HomeMy Public PortalAbout2016_tcwsmin0208 Council Work Session February 8, 2016
Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:30 p.m. Mayor David Butler presiding.
Council Members Present: Kelly Burk, Thomas Dunn, II, Suzanne Fox, Katie
Sheldon Hammier, Marty Martinez and Mayor Butler.
Council Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Deputy Town Manager Keith Markel,
Town Attorney Barbara Notar, Director of Finance and Administrative Services
Clark Case, Captain Vanessa Grigsby, Assistant Town Manager Scott Parker and
Director of Planning and Zoning Susan Berry Hill and Executive Associate Tara
Belote.
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Items for Discussion
a. Financial Overview: David Rose, Town's Financial Consultant
Kaj Dentler this is the first step in the budget process, which gives an
overview of the town's financial picture.
David Rose, Davenport and Company, presented the annual
comprehensive financial overview.
Key Points:
• $47 million dollar financing was accomplished in the spring of 2015 to
be used for both the general fund and utility enterprise fund.
• Town was upgraded to AAA by Fitch and Moody's, as well as
reaffirmed by Standard and Poors.
• These three rating agencies are the only ones that rate local
governments.
• $7 million are identified in the Capital Improvements Program for
future capital borrowing over the next five years.
• Rating is a four part process:
o Management—staff and Council.
o Finance—budget versus expenditures.
o Debt—how funded.
o Demographics.
• AAA rating reflects policy, planning and management.
• Over the next 10 years, the town will pay off nearly 70% of the
principal debt.
• The Town's debt as a percentage of assessed value, is well below the
policy level and projected to not increase.
• Possibilities exist for refunding to achieve lower interest rates on some
debt.
1 Page
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
• Requesting permission to move forward with the Virginia Resource
Authority to investigate refunding the Series 2011 Bonds, which could
result in approximately $485,000 in net savings.
Council Questions/Comments:
• Butler: On page 20, it says application is due by February 5. It is past
February 5. Did we already apply just in case or is the date a little
wiggly.
Consultant answer: The date is spongeable for us. We talked to VRA
and said that there is going to be a Council meeting this evening and
asked if we could hold off submitting it until such time as we just had a
general concurrence and they are fine with that. We don't really need
anything truly formal, but we thought it would be the most sensible
thing to let you, as a council, see that we are thinking about this.
• Butler: And this is not any new debt? This is just a refinancing of
current debt?
Consultant answer: It is a refinancing of current debt solely to bring
down the interest rate—no extension of the final maturity at all.
• Butler: Okay. And so you don't need any formal resolution or
anything. All you need is four head nods from Council?
Consultant: Yes, sir.
• Dunn: And that is the program that does not have any cost to refund
it?
Consultant answer: Yes, sir.
• Martinez: One of the questions I have is on the 2011 series, it says
there are different vehicles in which different interest rates. Are you
looking to combine all of those and are we looking to combine different
vehicles under utilities [inaudible] are we going to combine them into
two buckets or are we going to combine them into one bucket?
Consultant answer: What typically happens is that issue already has
those two pieces combined. That is why 2/3 are utility and a third is
[inaudible] so what happens is when it comes to the actual accounting
of that, our staff will know that if there is, let's say, $20,000 of savings —
you will know that a proportionate share goes into the general fund
savings and a proportionate share goes to utilities. Just like right now,
you have a bond issue, you a proportionate share debt service on both
of those.
• Martinez: When you are talking about combining the packages, you
are now talking about combining the different interest rates into a single
interest rate?
Consultant answer: No, actually what we are talking about is you have
a range of interest rates from 3.75 to 5 percent
• Martinez: Where that vehicle is located depends on [inaudible].
Consultant answer: I am just giving you collectively, if the next series
of interest rates do not produce a certain absolute level of savings, then
you would not get them.
2JPage
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
• Martinez: So, in other words, if I took a loan out for a car and a loan
out for a boat from different banks or whatever, and there are lower
interest rates —you are working to lower those interest rates, save
money on the payment, but they are still going to be allocated to those
different banks.
Consultant: Absolutely. That's right.
• Martinez: That's what I want to make sure. Now, since you are doing
it at different areas, are we sure the closing costs would be covered in
any savings?
Consultant: Let me give you some good comfort on that. Whenever
we do a refinancing—not only do we have to certify as your financial
advisors, but more importantly then ourselves, what happens is there is
an independent accounting firm that certifies all of the numbers, if you
will. And so, that firm, would—it is called verification agent—and that
verification agent prepares a report and that report is part of the overall
final documents, so therefore, you don't have to take my word for it for
the underwriters. That is how it is.
