HomeMy Public PortalAbout2015_tcwsmin1026 Council Work Session October 26, 2015
Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:30 p.m. Mayor Kristen C. Umstattd
presiding.
Council Members Present: Kelly Burk, Dave Butler, Thomas Dunn, II, Suzanne
Fox, Katie Sheldon Hammler, Marty Martinez and Mayor Umstattd.
Council Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Deputy Town Manager Keith Markel,
Town Attorney Barbara Notar, Director of Public Works and Capital Projects Renee
Lafollette, Assistant Town Manager Scott Parker, Director of Finance and
Administrative Services Clark Case, Deputy Director of Capital Projects Tom
Brandon, Deputy Director of Public Works Charles Mumaw, Senior Management
Analysts Lisa Haley and Jason Cournoyer, Director of Parks and Recreation Richard
Williams, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation Kate Trask, Land Acquisition
Manager Keith Wilson and Clerk of Council Lee Ann Green
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Items for Discussion
a. Historical Marker and Memorial on Courthouse Grounds
Kaj Dentler reviewed the specifics of the County's actions thus far.
Key Points:
• The County has set aside $50,000 for a future memorial on the
courthouse grounds.
• Some of that money can be used for a historical marker that is being
requested by the local chapter of the NAACP at this time to designate
the courthouse grounds as important in the Underground Railroad.
• President of the local chapter of the NAACP, Phillip Thompson, is
working with the Courthouse grounds committee.
Council Comments/Questions:
• Mayor: The main question, and Kelly jump in, does the Council want
to dedicate any funds to this effort? Kaj, I heard a couple of different
versions of what the county has proposed. One of which is the county
proposes $50,000 if the NAACP or other groups can raise the bulk of
the money. I don't know if you have the exact language of what passed
at the board level or not.
Staff answer: I am looking at the minutes of the meeting and it
indicates that they have identified or are willing to put$50,000 forward.
They have not appropriated that, I believe.
• Mayor: I think you are right.
Staff answer: So, they have basically pledged$50,000 toward the future
memorial, but they have not appropriated that and they are waiting for
progress from the local chapter. Kate, is that right?
1 Page
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
Trask: Correct, the way it is worded, that it will be held in reserve until
the remaining portion of the money needed has been raised. The same
precedent they set with the revolutionary war statue.
• Fox: If I am reading this correctly, this is talking about the historical
marker and not the monument. I think the $50,000 is towards the
monument, am I correct?
Staff answer: Well, the $50,000 was for the memorial. Then later, it
was in conversations about having a historical marker placed because
that could be done much sooner and earlier in the process at a much
cheaper price than the time it would take to raise the money for a
memorial. So, the county indicated that the cost of that— some of the
money of the $50,000 could be used to offset the cost of the historical
marker.
• Fox: Okay, so are we contemplating the historical marker or the
monument or the memorial?
Staff answer: Town staff is not contemplating anything at this time.
This was a discussion that Council requested. Don't know where you
want to go with it. We have provided you with the background
information of what has occurred today at the county level. The town
has not done anything or been involved other than your attendance as
well as Kate's attendance at the meetings. That is all.
• Mayor: The memo or the minutes of what happened at the county is a
little bit confusing because there is after Ken Reid requested that the
motion be divided, Scott York had moved two things—one $50,000 for
the memorial and then what some of that money could be spent on a
historical marker. It is not clear from the minutes of the board meeting
what happened to that historical marker portion of that proposal. It is
clear that the $50,000 for the memorial passed 8-0-1 but I don't know
what happened with the marker. It doesn't really say. But Chairman
York's initial plan was to allow the $50,000 to be used for both of them.
So, the question is does the Council want to follow suit and dedicate
any amount of funding either along the lines that the County decided to
go which is wait until the rest of the money has been raised and then
give them an additional amount or do we want to give a certain amount
or do we not want to do either of those? Kelly, do you have any
thoughts?
• Burk: I would be in favor of setting aside some money to contribute to
it. I think it would be a great addition down at the courthouse and it is
well worth remembering the importance of the events such as that. It
was a place where slaves were sold. It was part of the underground
railroad, so there is a lot of historical significance there. So, I would be
willing to support it both privately with a contribution myself but also
will put some money forward from the town.
• Mayor: Alright. If we were to divide the amount the board designated
by eight because we are 1/8 of the county, we would get about a little
2IPage
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
over, I think, $6,000. I don't know what sum you might be thinking of
or if you want that for a later discussion.
• Burk: Well, I would round it to 10 just to round it up.
• Martinez: I am in the same mind with Kelly that we have—when it
comes to the slaves and all that—there is significant historical
background in there and we need to also remember even though that
was a black mark on our history, doesn't mean that we shouldn't
remember it as a reminder of where we have come as far as that and as
far as the $10,000 I am willing to vote in favor of that. What I would
also like to do though is I would like to invite the NAACP chairman or
president to come talk with us a little bit about what he is looking to do,
what his expectations are, what they are looking to fundraise and so I
think$10,000 would be a good base on which to start, but we could
really see what the needs are. I don't think historically we can afford
not to help and support it.
• Hammier: Given the questions that came on the dais are the same ones
reading the packet that it was really unclear what was being asked of
Council, it certainly would have been helpful for someone from the
NAACP to come forward and explain exactly what they are requesting.
I certainly see the value in commemorating, you know, with the marker
and the monument, but I also think there are ways to mobilize the
Friends of the Thomas Balch given their connection with the Black
History Committee and I would be open to encouraging, you know,
private donors as well. At the very least opening up for a public input
session to find out where the taxpayers are on this. I do appreciate the
fact that the county has taken the lead because it would be on the
county grounds.
• Fox: Yes, I agree with Katie. I think private funding should be looked
into. I really don't have a figure in mind, although I think it is
appropriate to have a commemoration. I think it is very appropriate to
do that. I am of the mind that I am not sure a marker and a monument
is necessary, but that's another discussion. I think there is some
redundancy there that could be a cost issue; however, it is appropriate
and I would be willing to talk about the amount probably down the
road. I am not sure I have anything in mind right now.
• Butler: I am good with whatever. I think that it is a good idea to do
that on the courthouse grounds and if we want to kick in our fair share
towards it, I think that's very appropriate.
• Dunn: I think it might be worth making a donation, but I just want to
point out that we are making a donation already because the county
money is partially the town's money. We are, depending on whether
you look at from the county's point of view as far as taxes or
population, we are between somewhere at 10-14 percent of the county,
not 20 percent of the county, so if we base it off the $50,000, we would
be looking at more along the lines of a $5,000 to $6,000 donation. As I
mentioned when this was first brought up is before I start allocating
3IPage
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
taxpayer dollars to anything—nonprofit or profit or government, we
should know all the details, and right now we don't know any of the
details other than some people would like to have a marker. The other
thing I would like to find out is if they are looking at working with the
state and making this an official state historic marker and then how
much those cost. I know that the folks over at Balls Bluff—the friends
of Balls Bluff Battlefield just replaced—is that on the street yet on Rt.
