretty intense
urban style development to get to the full figure they are looking at. They are
approved for 1.4 million square feet of development already, which would be
hard to obtain with the kinds of layouts and kind of development that we see
here in Leesburg now.
29 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
• Butler: So, there is 1.4 million and 1.44 million is really kind of eeeh. Is that
what you are saying?
Staff answer: I would say it is a pretty small amount—I think it was 2% of the
total—2 % or less of the total amount of square footage allowable.
• Butler: Thank you and I apologize for—I was offsite using this wonderful
communication gear so I wish I was able to attend the public hearing in a
little bit better fashion.
• Hammler: Just remember—what was the planning commission vote, please?
Staff answer: The planning commission vote was 3 in favor, 2 opposed and 2
absent. The 2 that were opposed, one mentioned the speaker that evening
was someone who lives in Stratford along the cul-de-sac to the north of the
park who had said they weren't necessarily opposed to the use of the nursing
home, but that they were concerned about the increased density and one
commissioner who voted against it referenced the increased density as the
reason he was going to vote against it. The other commissioner who voted
against it asked a few questions. Some were about airport noise and that type
of thing, but didn't state specifically why she was voting against it.
• Hammler: At this point, I do not see myself supporting it for some of the
same issues but I would add,just the opportunity cost in terms of the vision
for Oaklawn as well as the community commercial opportunities for the
neighbors to enjoy the types of amenities that we have in Exeter that families
really enjoy having nearby.
• Mayor: I have a question for Chris Gleckner. Could you address the
question of basically the point Katie made that she is concerned that the
neighbors in Oaklawn may not get the amenities they wanted should this go
forward. I seem to remember before the planning commission, you indicated
that you thought the increased square footage that would be available could
be used for restaurant use. What was your position on that?
Gleckner: Well, our position on that is because we took a traffic neutral
approach to, you know, the allocation of the square feet, what we reduced
from what was already approved in Oaklawn, we only had to take away 1500
square feet of restaurant use, which leaves 26,500 square feet of restaurants,
so that translates roughly—5000 square feet is about what a fast food
restaurant is —four or five thousand, so you could have five of those. A small
inline sandwich type shop might be 2000, so there is the opportunity for
several restaurants to occur with the remaining square footage. So, we do not
feel that we were taking away the amenities that the residents are looking for.
Again, if you look at the location where this facility is going, it is really not a
good visible location for commercial uses. So, obviously that was why that
portion of this landbay was chosen, the Battlefield and Miller Drive frontages
are still available for commercial opportunities and a considerable amount of
square footage remains to permit the uses that the residents are looking for. I
would also add that when we did meet with the HOA boards of both
Oaklawn and Stratford, that we did not get those comments about well what
about the restaurants. I think, and this is what I took away, so I can't say I
am speaking for them, they saw that there was land area left for the uses that
they are looking for.
30 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
• Mayor: Okay. Thanks. I mean this is a little bit difficult because on the one
hand we did have a family come out concerned about an increase in density.
On the other hand, they weren't opposed to this particular use. This
particular use is pretty low impact on anybody who can see it. Spring Arbor
is an example of a facility that has had, I think, a positive impact on the
neighborhood. So, I guess the only question is whether this would shift
additional density closer to other residents. Are we helping out residents near
this facility and then potentially putting unwanted uses closer to other
residents. So, Irish that might be a question for you. Would the flexibility
that is being requested, is it likely that other townhouse areas might get uses
they didn't anticipate next to them?
Staff answer: No, because it doesn't change the permitted uses in those
landbays. The uses that were allowed and originally established in the
original rezoning and proffers and reestablished last year in the clarification of
proffers, those are staying the same in those other landbays, so whatever uses
that could have been there such as restaurant or office still can be there.
• Mayor: Okay, alight. Thanks, Chris. I will support it tonight.
• Dunn: I know the folks in this area and going back many, many year and
hearing from them that they have always felt that they weren't quite getting
what they were sold or what they were told and they were expecting more of
a town center and that just isn't in the books. I think that this is less impactful
on the residents from what other commercial uses could be there. I remember
when the gas station was going in—I had mentioned to the residents that hey
the good news is the gas station is going in a little bit further away from where
you are at, the bad news is a five story office building could be right in your
back yard, because that is what could be there. I think this is less impactful
on the community, the need for schools, traffic, etc. It does make for a good
use. I will say that I do agree with the citizens and Ms. Gleckner and the
folks over at Oaklawn, I am hopeful we are seeing some of the very last
rezoning requests from Oaklawn, because I am not thrilled about the
piecemeal approach that we are getting and I would like to see us—the
residents are wanting to see us—give us the commercial that we are looking
for. I know that you have to make money in order to make other things
happen and hopefully this project will help you move down that line to
getting the funds needed to develop more and develop more of the amenities
that the folks in the area have been seeking for a long, long time. This project
has been before us before—shoot, Dave, I think we had Oaklawn before
planning commission six years ago when this first came up. Eight years ago,
maybe. I am hoping like some of the planning commissioners felt, the
citizens, that they can start seeing some more commercial that is benefitting
them. The shops, the restaurants. This, I think is less impactful than what
could have been an office building going up in people's back yards, so I am
willing to support this.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Butler, Dunn, Fox, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: Hammier.