• Martinez: what I am doing, is I am trying to put it in words that our
citizens can understand. I know you make an assumption that you do
your due diligence, you wouldn't be proposing these if we didn't really
actually see savings, but I guess I just wanted to put on the record that
is what we are doing. In fact, we do have different vehicles and each
vehicle has its own interest rate. We are looking to lower each interest
rate for an overall savings. It would be different if I was trying to
refinance five different things and all the closing costs accumulate. It
doesn't really save me a whole lot and it may not even be worth the
effort, but I am trying to just say is that it is worth the effort—even
though there are different vehicles and interest rates are lower. We are
still going to save even though there are four or five different things we
are looking at. The overall savings is still enough that we should do
this.
Consultant: And if it is not enough, then what will happen simply is
when VRA does their financing, because that financing includes not
just you, but maybe 20 or so other parties. You are not going to be
alone. You will also be looking at folks who want new money
[inaudible]. So, as a result, what will happen is basically right around
the day of that sale, it will happen on a certain day.
• Martinez: That's the call date or the cut off?
Consultant: That's the sale date. So, on the sale date, right before the
sale date, the actual underwriter's and ourselves would take a look at
the marketplace and if we determine that we would not meet that
threshold savings, then your piece of the pool, if you would, simply gets
dropped out. That's what happens.
• Martinez: Then the question then is —I am looking at that. The call
date is the date in which you can seek refinancing with no penalties. Is
3 1Page
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
that correct? And so, the assumption is that the bond has met the call
date. I guess that is what I am getting at.
Consultant: Let me just clarify. The call date is basically a
demarcation date at which time there are certain triggers depending on
the bond issue. So, for example the one that is actually due—final
maturity of 2020, the call date is not until next fall. So, if we are to go
to the marketplace, and I will talk about that in a minute, we may find
that because it is prior to the call date, we would have to borrow or
refinance what is called a tax [inaudible]. Now, at the call date or just a
few months before the call date, we are able to refinance that on a tax
exempt basis. That has to do with how we issued [inaudible]. But the
point is the call date is a critical date. Now, that doesn't mean even if
the call date, that there may not be some penalties, but that has already
factored in, so when I go back to that concept of outsiders like ourselves
making sure that this does or doesn't work—we are required, if you
want us to, to make sure that there is no hidden fees, no surprises, no
hidden costs. If you factor all that in, right now, what we are saying is
we think it is worthwhile to put the application in. It is borderline right
now, if it even warrants. So, we will see.
• Martinez: The last thing I am going to mention because I know there
are certain council members that are falling asleep at our discussion, but
I kind of like it myself. But, [inaudible] to note when you talk about
different vehicles, we are talking about the loan—the mechanism which
we get the loan. So, using my analogy of the boat and the car—the car
may be five years. The boat may be 10 years, but we are not talking
about lowering the length of the loan,just the savings of the loan. Later
on, we can talk about maybe putting a little more cash up front to
shorten the date of the loan, if we have that capability.
• Burk: Could you answer the question on the bonds. Are there ever any
salaries as part of the bonds? In the bonds themselves, is there ever a
salary associated into a bond?
Consultant: When you say salary, I am not sure I know what you
mean.
• Burk: Let's do an example of a utility. They have a project. They have
put out the bond and they get the bond. But in that, do they—is there
any inclusion of salaries in that?
Consultant: Operating salaries? No, no. Typically when it comes to a
bond issue to meet tax exemption, which is how bonds are issued, what
you find is they are for capital purposes to have a life expectancy to be
equal to if not longer than the actual bond issue itself. So, not typically
will you see salaries in there.
Clark Case: That is part of the cost of building objects so our project
management costs have been [inaudible].
• Burk: Are these salaries?
Clark Case: [inaudible] managing the projects.
4IPage
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
• Burk: So, in some of these bonds, we are putting salaries and the bond
can go 20-30 years and we are including the salary in there?
Clark Case: It is part of the cost of building a project. [inaudible] 80%
of those [inaudible] costs are the costs of building a project. It shows in
the CIP—if you look at the CIP document. To answer your question,
yes. Management costs are capitalized in with the project. That is not
what he is talking about here [inaudible] in this case all we are talking
about doing is going to market and refinancing at a lower rate of
interest. That money has already been spent and capitalized.
• Burk: So, I'll bring this up as we discuss other things.
Clark Case: That would be correct. It would be part of the budget
process.
• Fox: I just had one quick question about the interest rates. You said
the federal reserve was actually thinking about—you know, there is
some indication that they may raise them at some point in time. These
interest rates that you are talking about are just particularly locked in as
fixed and not variable, correct?
Consultant: Correct. The only thing we are talking about here for both
of these potential refinancings is locking it in to the final maturity so
you have no interest rate exposure once the debt is issued. That is
correct. So, the second piece I alluded to earlier is the series 2006Bs.