15? They just replaced that marker and I am not sure what the cost of
that was to replace that.
Trask: they are working to do that as a historical highway marker.
When you say marker, that's exactly what they are talking about is one
identical to what the Friends of Balls Bluff did. Roughly what I saw is
it could be around $1,500.
• Dunn: Yeah, I was going to say I thought they ran about$3,000—
maybe on the higher end at$5,000.
Trask: Actually, Mr. Thompson is coming back to the Courthouse
grounds committee meeting tomorrow to discuss hopefully if he is in
attendance to discuss the actual wording and everything for that marker
because they are on a tight timeline to do that as indicated, they want to
have up by June 16.
• Dunn: Yeah, and I think too that that also adds more validity to the
request that they have gone through the historic process and that the
state agrees that yes there is definite historic evidence for this and that
they can help contribute to what the wording is and so forth. So, I
don't have a problem having us donate some funds—what that is I
couldn't say right now because I don't know what the project is. How
much did we donate towards the revolutionary war monument?
Staff answer: None.
• Dunn: I was involved with getting a monument placed up at Balls Bluff
Cemetery and those were all private funds that were used for that. The
government wasn't requested for any donations. So, I would like to see
more about what is going to happen here before I just blanket say let's
donate a certain amount because I don't know whether it is needed or
not. If we should donate any, I would recommend going along the
same from what I can tell the county did—it is more let's look and see
are they going to need these public funds or not. They may be able to
get this all through private funding and that's great. That way they
don't have to wait for government bodies to get involved. Anyway, I
am more of a let's look and see. I could see donating but I really don't
know what we are donating for at this point other than a good idea.
• Mayor: So, Kaj can we get an email to Mr. Thompson inviting him to
come and speak to Council firming up the request.
Staff answer: Sure, I can do that.
b. Potential Projects and Available Funding
41Page
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
Kaj Dentler stated this is a request from Council Member Butler to
consider some potential projects.
Key Points:
• Staff has identified some savings on several previous projects.
• Staff has developed some estimates on potential projects.
Council Comments/Questions:
• Butler: This list came up from a number of projects that we had talked
about in the past that at least had significant, you know, enthusiasm
from the public and some of them are ones from the downtown
improvements that we weren't able to fund at this point. So, I just
listed those together with the estimates that we received from staff on
what they would cost as well as available monies that staff has
identified that could be used for these projects. I would note one thing
that on the available monies, we also identified there is $892,000 in the
fiscal 2019 capital plan that is designated for downtown improvements,
but there is nothing specific allocated to it so some of the downtown
improvements could be, you know, allocated towards that project as
part of our fiscal, our next year fiscal capital plan. And then, as you
see, the gas tax needs to be used for transportation projects, but there is
some savings from Hope Parkway and Sycolin Road. So, our Council
could discuss to see if there is some of these projects that we might want
to get done in a shorter term as you know, obviously like I said there is
around Mervin Jackson Park and the Rose Garden, there has been a lot
of constituent input that you know these things would go a long way
towards helping re-energize downtown and as well as some of the
others. So, how would you like to proceed from here?
• Mayor: Let's see if Council members have any questions, but Renee I
think I am looking at your memo or maybe it is Kaj's memo on
potential projects and available funding and the reference to VDOT
experiencing cost increases. I associate VDOT with roads, but this—
the implication here is we might experience similar cost increases with
sidewalks and bricking. That is not intuitively clear to me that there is a
direct correlation.
Staff answer: There could be. We bid the South King Street, Phase II
project in the summer. That bid came in approximately 37% over our
engineer's estimate and when we forwarded that information to VDOT,
they told us that we had to rebid that project. VDOT, right now is
experiencing anything from 18 to 28% above their engineer's estimates
on projects that have been out to bid and that is small projects to big
projects for what VDOT is doing. We experienced that with the
Downtown Improvements Project. We were not expecting those bids
to come in as high as they came in for this last phase of the project, so
we are starting to see an uptick in construction prices.
5IPage
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
Dentler: And I think, Mayor,just to provide another piece of
clarification— one of our concerns is if our main construction projects
do rise, some of the available funding that is identified for some of these
projects may need to be used for the project we already have approved.
So, we are not indicating we are opposed to Council Member Butler's
request, we are just providing caution that if the big construction
projects that she has before her are higher than what we have already
planned for, our available funding may not be as available as we
thought.
• Mayor: Okay, I guess my question would be, Renee, I know that
VDOT deals a lot with asphalt. Some of Dave's projects don't really
seem to be asphalt type projects— I think more concrete, but the price of
gas is fairly low. What is driving these cost increases?
Staff answer: Wages. Engineering News Record. I sort of watch that
every month and they give price index on each commodity. Oil and
PVC pipe products are starting to tick down. Cement, concrete pipe,
metal pipe, those are still ticking upwards. Wage rates are going up as
more and more projects are going. The labor costs are increasing on
the projects is what is being indicated in the Engineering News
magazine.
• Dunn: Let's see. On this, I am not sure the connection between
VDOT and Mervin Jackson park, but to go along with what we talked
about at our last meeting, we talked about also trying to get funds from
the county and I think there may have been—well there was at least
one road project that I mentioned was the bump out on Rt. 7 that the
County really isn't really—those discussions should have been in the
same vein. The county is going forward with their requests for state
funding and I think that we should try to piggyback on with the county
and do that in addition to what we are trying to do here. Make our
request with the county and see if the county can also help come up
with funds and the state funds. So, I would also recommend adding in
that—we will just call it a million dollars. It should be less than that,
but we will say a million for the Rt. 7 bump out between the bypass and
Battlefield Parkway. That is in the right lane heading east. Also, I have
noticed throughout town and it may because it is getting to be a funding
issue, but our crosswalks are —I am sure they are on some type of
schedule for painting, but there are some major crosswalks —I mean the
most glaring one is Market Street at Catoctin Circle. Those cross walks
are almost gone and I think that if funds are tight, we need to focus on
our major crosswalks in town. The Battlefields, Fort Evans, any of the
major intersections.
Staff answer: The Market Street at Catoctin Circle is part of the milling
and paving program for this fall, so that intersection will be taken care
of for sure.
