Loading...
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