They have been refinanced before. We see again possible activities.
Again, the final maturity is out at 2020. One of the things we are
talking about—the approach is something we have done before with the
town, and that is the ref bank loan approach, which we would actually
go out to the local or regional banks with your good credit and see if
there is an interest on their part to give us an interest rate that is low
enough that it would again meet that threshold of 3% or higher. Once
again, our thoughts here as we talked to staff was nothing ventured,
nothing gained. I am not here tonight primarily about refunding. My
focus really this evening was to talk about how the town looks, what
the capacity is going forward, but again because rates are so favorable,
we wanted to sort of kill two birds with one stone and be here tonight to
talk about this as well. So, this is another possibility—we will continue
to monitor this. We know that some of the local banks might be
[inaudible]. We have seen that in the past. We are asking them to
consider an interest rate that we think would be very aggressive. I
won't specify that— only to them. But hopefully we will see where we
go with this with your blessing. So, again, this wasn't a formal
application—this just is an action that we collectively would take with
staff. So, that's our focus on that. Happy to [inaudible] with some
details.
• Fox: I did have one question—back on the debt capacity page—I
believe that's page 16. You were saying currently our debt capacity is
$7.3 million, correct?
Consultant: That's for the next five years.
51Page
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
• Fox: For the next five years. And the jump in almost seven fold over
the next decade. Could you explain that a little bit more to me?
Consultant: The best way to see that—if you take a look at page 11.
You will notice there, if you will, Council Member Fox, that between
2017 and basically 2021, you'll notice we don't really have a whole lot.
But then, if you think about the next five years —think about that—
that's what you are looking at right there. A whole lot larger amount of
capacity because that debt is dropping down.
• Fox: And that's projected because of the policies we have in place right
now?
Consultant: Yes.
• Fox: If we don't make changes whatsoever?
Consultant: It goes back to that right here. You are paying off a
considerable amount of debt over the next 10 years. So, it puts you in a
position for the subsequent 10-20 years to take on a good amount of
debt.
• Hammler: Thank you for the annual report. It is always great having
you back, David. Just to kind of net out as we are preparing to enter
the budget cycle. If I look at only having$7 million in debt capacity for
the next five years, basically, that's not very much considering the cost
of any projects so we need to just bear that in mind as a Council that we
are certainly not going to be in a position to add any new capital
project. But, I know that we had identified some extra cash funds that
could go towards those projects. Those sorts of numbers would be
helpful if any Council member wanted to prioritize, you know, what
might be the potential projects this year or the next five years.
Otherwise, I think we are doing a lot of belt tightening.
• Martinez: Get ready to fall asleep. You mentioned our debt ratio is
dropping. In other words, the relationship between the amount of debt
we have to the amount of revenue we generate is going to be—the
amount you need to borrow is less. In other words, the ratio —the
common thing you said that's everything is our debt ratio is dropping. I
am assuming what that is saying is that instead of 12 percent debt ratio
to our revenues—we are really dropping to 10, 11, 12 or 10, 11, 8, 9,
that the ratio is actually dropping. Is that the right way to look at that?
Consultant:[inaudible], if you go to page 13 here—or 14 might be
better. So, if you go on in 2017, you notice there that you've a small
amount of debt capacity to stay under that 15%. Well, the good news is
that [inaudible] ever so slightly over the next couple of years. So, what
that does is it gives us additional capacity without approaching the
15%. You'll notice that [inaudible] is that$7 million. That's a quarter
million to 3 million that I am talking about. So, we layer that in. So,
what we are seeing is this right here is that additional capacity over and
above what you have planned. So, you've got what your council
colleague just said, a modest amount of additional capacity for
whatever reason and then it raises considerably.
61Page
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
• Martinez: Right, and I guess the point I am getting at is you've had
some expenditures out there - $3 million or somewhat out there and my
thought was if our debt ratio is decreasing and we are borrowing more
money, why are we having to borrow? Is it because the amount of
money we need to borrow—we need to space out over a bond over 20
years because we can't afford to borrow that money and you know, or
we can't afford as a town to pay off that money in one lump sum?
Clark Case: The town has imposed on itself a 15% of general fund
expenditures limit on debt. That is one of the things that has helped us
to get triple A bond ratings. So, that's our fiscal discipline. It is where
we have drawn the line and said this is the appropriate level if we want
to keep high bond ratings. High bond ratings are really important
because that allows us to borrow at 2.6% instead of at 5%. So, it helps
the town financially a very great deal. But we bump right up against
that limit, the additional debt issuance is what is necessary to fill out the
CIP that I currently have before the Council. So, that money was
programmed in assuming that we stay close to that 15% level.
• Martinez: When you see the gap that is in the outer years growing, that
doesn't mean it is going to stay that way.