• Dunn: I guess the point is, Renee, is that while it is scheduled major
intersections, if needed should go unscheduled. They should always be
6IPage
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
painted properly. You just never know where people might wander off
the path if we don't have them painted in line. But again, if that is
something that is a funding issue for us versus a scheduling issue, then I
would say that we definitely need to request funds for that to ensure
that our major intersections are covered. The other things on here, I
don't have a problem with us requesting. I have been looking in my
travels lately—I have been looking as Dave has pointed out in the past,
major intersections across the metro DC area that have four, six, eight
lanes with crosswalks and yeah, they are there and people are
negotiating them just fine. So, I don't see a problem with looking into
putting a good crosswalk at Battlefield and the Rt. 15 bypass north.
Let's see, I think that's it. Again,just maybe Dave unless you have got
some feedback on why on a transportation request we got the stuff in
for Morven Jackson Park in there. Unless there was some other
funding source you were looking at for that other than VDOT.
• Butler: No, it was just the savings from Hope Parkway and Sycolin
Road Improvements, we can spend as we see fit. They are not required
to be used for transportation projects.
• Dunn: Oh, okay. You are just talking about the savings. You were
putting in suggestions.
• Butler: The gas tax has to be used for transportation projects.
• Dunn: If we have savings, I wouldn't want us to at this point be
earmarking what those savings would be going towards. There may be
some other things that we would want to spend the funds on versus
what is listed here. I think that would warrant a greater discussion.
• Fox: I took a look at the staff recommendation. It says at the very
bottom, "as a result, I would recommend financial constraint at this
time". I totally agree with that statement. I do feel like some of the
things that are mentioned here are viable. I am a little more of the
thought that we might want to take some of these monies and maybe
take care of our parking issue—get that addressed before we get into
anything else. That's just my thought. I honestly feel that this is more
of a budget talk—conversation that might be more appropriate at
budget time.
• Hammler: I appreciate Dave bringing this forward. Also, looking
forward to fiscal year 2019 for available funds because that would frame
the discussion. The one thing I think we should consider is this
permanent stage on Town Green given that since we spend so much
money in staff time and outside resources continually setting up the
state so at least I would be curious what the ROI would be in getting
that permanently built sooner, rather than later but that we have that
information now or when we specifically make this decision. I just did
get additional information this evening given we pulled one of our
items tonight that there is more information forthcoming regarding
possible parking garage options and so I would at least want that to be
part of this discussion given that we have limited funds, but I am
7IPage
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
certainly open for whatever input other council members have as well
as the parks and rec commission as it relates to some of these items
relating to park expenditures. I am open to the discussion and
additional analysis.
• Martinez: As far as the list of projects go, I really have no issue with us
putting forward these things. I would like to ask Kate on some of the
issues that affect the parks and rec to bring that forward to the parks
and rec commission and get their thoughts on there. I know some of
the stuff we talked about, we originally trying to get Morven Park done.
But since then, we haven't got any of these up now—how we are going
to do it in the future. So, I think that might be something—items for
the parks and rec commissions. One of the things that I have always
been trying to get this council to do is to have—and I hate. I should not
say I hate. I know the word retreat kind of makes people cringe
sometimes but I do think we all on Council have visions for what we
would like the Town of Leesburg to be and I really would like to have
just a discussion without staff for us to sit down and talk about what do
we really see the town of Leesburg, what it can be in the next five or ten
years and how we set that apart. Then, once we can come to an
agreement on what we think, for example like the water park. Like
other things that other people want and that is a discussion that we can
bring back at a budget meeting or to be part of the budget discussion
that this is what the Council kind of wants to see. How does it impact
the capital projects? How does it impact our debt? Is there a way we
can generate revenue to pay for this without hurting taxpayer's pockets?
I think that is a far reaching discussion that we need to have and I am
glad Dave brought this up, because at least now we have something
that we can jump off of and maybe we can open up the discussion to do
that because I know for example, mine was a bike and walking path so
that anybody around town can get around and of course when we had
the bike path people come up and talk about it, I thought that was
really encouraging so I would like to see us, you know, delve into this a
little further. Everybody sitting down and really looking at what can
we as a council have a vision for for the next five to ten years on what
we want this town to look like. We all have our ideas and I am more
than willing to listen to what anybody else has to say.
• Burk: Well, I would be interested in supporting the splash park in the
Rose Garden. I have concerns that we have some major expenses
coming up in the next few sessions and we ought to be very careful
about the money we are spending, so for me it would be, I think I could
support bringing forth the idea of the splash park in the Rose Garden,
but I have real reserves about having restrooms at the park. A food stall
that is not something I think the town should be involved in. A bridge
over the exit lane- I am not sure that is really necessary. The whole
thing about the sidewalk widening, I most certainly support that, but I
think that is something we need to do at the budget time. I most
8IPage
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
certainly would like to see that done. I think we have a good
opportunity to see how it works with the projects we have going, but I
think the widening and that sort of thing needs to be part of the budget
discussion. Many of the other things, I personally would not be
interested in pursuing, but I most certainly would support allocating the
money for the splash park in the Rose Garden. I think that would be a
nice addition over there. That's where I am.
• Mayor: I like the idea of the permanent stage. Kate, would it be larger
than what we have been putting up for Acoustic on the Green every
weekend, because that strikes me as being somewhat cramped for the
musicians.
Staff answer: Slightly larger and I don't have the exact measurements
of the Acoustic's stage, but this one would be slightly larger, especially
with the wings.
Williams: The actual stage, Madam Mayor, would be approximately
10-15 feet deep.
Trask: Which would be about 2-5 feet deeper depending on how we set
it up because we don't set the Acoustics stage identically each Saturday.
• Mayor: I know you guys are always way ahead of us, but have you
guys talked to Stilson about what he thinks the ideal size would be for
the Acoustics?
Williams: We actually chalked off the stage footprint outside and had
Stilson come out and look at it and he was literally jumping up for joy
with the potential of something like this happening.
• Mayor: Okay. I mean, that is, I think our cheapest proposed project at
$50,000. I would happily support that permanent stage. I really like
the splash park idea as well. It is a bit expensive, but I think that would
be a huge draw during the summer for families to bring their children
downtown. Lansdowne Town Center has one and the Village at
Leesburg has one that is extremely popular. I assume that$200,000
price tag is based on what was spent at both of those venues? How did
we come up with the $200,000?
Williams: That was based on a manufacturer kit component or a
developer installing one of those as well as all the various utility costs
that would be associated with servicing the site.
• Mayor: Okay. Is there a way for us to find out what was spent at
Lansdowne and at Village at Leesburg for their splash parks?
Williams: We could definitely—if that was the option that Council
wanted to go with, we would definitely do further exploration and try
to get more firm numbers. We haven't had any specific engineering
done on the project, so it is more general estimation at this point.
Lafollette: We did ask Hobie about the one that was built at
Lansdowne and that one was somewhere between $40-80,000 because
it was in the bigger construction part. That was the actual construction
—he did not give me any design costs for it.