311 Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
Vote: 5-1-1(Martinez absent).
13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. None.
14. NEW BUSINESS
a. None.
15. COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
Council Member Dunn: Had no comments.
Council Member Butler: Just two quick things. I do have two disclosures. As I
mentioned last time, I talked to the Poet's Walk folks a few weeks ago, but was out for the
last two council meetings. I also had a chance to get a tour by the rescue squad on 8/9
regarding the skate park relocation. The only other things is I didn't do anything the last
two weeks, because I was out of town having a little bit of fun.
Vice Mayor Burk: Just two things. On the 30th, I attended the VML transportation
meeting and on the 31st Blue Ridge Hospice opened their second hand store right near the
Giant. What a beautiful facility. I was amazed. You would never know it was a second
hand store, they have done such a nice job. Then on the first, some of us here attended the
Makersmith grand opening and that was a wonderful experience and it looks like a great
start for them. That's all I have.
Council Member Hammier: I had several disclosures. I had several phone
conversations with Peter Burnett about moving the houses and there is a meeting tomorrow
that staff is attending just to get more details given some of the research that has been going
on. I ran into Hobie Mitchell at the Makersmith event and we did briefly discuss Crescent
Parke. I received a call and had an email come in from Sandy Grossman, the president of
Exeter Homeowner's Association about the dam. I joined Dave at the Rescue Squad and
appreciated the tour and ability to understand and physically see their limitations helped me
to prepare for the skate park discussions. Along with Congresswoman Comstock, our
mayor, the mayor of Purcellville and Vice Mayor Burk, I was honored to attend the
Makersmith ribbon cutting. It is one of the most moving ribbon cuttings, certainly well
organized and extremely well attended just, I think, Pat choked up when he was about to
give his few words, but I think that is only a testament to the unbelievable amount of
leadership, time and sacrifice for his family that has gone into seeing his vision come to
reality. I would encourage all of our residents to go to MakersSmiths.org. There is going to
be open houses on Tuesdays and Thursdays for families. It is a tremendous amenity here
within the town to go make stuff and have a great time doing it and improving quality of life
and just tremendous energy with their entrepreneurial community as well. So, I look
forward to great things with having that in the town. There will be an article about
makersmith and the opportunity for other municipalities around the state to learn from it in
the VML magazine coming up. Speaking of VML, I will be attending the executive
quarterly meeting this week in Charlottesville. Finally,just wanted to remind residents—
lock your car doors and by all means if you go to Ida Lee, also lock up your belongings,
32 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING August 11, 2015
because I think that big bubble— a couple of those big bubbles over where several of us live
near Ida Lee, is I think, because people are not locking up their valuables at Ida Lee.
Council Member Fox: I had just two quick things. I too attended the ribbon cutting
on the 31st at Blue Ridge Hospice. Great little place. Loved it and they will probably get a
lot of my money. The second thing is I really wanted to thank Council for the past two
nights—for being patient with me. I appreciated your letting me remotely call into the
meeting and participate. Those are the things I have.
16. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
I've got what's coming up. Of course, we have the India Independence Day
Celebration at Ida Lee this Saturday from 3 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. and then the next day,
Sunday, August 16, we have the Pakistan Independence Day Celebration. Admission is $5
per person. Leading up to that at Ida Lee, which will be a very busy place in the next few
days, we have the One Loudoun Revival, which is 21 pastors from around the area have
come together to hold a three-day revival at Ida Lee. It starts at 6 p.m. Wednesday,
Thursday and Friday. That's all I've got.
17. MANAGER'S COMMENTS
Mr. Dentler had no comments.
18. ADJOURNMENT
On a motion by Council Member Butler, seconded by Council Member Dunn, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:•50 p.m.
fit- l �•"►' i!
Kri - C. U stattd, Mayor
Town of Leesburg
AT A, T:
•
Clerk of Co it
2015 tcmin0811
33 I Page