Consultant: Correct, but what it does is it puts you in a good position.
• Martinez: To add more capital projects, do more infrastructure stuff.
The question there is, is our town growing? Right now, all this is
projected in 50,000 or are you taking into consideration the increase in
population?
Consultant: If you look at the footnote there. We have assumed
expeditures of 2.5% annually.
• Martinez: So, we have to keep our expenses under a 2.5% increase
every year?
Consultant: That's the option. If your expenditures grow past
[inaudible] then this actually gets better.
• Martinez: Oh, I see. I get it. I know I've got a couple more questions,
but I want to see how long it takes to get Kelly [inaudible]. The only
thing else I got is the reason you got such great ratings and interest rates
[inaudible] is because of processes we currently have in place. So, this
question is two-fold. What can we do to improve it, if we can—what
could, you know, to lower it—to hurt our financial rating—what would
we have to do to do that. In other words, if we sat there and we said
our general fund—our rainy day fund—we are going to just spend it out
and not have one.
Consultant: Let me give you a first [inaudible]. What can you do
better? I really think in fairness, you are doing things very, very well.
Otherwise, all three agencies wouldn't give you triple A. If you got one
and the others were outliers, no. So, that's first thing.
• Martinez: So, there is very little margin for improvement, is what I am
trying to get out.
71Page
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
Consultant: I think the margin for improvement in any entity, I suspect
anyone [inaudible]. But that said, I think really what I am focusing on
is your second question. And that is, what do you do or what could
happen to exceed that or erode. Erosion could occur if you do several
things. One of several things or a combination. One is, you broach
your policies. Broaching your policies—and I don't mean for one
particular year, you go slightly above it—that's not what I mean. You
basically, fundamentally, systematically broach that penalty—broach
that and you'll be penalized for it. The second thing is if you do not
produce in subsequent years a balanced budget. If you produce
balanced budgets, that's going to be critical. You want to make sure
that annual revenues are sufficient enough to meet annual expenditures.
I think the third thing they care a lot about, which is why we addressed
that last January, was that unassigned fund balance. You make sure
that your rainy day fund is not [inaudible] but you enhanced it. So, if
you were to ask me this question a year ago and we talked about this—
what can we do to be better, I think that may have been the question
some of you asked—the question would have been answered by us—we
would like to recommend that you move to 20% over time with your
[inaudible]. And you as a Council did that and that was cemented by
the rating agencies. So, again, they gave you the benefit of the doubt
because they like what you do. Go the opposite way and you'll hurt
yourself. The only thing else I would add— [inaudible].
• Martinez: When you are looking at these ratings—are they not just
looking at the dollars? Or they also looking at the operational processes
in place for the different departments, so if we were as a council to alter
any of those, that could also impact our rating? Is that true?
Consultant: They look at management and so part of management is
they expect you to demonstrate that over the next five years, all those
collective departments that constitute the town's operations would be
operating in a manner that is, again, self-supporting. Operating and
meeting all these. So, they don't drill down [inaudible].
• Martinez: They are just looking at our processes and making sure that
—their rating is based on our ability to maintain those management
processes over the next five years so if we started instituting policies to
change that, that could impact our ratings. And that is what I am
trying to get at.
• Dunn: On page 16, why did the debt capacity go from 14 in 25 to 5 in
26?
Consultant: Okay, because what you look at is what we said was is
each particular year, we were at as much debt as we possibly could to
get up to that line and next year, the debt is starting to be paid off we
get a little more pop. That's just the way it works. We could have
made it simpler for you and just said over five years is $45 million, but
each particular year, that's how the debt drops down.
• Dunn: Okay, I notice it is rising each year?
81Page
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
Consultant: Yeah, in some ways. 22 and 23 are about the same. It
goes up in 24 and 25, but then again 26, it drops down. That's because
again we have added a whole lot of debt, theoretically in 2025. So, it is
the way the debt is structured.
• Dunn: But we don't know—this is hypothetical.
Consultant: This is totally hypothetical.
• Dunn: That's what I was getting at. I'm like, okay what action is
taking place that is causing this. There is none.
Consultant: The only action...
Clark Case: You are paying off the debt and not replacing it with new
debt. So, if you want to borrow again, this is what would be available
during those periods.
• Dunn: So, the action that is taking place between 25 and 26, is our debt
is forgiven at that point. But at least$9 million worth of it. Is that
actual or is that still hypothetical?
Consultant: It's actual. It's here on this page. Look at the principal in
any given year. In 2025, you will be paying off$3.8 million in 2025. In
2026, you'll be paying off another$3.7 million. These are all actuals.
So, what we did, working with your staff, we said hypothetically if we
were to now add debt in those given years, how much do we do in one
given year. We would not come back to you and show you something
that suggests [inaudible]. That's not how we work it.