9IPage
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
• Mayor: Those are the two items that intrigue me personally. The
others, I mean they are all very nice ideas, but the total price tag is
pretty steep.
• Butler: I appreciate some of your enthusiasm. Like I said, a lot of these
are—we can always find say we have to spend x million dollars on this
road or that road or something—which are good for the town, but some
of these things like the splash park, you know, would literally help liven
up the town and give the town something to talk about and really
increase quality of life and buzz and just make it a nicer place to live. I
hate to think that we are always spending money on stormwater
management and curbs and painted lines and everything else and not
doing anything fun with the money. We should have some money that
we do fun things —you know, that really make it a better place to live. I
guess there is at least three of us that would be interested in moving
forward on the splash park and the stage. I guess I would vote probably
for all of them, but most of them would get one vote, I think at this
point. Is there any chance we can get a fourth vote from somebody to
move forward on these two things? I think it would really excite
downtown, both of these. I have gotten significant feedback from
residents that those are probably the two that they would want the
most.
• Fox: I could support the stage. I think it is a great idea. I think the
money the parks and rec spends to put up and take down the temporary
stage, the stage would pay for itself very quickly and it would be a nice
feature, so I could support that.
• Hammler: I have been a proponent of water features for many of the
reasons that have already been mentioned. I think it is going to be a
terrific draw in bringing people downtown and quality of life. I guess
my follow-up question, if parks and rec, Rich and Kate are prepared to
answer, has the analysis been done relative to there being enough space
in the Rose Garden—that being the best place to put it relative to
wanting it to be downtown. Any guidance from a professional point of
view you would like to provide?
Williams: From a safety perspective, the Rose Garden would offer a
better alternative to something on one of the plots of land on Mervin
Jackson Park in the front area just because of the proximity to Loudoun
Street. If we were to put it on the Rose Garden, we would probably
have to look at how to relocate some of the amenities that are currently
out there in order to make it fit properly and in order to make it flow
properly.
• Burk: Most certainly have to put a fence. You've got that section that
goes straight down.
Williams: That is something we would have to take in to account for
topography of the land as well as is it closer to the cabin than it would
be to the other side.
101Page
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
• Butler: That has got to be better than having it right out there near the
street.
• Fox: Just one more thought—the two splash parks that were referenced
—the one at Lansdowne and the one at Villages at Leesburg—those are
private parks and the insurance, I guess that is associated is assumed by
private entities and I would like to know what would happen with our
insurance costs too in relation to this.
• Martinez: I am not that excited about the water park, though. I am not
going to have any heartburn if, you know, Council supports it. I do like
the idea of the stage. The question I have is will there be power to the
stage? Will there be ability to hook up a PA system—in other words,
instead of having to bring all the stuff in, is there a way we will be able
to set it out?
Williams: We would definitely include power outlets onto the stage. I
don't know where we would need lighting. We would also explore the
option of maybe putting a permanent sleeve in the stage so that the
town Christmas tree could then move back to that location and be
mounted at that site. We could also explore the option of incorporating
mic jacks into the stage itself that we could then plug our speakers
directly into the side of the stage and get away with some of the cables
that run on top. There are a number of different options that we could
look at if we were given the go ahead.
• Burk: Obviously, I would support the two items.
• Dunn: I think they are good ideas. The only thing I would—what first
comes to mind is that I am not sure if I want a stage out in front of
town hall. I could possibly see putting it on the other end of the town
green, back by where the Christmas Tree goes or even considering it at
some other public parks that we may have, but to put it right in front of
Town Hall. I'm not sure about that. As far as the water feature goes, I
am not sure if putting it in the Rose Garden is going to get the attention
that we want. Maybe it would draw more attention over there, but I
think it would be one of those things that if you don't know about it,
you will never know about it. Because it is one of those things if you
don't see it, it will just get missed. Again, there might be some other
locations in town that we want to put in a water feature in one of our
other parks. That might be something to consider. I am not opposed to
the ideas,just maybe review the locations a little bit better.
• Mayor: Thanks. Dave, did you want to bring these two items forward
to a vote in the near future before the budget session starts up or do you
want to wait until the budget session?
• Butler: I guess it would depend on Council. The original list I put
together was dated like June 15, so it has taken us four months to get to
this point. You know, I just hate to delay too much and then keep
looking at it because we just never get it done and then downtown
continues to have reduced sales because there is no real attracters to
bring people down there. Just had so many people with small kids say
11 ( Page
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
look it would be wonderful if you had a splash park there. I'd bring my
kids down there, they would get tired out. I guess the two options are
we would bring it up for a vote, you know, at the next meeting. We
could ask Parks and rec or staff to flesh these out a little bit to get closer
to the real dollars. So, whatever Council would like. My preference
would be let's just vote on them tomorrow and move them along. I am
not sure we have four votes for that.
• Dunn: Do we have the funds for it?
• Butler: Yes, we have $500,000 in savings from Hope Parkway and
Sycolin Road Improvements, Phase III that we could use immediately
for these projects.
• Dunn: If we don't do spending elsewhere.
• Butler: Well, yes. If we don't spend them elsewhere. There is always
an elsewhere, is my point. There is always an elsewhere. You can
always spend it on something that sounds good, but we need some
things, especially downtown that are fun and will draw people and I
think the stage and the splash park are two perfect examples of things
that will really put some buzz downtown and help draw people there.
• Mayor: If you want to bring them up for a vote tomorrow night or if
you want to request that staff do more leg work on what they think the
best estimates are and come back to the next Council meeting, if staff is
able to accomplish that work in two weeks or so.
Staff answer: The only question I have, is there was some reference to
having the parks commission look at this. Is that something you want
done prior to the next meeting? I don't know what the schedule is,
Kate or Rich. Would they meet in the next two weeks?
Williams: No, they are the third Monday.
Dentler: If you want that, we can't make that other than to get
feedback. We can't get a formal endorsement prior to two weeks.
• Butler: Okay, why don't we see if you can revise the numbers by the
next Council meeting, then we can bring it up for a vote and see what
happens.
• Dunn: Planning and zoning and BAR, so they are going to be involved
in this too. So, I don't know where they will be in the mix. I don't
know if we have to rewrite zoning regulations to even allow this. Do
we know? We don't know.
Staff answer: We would find that out, as we do with any project. So,
we can have this back in two weeks for your consideration for a vote.
• Mayor: Then the only question I would have of Rich and Kate is, if my
great interest were the stage, how much lead time do you need to get a
stage constructed for next summer's Acoustic on the Green series?
Williams: I would need to speak with probably Bill Ference to get a
better idea on the timeline. In my initial conversations with him, he did
not feel it was that long of a development thing. So, I think that—
knock on wood, we could make something happen within that.