• Burk: Where can the public get this? Is this going to be on our
webpage?
Consultant: From our perspective it is a public document. We are
happy to...
Dentler: It will be in your council packet information—council
information, and available through the website. We would just attach
it tomorrow. We just got it today.
• Butler: I just have a couple of quick questions—actually one is not a
question, but I think congratulations on having Leesburg had the
highest bond ratings that we can. I think that is a testament not only to
the Council's fiscal responsibility, but also to town's management. I
know that we all appreciate it. It also helps relieve interest rates for
other things. Actually, I was kind of surprised at the $7.3 million was
as high as it was because as some of you recall last year, we were right
at the limit. Not that I want to run right out and spend $7.3 million,
but it does sound like we have a little bit of head room and I think,
Tom, what it means in the short term for us, on page 16, is if the
Council goes hog wild and spents $3.5 million in 2017, $2.2 million in
2018, $2 million in 2019, that we are not going to be able spend
anything in 2020 for capital projects, so it behooves us to be—to
continue to be fiscally responsible. One question—2010, there was a
real dip in the fund balance. Did I miss why that was?
9IPage
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
Consultant: I'll go back and see if I can recall. I remembered that at
one point in time. I don't want to speculate, so I'll hold off but you do
remember, that was a difficult time in terms of the environment.
• Butler: Ah, yes. Okay. I remember now that we had to dip into that to
keep things on an even keel in the town.
Consultant: I could go back to my old notes and find [inaudible] one
time capital, but I don't remember at this point. If I remembered the
combination, I would be speculating.
• Butler: I do remember that now. I think that's all my questions.
There was consensus of Council to move ahead with investigating refunding
options.
b. Leesburg Police/County Sheriff: Potential Efficiencies
Kaj Dentler stated this is an opportunity for Council to define what
topics will be covered by a potential task force and to select two representatives
to serve on the joint task force.
Key Points:
• Possible discussion items include: Supplemental traffic enforcement,
office space (moving officers out of the airport), storage space, sharing
of CAD system and records management, colocation of dispatch and
communications services, access to the County's future firing range.
Council Comments:
• Dunn: I'd like to add to get the SROs fully funded by the county. The
county—and my numbers might be off a little bit, but county officer
costs $125,000. A Leesburg officer costs about $85,000. Does that
sound about right, Kaj? With squad car. I couldn't remember if it was
$85 or 93. It has got to be close to that though. But, if you take—right
now the county is only refunding us at 75% of our costs and if you
actually took our total cost for officers, it is still 68% of what the county
pays. So, even us being fully funded is still well below what the county
is costing for them to have SROs in the Leesburg schools where we
have our SROs. I would suggest seeking the county for fully funding
our SROs. If that is not....
• Butler: So, in other words, increasing the amount of money that the
county pays us. Keeping the SROs as Leesburg police.
• Dunn: At this point, yes. I would not be opposed to county sheriffs
serving as SROs in our county schools that are located in Leesburg, but
barring that, it should be fully funded by them at our full cost because
also our SROs do serve in that capacity year round and not just 75% of
the year. The other is a more formal shared response policy in that we
know that the sheriff's department and the Leesburg police are
definitely working on providing certain services that the town does not
have and that be established and we know exactly where we can count
101P age
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
on future services from the Sheriff s, not on an ad hoc basis, but an
established policy. The other is a—they may be doing this. Kaj you
can jump in if you know. If we can do anything that helps reduce our
cost by having a shared policy for the training of new officers or
ongoing training of our officers that we can partner with the county
versus having to pay for it solely ourselves. There may be certain
training that we can join with them that helps to reduce our costs.
Lastly, the only question I had was, we are looking to establish this
committee. My understanding is that right now, there is no county task
force, we are looking to create that. Is that correct?
Dentler: Right. The county has agreed to this. Now it is incumbent
upon us to select our two representatives —then I can coordinate the
meetings.
• Burk: We have the captain in the audience here. Is there anything that
you could add, that obviously as an officer, that you would like to see
us discus.
Grigsby: Kaj was in a meeting with us and those were some of the
items that we discussed as a group.
• Burk: Thank you. Most certainly the SROs would be something that
needs to be discussed and I think moving the police out of the airport is
a great idea. I am glad to see that on the list. But those are the—I think
everything else has been mentioned that I would be concerned about.
• Martinez: I have no other questions other than I think I would like to
see Kelly on that committee and anybody else who would like to join. I
would like to be on the committee myself, too. But, I'll leave it at that.