12 ! Page
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
c. King Street Downtown Improvement Project—Use of Parking Spaces
Scott Parker stated there is one decision point that needs to be made
with respect to the section of the Downtown Improvement Project between
Market and Loudoun Streets.
Key Points:
• There are 44 foot spaces at each end of the street that can accommodate
two vehicles.
• Spaces can be parking, loading or a combination thereof.
• Project will complete by Thanksgiving.
• Staff recommends utilizing the spaces for short term loading and
unloading of passengers and/or commercial goods.
• Short term is recommended to be 15, 20 or 30 minutes.
• No meters—appropriate signage will be installed.
• Merchants are supportive of using these spaces as short term.
Council Comments/Questions:
• Fox: If you gave me a choice, I would say 15 (minutes). I do have one
question. Under fiscal impact, there is a $15,000 estimated cost. Can
you explain that to me. You said signage would be minimal, but there
is something else associated with this cost. Can you explain what that
is?
Staff answer: Yes, ma'am. If you look at the ends, in this area right
here, what we have right now, is we have them ticked off on asphalt as
a typical parallel space you would see on the street. It would be our
intention at some time in the future, since we are increasing the size of
the intersections with the street print pattern, as well as the mid-block
crosswalk is already budgeted to have a street print pattern on it in the
future at some point, not yet defined, we think that it would be nice to
have those spaces delineated with a street print pattern like that. That
cost is $15,000 that is not currently budgeted.
• Fox: I see a good opportunity for public art,just saying.
• Hammler: The only person I heard from is Sola and she gave me a call
and asked if we would support 20 minutes to allow a good amount of
time for patrons that may want to get across the street and grab
something. So, I certainly could support 20 minutes. My one question
is what about enforcement to make sure they actually turn over?
Staff answer: The enforcement would be part of the routine of parking
enforcement that we would have downtown and we would have to be
diligent about that because the parking limitation would be during the
time that we currently enforce the parking meters, so it would be part of
our regular routine of the downtown and other parking meters with our
staff that would enforce that. They would make note of the cars parked
there and then make sure that they don't exceed that limit and I am
sure some of our merchants will help us with that as well.
13IPage
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
• Hammier: And the parking fine would be similar to if you stayed past
your metered time?
Staff answer: It would be consistent, but I don't remember what the
fine is at this point.
• Hammier: You'll report back if you find that people are abusing it, but
we will be monitoring it. Twenty minutes is my input.
• Martinez: Before I could answer that, I have to do a trial run on what it
takes me to order at China King, get in and out. I think that 20 minutes
should be enough.
• Burk: Okay, there is a line here that says staff has spoken to merchants
along the street and they have stated that regardless of how the spaces
are used, time limits should be short. When you say staff has spoken to
the merchants, are we talking about all the merchants, or certain
people?
Staff answer: It is not all of the merchants. I have spoken with the
Vintner. I have spoken with Sola. I have spoken with Mike O'Connor,
who is obviously a property owner and I have spoken with Waily and
Josh and Mindy and I had a conversation with Angel at the hotdog
place and Justin at the Wine Kitchen.
• Burk: Okay. And they all agreed that they wanted it to be a loading
zone, drop off zone, pick up zone as opposed to actual two parking
spaces.
Staff answer: That was not specifically—it's either passenger or
commercial loading/unloading as long as it was very short term.
• Burk: And that's what they stated—most of them stated that's what
they wanted?
Staff answer: Yes, Ma'am.
• Burk: And after 6 o'clock in the evening, what comes of those spaces?
Staff answer: They can be parked in as you can at the meters for an
undetermined amount of time.
• Burk: I would lean more towards 30 minutes only because really—
even though Marty was joking, going into the Wine Kitchen, picking
something up, or China King or even the Vintner, by the time you get
in there, get your merchandise, pay for it, talk to the person for a few
minutes, that time can go pretty quickly, so I would think if you
allowed 30 minute loading/unloading, that sort of thing, that would be
sufficient.
• Butler: I am okay with 20 minutes. I think shorter is better because in
real life since there is no meters and somebody has to visit you twice in
order to know you have been there longer than 20 minutes, in real life,
the 20 minutes will end up being longer. Let's say somebody goes
around every 20 minutes—on average it is going to be 30 minutes and it
could be up to 40 before you get visited twice, so I think 20 minutes is
fine. The short term parking is what we told everybody that we would
do, so that's good. The only question I would have is why would we
stop at 6 and not make it till like 9 or 10?
141Page
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
Staff answer: It was just our thought since the other meters stop at 6,
that it would be convenient to do the same thing, but it most certainly
could be signed until later in the evening.
• Burk: So, people couldn't park there until after 9, is what you are
suggesting?
Staff answer: Or it would be short term parking; however, we don't
have enforcement in the evening either, which would be the drawback
of that. That was one of the main reasons that was chosen as well.
• Butler: yeah, which is kind of too bad because you would still have,
you know, the Vintner is open a lot of the evenings now and China
King is open in the evenings. Some of these restaurants are open in the
evenings so I don't know, even though there is not necessarily
enforcement there, I would lean towards 20 minutes, but just say short
term parking 20 minutes period without putting a time specific on there.
That's what I would vote for.
• Dunn: Well, when you first asked Council to make a decision and put
this on the consent agenda, I thought that was very optimistic for you.
I am often reminded that our decision making process is much like
listening to an Arlo Guthrie song. They just go on and on and on. I
would—I could go either way— 15 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes.
Originally I thought 30 minutes would be good only because for folks
parking at the end of the street getting to the center of the block will
take a little longer. In some of my work that I have done in marketing
analysis, most stores that you go into, typical grocery stores, the time it
takes you to get into the store, find your product and check out and
usually the parking is fairly close is usually about 8-9 minutes. So,
could it be done in 15 minutes. Yeah, it probably could. But if the
merchants are looking at this being more of a loading zone, then yeah
that only needs to be 15 minutes, but if they are looking to go and eat, I
don't think you can get that done in 30 minutes anyway. If they are
just going to shop, yeah, they should be able to get that done in 20
minutes. It sounds like most folks are leaning towards the 20 minutes.
I can go with that. Originally, I felt that 30 minutes would be
acceptable if the merchants were looking at actually having people
come in and giving them enough time to shop. Because it could take a
little bit longer to find—unlike a grocery store, many of our shops
people don't necessarily know what they are going in to buy. These are
unique shops that take a little bit longer to look around. So, I would
probably lean more towards the 30 minutes, 20 minutes on the short
end.
• Mayor: I am comfortable with 20, so I think we have a majority for 20.
• Hammier: I am open to extending the time.
Staff answer: We will prepare a resolution for 20 minutes signed as 20
minute parking at all time or some other commensurate language that
meets standards.
15IPage
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
• Burk: So, you are now changing it so that it is not going to ever return
to parking during the evenings?
Staff answer: We need your direction.
• Burk: well, we had one person say that.
Staff answer: We are waiting on your direction.
• Burk: I would be opposed to doing that. I think that it should be some
point where we no longer have enforcement people anymore, it seems
unreasonable to expect that we would be able to enforce it and I don't
think that we should put things in place that we can't enforce, so I
would be inclined to say after 7 o'clock you can park there.
• Butler: I just want to remind folks that the point of these spots was
originally for pick up. It wasn't to stop and then go in and shop or go
and eat a sit down lunch or anything like that. It was to stop, go into a
place like China King, grab something that you have ordered and bring
it out or to go in and buy a case of wine that you ordered so you can
carry it out to your car and not have to walk very far. That is what the
intent of the parking spaces were and considering that you have to
multiply the time by one and a half because that is what the average
amount of time is going to be before you get cited. I think 30 minutes is
too long and certainly I could go with 15 or 20. Certainly I don't think
I'd want to encourage people to park there for hours in the evening and
perhaps take business away from the Vintner or China King.
• Mayor: So, I guess just go with 20 minutes and if a majority of Council
wants to amend that, they can. I agree with Dave as to the purpose of
these spaces. It was so that those that do a carry out loading business
were not overly injured by the widening of the sidewalk. So, you have
your direction.
Staff answer: I think I just need direction on—I think from what I have
heard about what the signs are going to state about when we are going
to stop. Is it going to be until 6 like the meters is or is it going to be at
all times.
• Burk: I would like to have a chance to go and talk to the merchants
myself and I probably should have done that before, but I didn't know
we were going to do the time. So, if you could wait until tomorrow
since I seem to be the one that has the main objection to it, of course,
since maybe I'm the only one you don't want to care anyway.
• Martinez: I would make a recommendation that it is 20 minutes, stops
at 6 and if there are any friendly amendments, we can do it tomorrow
night.
• Mayor: I'd say 20 minutes, stops at 9.
• Hammier: I'd say 20 minutes, that's what it is all the time. Honor
system.
• Mayor: We are building support for stopping at 9 p.m.
• Butler: We can always change it. 20 minutes, 9 p.m.
161Page
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
d. 2016 Legislative Agenda
Keith Markel presented the proposed legislative agenda and positions
statement.
Key Points and Council Comments:
➢ Staff is recommending that the first two items from last year's agenda
are removed—the first dealing with the Northern Virginia
Transportation Authority. There was not broad-based support for this
from the legislative representatives.
➢ The second recommended deletion is transit funding because there are
a lot of other mechanisms in place that are working well at the current
time.
➢ Restoration of HB599 Law Enforcement Assistance Funding is
recommended to remain in.
• Mayor: How much money have we been losing every year from when
they started cutting back on the 599?
Staff answer: I think we did that last year, so we will just add to that.
➢ Revision of Local Fines and Fees —Would like a better idea of how that
money comes back. Meeting has been set up with the Clerk of Court to
discuss the local process.
➢ Private Unmanned Aircraft Drones—the town continues to support
legislation that would allow local regulation of drones.
• Burk: Isn't the FAA coming up with regulations, as we speak? They
are supposed to have it before December.
Staff answer: They are working on it. I hadn't heard that. I think they
were looking at early 2016. Maybe the [inaudible] statement? I know
that the time keeps pushing out.
• Burk: I just heard a report on it that was by December, they hope to
have their first one.
• Martinez: There have been active policies and stuff with drones and all
that, but the biggest issue that we have is whether locally we have any
authority to do anything outside the FAA policies and their regulations
and I don't think their regulations [inaudible] for local applications.
Staff: Or trespassing. I think it was somewhat of the issue we really
were looking at here, because right now the drone is a trespassing
vehicle.
• Martinez: That's a general laws issue—how the state can define local
[inaudible]. The biggest problem is not just the trespassing but the
height of the drones. Whether, you know, for example, if the drone is
being used to look at a ranch and maybe happens as it is turning fly
over another person's property and they shoot it down, you know what
are the rights of the person who owns the drone who is actually doing it
for the ranch or farm versus somebody who feels they are being
threatened or trespassing. Where is the no harm done? There is a lot of
171Page
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
questions to be asked, but we do need to have that defined and us have
the authority.
Notar: Like last year, if FAA regulations are looming, they probably
won't do anything again this year. We thought it was important to
keep it on your agenda so that it is on the forefront and other
jurisdictions are doing the same.
• Mayor: I think Marty makes a really good point when he makes a
distinction between the realm in which the FAA logically would
regulate for the purpose of safety of other aircraft versus the realm in
which we would try to regulate to try to protect the privacy of our
citizens. Those are two very different issues and I think we should keep
pushing for the ability to define trespass as trespass in the air above
your property and be able to go after people for hovering outside
windows or over decks or whatever. Let's keep it in there.
➢ BPOL taxes—no changes from last year.
➢ Construction of grade separated interchanges—recommend that it be
moved to the positions statement feeling that in 2016, we are not ready
for the construction of the three interchanges.
• Mayor: To back up this recommendation for the purpose of both the
Council and our delegation, it is probably a good idea to just have a
paragraph reminding us all that design and engineering funding is not
construction funding and here is how much we have gotten approved
through NVTA for say design or engineering when we might anticipate
that work being completed. Just a synopsis of each of these three
projects and those three levels, unless we are doing some kind of
design/build, Renee, which I don't know if we are or not. But, we are
going to forget that there is a difference between design, engineering
and construction. We will just say okay we got money for these
interchanges, but we probably should break it down just so we will
know what to say to our legislators so they know as well.
• Hammier: I thought this fall, and right in the middle of it, we were
going to get the full report on the Route 15 north bypass that included
the statistics about license plates so that we could have strong wording
encouraging even our state delegation to seek federal funding for this
interstate problem as well as the other components besides just the
interchange because that was part of the recommendations that we
were going to be looking at.
Staff answer: It is on the December 7 work session.
• Hammier: And there is no way we could push that forward so that we
have more information to be able to prepare our delegation for what we
need?
Staff answer: That information was provided in your packet, I believe
at the last Council work session. We certainly can provide that, yes.
• Hammier: That needs to be part of our discussion then, at our dinner.
You said you did provide it?
181 Page
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
Staff answer: We provided an informational memo I think at the last
meeting and we can resend that and certainly provide it as part of this.
That is no problem.
Lafollette: The traffic study that VDOT is in the process of doing—we
have not received that from VDOT yet. When it was initially
submitted to VDOT, VDOT rejected it and sent it back to the engineer
as being incomplete. So, we are still waiting for that study to come in
and we do not have a date from VDOT of when they expect that back
in yet, but we will call tomorrow and see if we can track it.