• Hammler: I, unfortunately, was unable to connect with Deputy
Spurlock who has offered to provide suggestions because he has the
unique experience of having worked at both the police department and
the sheriff department. So, we look forward to sharing, as soon as I
hear from him, what his ideas are, but I think from a process
perspective, if we could seek as much input as possible from any
number of sources —I know we had this great new online resource to
ask the community to comment on things, so maybe we could put this
out because I am sure other people have great ideas. Perhaps there can
even be anonymous way for anybody within the police and sheriff
department to submit ideas. I think at this point,just you know, you
never know where a good idea is going to come from. I think we need
to look at that process. In addition to the things that have already been
mentioned, I certainly would be interested in exploring if there are ways
we can leverage the sheriffs department to support what appears to be a
great deal of resources required to deal with shoplifting at the outlets
because they have mall operations at the Dulles mall. There may be
ways that we can figure out how to scale those types of operations and
of course, looking at our hot spots to see where and how we can get
additional support in those types of areas. But as I have said, and I
know we have already discussed, I absolutely would appreciate being
11Page
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
appointed to the committee. This is something that I am glad we are
working to actually implement because we delayed it for a long time
because of the election.
• Fox: One quick question—has the county selected their members for
this. You said that they have agreed to it, but have they selected
members?
Dentler: Yes.
• Fox: I'm not sure this falls under county, but somehow I feel like it
does. I am sure this falls a lot more under state, but this past snow
storm, we had some issues with some snow removal and some VDOT
access. We had no access to VDOT, whereas the County did have
some access to VDOT equipment. I just didn't see—I saw us working
together as much as possible and, you know, where as much
collaborating could be done as possible; however, equipment was
separate. So, I wanted to find out how can we work with the county
more when we have a major snow storm like this. How can we access
that equipment when we call a state of emergency.
• Butler: Who did we talk about last time as for members of this
committee. I think it was Katie, Tom and Kelly were all brought up.
Who did we end up with?
Dentler: Your position was to wait until the topics were confirmed. At
one time it was Katie and Tom. And then I think Suzanne, you might
have been the third—you or Kelly, but there was no confirmation. You
wanted to talk the topics to see if people were interested in serving once
you knew what topics were.
• Butler: So, I have the topics as the five that you had in your memo plus
I have the SROs fully funded by the county, shared response policy,
shared training and shared mall operations. We do have some interest
in Kelly and Katie. They have both shown interest. Is anyone else
interested in being on this committee?
• Butler: I guess this is on the agenda tomorrow. I think what might be
helpful is if we have a resolution, instead of just making a motion to
pick two, would it help if we had a resolution and included these nine
items in there? Is that possible and add whatever else the commission
comes up with, I just want to make sure that these nine are formally
captured as things that should be looked at by whoever is on the
committee. Does that make sense?
c. Annexation: Joint Land Management Area
Susan Berry Hill stated this item is in response to a request from
Council to bring back information about annexation goals.
Key Points:
• Town Plan identifies the Joint Land Management Area (JLMA) as an
area that both the town and the county anticipate might be annexed by
the town at some point in the future.
121Page
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
• JLMA is jointly planned by both the town and the county.
• Number of properties have been developed in the JLMA including
River Creek, Potomac Station, and most recently Tuscarora Crossing
and the Goose Creek Club.
• Crosstrail property—now known as Compass Creek is the future site of
the Walmart development.
• Occasionally there are requests for annexation outside the JLMA area.
• Boundary line adjustment is the most simple way to bring a property
into the town.
• Annexation goes through the Commission on Local Government.
• Voluntary annexation is by agreement with the county.
• Goals that are stated in the Town Plan show the JLMA as the area that
is anticipated for annexation, but there may be other properties Council
wishes to discuss.
Council Comments:
• Butler: So, rather than make this too open ended of a discussion, why
don't we limit it to two things —one the process that is presented in the
staff report and then two—anyone who might be amenable to looking
in a little bit more detail at the annexation. I know that a couple of
years ago, we looked at specific areas— I don't remember if they are A,
B and C or whatever and they had financial attachments for analyses
with them and so they are probably outdated. So, I don't know if we
can make any decisions on annexation, so I guess primarily are we
interested? Would we at least be interested in looking at some of these
sections. So, I think if we limit that, it would be a reasonable
discussion.
• Fox: I have one question—how many formal requests for annexation
do we currently have?
Staff answer: We have no formal request for annexation at this point in
time.
• Fox: Okay, so nobody has approached the town wanting to be
annexed into the town.
Staff answer: There have been informal requests. One request that
came through staff was for the property that is at the southwest
quadrant adjacent to Woodlea and I believe a church owns a parcel of
land that is at the southwest corner of Woodlea Drive and Rt. 15, or
South King Street. They were interested in knowing is the town
interested in annexing or incorporating that property. That came
through staff and it was an inquiry. I don't know where the applicant is
on that. We had provided some information to them and I don't know
where they stand on that. Other properties south of Heritage High
School—we have had informal requests on the property owners
representative that they are working with and they have been interested
in knowing whether or not the town might incorporate those properties.
Again, both of those are outside of the JLMA so the staff's response is if
13 Page
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
it is outside of the JLMA then it is not an area that we would anticipate
being annexed into the town, but it doesn't mean that the council can't
consider that. So, those were informal requests. We have no formal
requests before you right now.
• Fox: And those are the only two informal requests at this point?
Staff answer: I believe so.
• Hammier: Could you remind us what two council members are part of
the Annexation Area Development Policy Committee?
Staff answer: The policy committee is often referred to as the AADP
committee. The reason it is called the AADP committee is back when
the town incorporated or had a voluntary annexation to incorporate all
the area outside of the bypass which is currently in our corporate limits,
there was an agreement between the town and the county and it had a
set of policies, called the AADPs, annexation area development
policies. There was a committee established to jointly review service
delivery within that area. Now, the AADPs are sunsetted. They are
done, but the name for that committee kind of lives on. The County
Board of Supervisors still has that committee listed on their committee
roster. I believe that Supervisor Umstattd and Supervisor Higgins are
assigned to that committee. From our town organization, I believe—
trying to remember who is on that committee.
Notar: Former Council Member Kevin Wright and Katie Sheldon
Hammier.
• Hammier: So, we never updated that when Kevin—there must be a
more recent one.
Notar: I don't think so. I don't think we've ever updated it.
• Burk: I thought we did.
• Dunn: Yeah, I thought at some point I was on that committee. I
thought Dave was.
• Hammier: You might want to just check the records. You should find
out.
• Hammier: You can tell us later, Kaj. You don't have to figure it out
tonight, but thank you. Okay, that would be helpful just so we could
look at the policy hopefully to initiate moving forward with the county.
I certainly would support looking also at the north end of town
comprehensively. So, I would like to put that on the table. If we could
get a copy—I know we have a—I can't remember what year it was.
Occasionally we look at this topic. Unfortunately we haven't made the
kind of progress that I do think we need to start making. Certainly all
we need to do is reflect back on that lengthy list of parcels that were
rezoned by the county, rezoned by the county, rezoned by the county.
Ultimately you start looking at the history of all the area that was
meant to be for our long term commercial development, which
unfortunately for instance, the area that is literally now owned by the
county was supposed to be something that we were going to control in
terms of different uses such as over by the airport, which is any now
141Page
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
number of government functions. So, I think it is important that we
clearly look at the numbers because the main goal would be to increase
revenues and be able to bring in more commercial revenue to the town
and of course if there is any additional areas, increased benefits in
whatever ways that those might be. I know at the town, we are clearly
looking at the risk of a by right issue with the 40 acres that is adjacent to
Ida Lee, that I would like to figure out if there is a way to ultimately
ensure that does not turn into houses. So, again, look forward to
finding out who is on that committee and hopefully getting support
from Council to move forward. I would like to start making some
progress on the research.
• Dunn: There is a few things and it may be with—Kaj what you had
already alluded to. We had some folks that were talking to us—they
had concerns over on Evergreen Mill at Miller Drive. They came to us
with some water issues and drainage issues and one of the things that
was thrown out was the possibility of providing them with town water
and there may be an issue there with them seeking annexation. I think
there are some other property owners further down the road on
Evergreen Mill that would be interested. We also had, I believe a
number of citizens that came before us at one point saying that actually
the entrance to Woodlea is in the county and it would seem like it
would tidy things up a little bit for our road maintenance if the entrance
to Woodlea was actually brought into the town versus that one piece
that seems to be hanging out there. It seems like the county road folks
don't remember that is actually their job and I think we are actually
picking up some of the work load there. Are we doing that? Okay,
there you go. If we are working for it, we might as well own it. It
would satisfy the citizens there too. I don't know that and this is
something that discussing this I think is important that we actually look
forward to deciding what Council wants to do and move forward a
meeting with the county. We have had this JLMA out there for a
while. I am willing to consider any areas in the JLMA for annexation
provided that it is not turning to an involuntary situation with those
citizens who live in those areas. I will point out that the land west of
the airport and east of the Greenway is now being developed and we
got zero say on what goes on in that project that is going to be where
super Target is getting ready to be headed and it is going to be a major
issue on Battlefield Parkway at that intersection because there is one
entrance to that. Because we did not take action to annex that years
ago, we got no say in it and we are going to be dealing with all of the
traffic that is coming out of it. There is also some areas in the past
where people had considered that it might be the JLMA area that is just
off of Woodlea—folks that I think live up on the hill there that had
considered trying to be brought into the town. But I would be also
interested in petitioning the public of those people who live around
Leesburg to find out if they are interested in receiving town services and
15 ' Page
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
it works out financially for them to get the town services versus those
they have to pay through either their HOAs or private service providers.