➢ Water quality funding, which includes a number of different issues
(TMDLs, MS-4 Permits)—no change from last year.
➢ Recommending for removal temporary family healthcare structures,
which has not been an issue and tree save efforts.
• Burk: that's a shame to lose that one. To not try to work on that one.
• Mayor: Are you thinking the first one?
• Burk: Correct.
• Mayor: I tend to agree with Kelly. I am reluctant to drop the first one
on amendments to the state code that would grant localities the
authority to require new construction projects to save existing trees. I
think it would be good to have that authority. I have always felt we
didn't have the authority we needed and our citizens tend to really
mourn the loss of trees. I am reluctant to sit up here and say let's stop
fighting for it. Let's see. Where is the rest of Council on this?
• Fox: I could support keeping that measure.
• Martinez: [inaudible]
• Dunn: I am okay with staff's position.
• Mayor: Sounds like we will keep it there.
Staff answer: Okay, so we will keep one and remove two.
➢ Bills of financial impact to the town—no change from last year.
➢ Bicyclist Safety (Dooring)—no change from last year.
> Dam Safety Funding and Regulations—looking at how the state can
support the town when faced with very high costs with dam safety
issues. Public Works and Capital Projects staff is working on the text
language.
➢ Chesapeake Bay TMDL and State Water Quality Management
Planning Regulations—Make sure that no bills are introduced that
would change the regulations for existing plants.
• Mayor: In this case, I agree where this is going, but I also would
support a request—useless request though it may be, for federal and
state help in meeting the TMDL requirements since it was a
federal/state decision to impose all of that on us. But I don't know if
we are specifically in any of this language...
Staff answer: F has it under water quality funding. We could go in and
put it in more specific language.
• Mayor: Just do a reference to the whole TMDL issue.
191Page
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
• Hammier: That just cross referenced to C, opposing any unfunded
mandates, but they are really just not—there is no consistency with
being emphatic about that point as it relates to you know these
catastrophic fees that are coming down to us that there is no funding
for. I don't know how we can make it stronger language, but I would
support that.
• Fox: You know that Delegate Minchew has some oversight legislation
that he is working on and he has asked for some support on. From
what I can read, it is one part protest, one part nullification, one part
directive to the DEQ so I thought maybe we could ask him more about
this during that dinner and find out if that is something maybe we could
support.
• Mayor: Remind us to ask him that.
Staff answer: Are there any items that you would be interested in
having us put together text for the agenda itself?
• Hammier: I would support reinserting the language about lifting the
moratorium on city status.
• Butler: I would agree.
• Dunn: That's fine.
• Mayor: It looks like we have at least a majority.
• Dunn: The other thing I was going to mention too, in this, especially
with some of the issues that we are seeing going around our country
quite a bit. We have the item now about the localities prohibiting fire
arms on public property. Right now, we already have laws in place that
do this—such as schools. It is already prohibited, but often where these
shooters show up—they target places they know there is going to be
very little opposition. The Colorado shooter specifically chose gun free
theater to attack knowing that there was going to be no opposition.
Somebody who wants to do harm is not going to be swayed by an
ordinance. They are out to do harm. And we already have regulations
too about you can't discharge a firearm inside the town limits anyway.
I am not in support of this. I understand on the surface it sounds like it
is good to do that we are going to actually prevent something, but we
really don't. If anything, we could cause government employees,
government localities to become targets for those people who mean to
do harm knowing that they will have less opposition there. So, I would
recommend taking that off of our list. Are we still trying to pursue
these things? Is that what this second section is?
Staff answer: This is the position statement. Those are the broader
positions that the town would take—not specifically asking for any
legislation to be drafted but should the issue come up, this would be the
consensus of the Council so that we would know where you all stand
on the issue.
• Dunn: I would rather we just stand silent on it just because I think it
could create more of a target for what would otherwise seem like a
good idea, but just looking at what is going on out there across the
20IPage
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
country when they know that you don't have a way of defending
yourself, those that mean to do harm definitely go after those folks.
• Mayor: I tend to agree with Tom, but I am not sure the rest of the
Council will. Does anybody else support Tom's thoughts on this? Not
hearing anything...
Staff answer: We will leave that in.
Notar: I am sorry. I thought we had taken off"T", the Eminent
Domain appraisal process. That caused a stir last year, if you recall. It
was opposed by the Eminent Domain attorneys that represent localities
and it caused problems when they were trying to pass other things that
would assist localities. It was only on the position statement, but I
guess somehow it was brought to the attention—as part of our
legislative agenda, so I would ask that be removed.
• Mayor: You want to remove T. So, we would no longer support an
amendment to the state code that would require parties in
condemnation to agree upon a single independent appraiser.
• Hammler: The genesis of this was how costly it is for taxpayers. So,
could you please clarify you are just saying lawyers were not happy
with this?
Notar: It absolutely is a wonderful aspiration, but the state code has so
many specific provisions for when parties can get appraisals, it would—
the state code would have to dramatically change and this provision has
caused a lot of stir in the general assembly -by VML. VML wrote to
me. Sandy Cherry, Sharon Pandak. They all wrote to me and said
where did this come from? It took up a lot of time. While it is a lofty
aspiration, it is not something that will happen in the near future. I am
sorry. It won't. So, they asked me to remove it so that it wouldn't
come up again.
• Hammler: Well, we are here to represent Leesburg and taxpayers.
• Mayor: Barbara, do you recall— did we have the support of Delegate
Minchew on this?
• Hammier: I think he brought forward the language, if my memory
serves me correctly.
Notar: He may have.
• Hammier: I will ask him at the dinner.
Notar: Fine. And I will speak to him beforehand as well.
• Hammler: Well, we would prefer to just probably have that discussion,
I would think.
• Dunn: I don't necessarily agree with this either because eminent
domain is bad in itself, but then forcing that property owner to take one
appraisal, really I think takes away their ability to put up their own
defense. I am not in support of that either.
• Fox: I agree.
• Dunn: But, I have another one, if you are ready to move on. On the—
again, Item S, it is a lofty thing. I put it up there with flowers and
butterflies. We all love them. Great idea, but the idea that you are
21 IPage
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
going to have redistricting or anything labeled non-partisan is a
complete fallacy. In fact, what it creates is a curtain by which those
who want to be most partisan can hide behind. So, to have people go
out there and think that we now have redistricting that is non-partisan,
happy, happy day. Let's all sing songs. It doesn't exist. As long as
there is parties and political influence, there will always be partisanship.
So, any attempts to claim that there is not partisanship is really a way of
hiding the truth from the public, so I definitely can't support that.
Thank you.
• Mayor: I look at the language and it doesn't really say anything. It
doesn't say set up a nonpartisan body to redistrict. I am not sure that
the way it is drafted, it does anything at all, but I don't know how the
rest of Council feels about it.
• Hammier: Last year, we inserted it because it was exactly the language
the VML Executive Committee adopted based on the Virginia 2020
initiative, which is gaining a tremendous amount of traction. If it
would be helpful, I could go back and see if there is any updated
language, but there is growing momentum behind this initiative, so I
would certainly support keeping it in and if needed we can make a
stronger language.
• Mayor: Anybody else on this one? Alright, I guess keep it in for the
time being. Katie, if they have come up with stronger language— or
Keith, if you can try to track that down, it might be helpful. Anybody
else have anything they want changed? Alright, is sounds like we are
good.
2. Additions to Future Council Meetings
Council Member Fox: Had no additions.
Council Member Hammier: Had no additions.
Council Member Martinez: First I wanted to go ahead and bring up the VFW
to make sure that we have a chance to put that on the agenda for tomorrow night.
Mayor: And what sum are you asking?
Dentler: I believe it was $770.
There was consensus to add the fee waiver for the VFW Volksmarch to the agenda for
Tuesday night.
Council Member Martinez: I got an email from a resident on predatory
towing companies that are out there doing predatory towing without any—it was in
the email—it caught my eye—when my son was at Radford, he had parked the car
and came back and it was being towed. They hadn't even hooked up. It was within
three or four minutes, but they had not even hooked up. They actually tried to collect
22IPage
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
cash from him at the parking thing. He called me and we worked it out, but that kind
of thing—I don't know what we can do about it, but I guess if there is a memo or we
want to discuss it. However, we approach it, I think it is probably good discussion to
see if there are this kind of issues in the town and if there are, what we can do to help.
Notar: Yes, I read the email as well and I don't know that—I have not heard
of those issues in this town, but we can certainly...
Martinez: I don't know who we get the complaints from—people that it has
happened to, but I know a lot of times when that happens, instead of paying a $300
towing bill, they would much rather give $50-75 cash and the guy walks away and
that happens a lot. That happens a lot in Radford and Blacksburg in some instances.
A lot of it is around people who cannot afford to go out there and take time off so just
some information. I would like to know if we have had these kind of issues before in
town.
Burk: We could also—when I was on the Board of Supervisors, I actually got
all the towing companies together and the Sheriff's Department and we met on a
regular basis to go over the issues and they were pretty substantial issues in the
county. I know that John Sandy probably still has all that information. It got right
down to the end and we were ready to sign the agreement and we had the election.
So, they may have already done—I know they did a lot of the research and it was
very difficult. It was really a difficult process getting all those tow guys in, but in the
end they were ready to sign an agreement. I don't know if that would help.
Mayor: So, Marty at this point you are looking for information from staff?
Martinez: Right.
Mayor: How extensive a memo do you want?
Martinez: A quick phone call saying Marty there is not an issue would be
enough for me.
Butler: I am sure if you polled the town, there has been complaints from a
number of HOAs. They would consider it predatory towing, whether it stoops to the
low level that Marty mentioned in Radford, I don't know. But, I would be interested
in knowing—I know it is all on private property, but is there things that we could do?
Could we require, I don't know, a certain amount of notice before somebody gets
towed? Could we require, you know, before a towing company tows a car within
town that they have some authorization—maybe it is written or electronic
confirmation from the owner of the property or something like that, because I have
heard that a lot of times people go and they park somewhere and they get towed and
they had no idea it was a tow zone and it becomes very hazy who called the towing
company and got permission and sometimes its just a neighbor calling up and getting
towed out of a parking spot that they don't actually have authority over, but the
23 1Page
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
towing company comes and takes the car and then they have the car so what else can
the guy do? So those kinds of things, it's just not good. So yeah, some information
memo on what we could require towing companies to do might be helpful and if we
can't do anything, maybe it is something we want to add to our legislative agenda.
There was Council consensus for a complete informational memo.
Council Member Martinez: I would like for us to put together a resolution
supporting legislation for Virginia to participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative. Just so you know, I got a note that said that VML passed a supportive
resolution a couple of weeks ago—this was September 29. It has been since mid-
September, but VML voted for a resolution supporting.
There was Council consensus to add this to the agenda in two weeks.
Vice Mayor Burk: Had no additions.
Council Member Butler: I would like to nominate Daphne McQuarter for the
EDC. Sorry, I didn't tell you before, but my reminder emails were apparently going
to her spam.
It was clarified that she no longer serves on the.Commission on Public Art.
There was Council consensus to add this to Tuesday night's agenda.
Council Member Butler: I wouldn't mind if staff researched some of the
concerns, and issues and possibilities might be for alcohol on a portion of the widened
sidewalk on King Street. I know that's a little more complex of an issue than what we
did with La Lou Bistro, but I am sure there is going to be restaurants and the Vintner
that will ask so at least we should have the answer or at least we should have
information from staff.
Notar: We started that research a couple of years ago. It is complex so I'll ask
for a little time.
There was Council consensus to add this to a future agenda.
Council Member Dunn: I would like to have a discussion in the near future
on our annexation goals. We have an annexation committee. Haven't done much
with it. Haven't met with the county on it. Really find out from Council what our
desires are for annexation within our JLMA or within other areas that may be around
the town.
Hammier: I have disclosed a couple of times different phone calls about
specifically the O'Connor property. I was just waiting to get an update on that
because I didn't think there was an answer yet. I certainly would support the
24IPage
Council Work Session October 26, 2015
discussion. I just would want it timed when we have the relevant information for
Council.
There was Council consensus to add this to a future agenda.
3. Closed Session
On a motion by Mayor Umstattd, seconded by Council Member Butler, the following
was proposed:
Pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(a)(1)and(7)of the Code of Virginia, I move that the
Leesburg Town Council convene in a closed meeting for the purpose of discussion and receiving
information regarding:
a) Personnel Matters
b) Consultation with legal staff and staff members pertaining to probable litigation
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Burk, Butler, Dunn, Fox, Hammler, Martinez, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None.
Vote: 7-0
The Council convened in closed session at 9:13 p.m.
The Council reconvened in open session at 10:56 p.m. Council Member Dunn
left the meeting prior to reconvening.
On a motion by Mayor Umstattd, seconded by Council Member Martinez, the following
was proposed:
In accordance with Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia, I move that Council certify
that to the best of each member's knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted
from open meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and such public
business matters as were identified in the motion by which the closed meeting was convened were
heard, discussed or considered in the meeting by Council.
The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
Aye: Burk, Butler, Fox, Hammler, Martinez, and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None.
Vote: 6-0-1 (Dunn absent)
On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council Member Butler, the
meeti : w adjourne at 10:56 p.m.
Clerk of Council
2015 tcwsmin1027
25 IPage