The area north of town has been something that is a possibility. I know
that I am not in favor of taking somebody's land and using it as a
"buffer" for Ida Lee and taking their land from them and using it as a
bargaining chip to get them to come into the town and I would be
interested in working with them and actually letting them use their land
the way that they see fit. I find it interesting that there are those that
would consider bringing land in north of town that were opposed to
doing things because they didn't want to provide water to—what's that
community, Dave? North of town who had the water issues?
Raspberry Falls. They didn't want to act on anything for Raspberry
Falls to help those folks get clean water, but now are willing to
negotiate land swaps for empty space near Ida Lee. That, I would not
be interested in taking somebody's land for that purpose, but I would be
interested in allowing them to do what they wish with their land. The
other area was as I said, petition those areas within the JLMA to see
what the interest is and petition those other areas that are within a
certain distance of the town to see if they would be interested in
annexation. With that, I would definitely recommend as a council, we
decide what policy we want to take forward to the county and I would
recommend moving forth with that very quickly and maybe come to a
conclusion on what we are going to deal with as far as our JLMA goes.
Dentler: Hammier and Dunn.
• Butler: From my standpoint, I just want to mention, yeah I would be
interested in updating the financial analysis on the entire JLMA as well
as the north end. One thing I would like, is I much prefer a BLA. I see
no reason to do a traditional involuntary annexation at this point on
any of the areas. I guess we could, in theory, end up with some area
that would—where we would have an annexation because then we
could have conditions and all of that, but generally if we could do a
BLA, I think that's definitely preferable. It is simpler, it's cheaper, it's
easier and nobody gets put into the town that doesn't want to be. Are
all those things correct?
Staff answer: Yes.
• Butler: The other thing that is sometimes confusing about annexation
or BLA is that it does not mean growth. Like for instance, obviously it
means growth for the town, but it doesn't mean growth overall. It
doesn't mean more houses or more stores or more office buildings or
more anything. What we are really talking about is a change of control
from the county to the town. So, for instance, if we annexed—let's say
all the residents agreed and we annexed the entire residential area up
above Route 7, there on the map. Let's just say in theory that we did
that. There would be no more houses being built. There would be no
change in the financial impact to the county. They would all still pay
county taxes and everything else. The only difference is, you know,
16IPage
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
they would pay town taxes and the town would provide them
additional services and their water rates would go down. There is some
financial analysis, but it does not mean—it means that the town is
growing, but it doesn't mean growth. So, with that, what I would like
to do is see if there is —I know there is only six of us but I want to see if
there is four of us that are willing to ask staff to update the financial
analyses of these areas and I will ask it in two parts —one is the JLMA
which was done before which is in a couple of different sections and
also the north end of town—while we are not discussing the disposition
of the north end of town,just should we do a financial analysis of that
to see if it makes some sense. Tom, I heard you are good about the
JLMA.
• Dunn: Yes. And I guess my question is what—how much north of
town are you talking about?
• Butler: That's a good question. I guess how far north of town would
you be interested in looking at? What is reasonable? Could we just
start with the areas just north that surround Rt. 15?
• Dunn: I would say that I know that obviously the most recent attempt
—I am not real big on the BLA—I understand where you are coming
from. That's an easier process. I think that it also can be one that
might be too casual for our own good. If we are actually going to do
annexation, I would recommend sticking with the annexation process.
I know it is a little more cumbersome, but the last BLA we tried to do is
the one involving Morven Park. I know Council Member Wright was
in favor of that and that had a potential cost to us of nearly a million
dollars per year in additional costs. How far north are you talking
about? I guess that's the issue.
• Butler: I guess I would say at this point, something that is—basically
taking in the O'Connor properties etc. and south of Raspberry Falls. I
think Raspberry Falls is a whole other thing.
• Dunn: But not including Morven Park?
• Butler: No, I wasn't talking about Morven Park. That a whole other
thing.
• Dunn: Yeah.
• Butler: Financial analysis of that?
• Dunn: Yeah.
• Butler: Katie, you seem to be in favor of the north?
• Hammler: Yes, and for the record, I have never used the words taking
land. Just really given the conversations that we have had north of
town, it would be creating a win-win to be able to focus in on what was
identified as the number one goal and we had the bequeathment money
that ultimately was rerouted and not available for the land because that
was cited as obviously the passive nature of that park would be greatly
disrupted. So, yes, I would support that. We have done analysis
certainly regarding the JLMA, so that should be available. My
question, before I answer your question, Dave, is, you know, do you
171 Page
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
need more time, Kaj, to figure out kind of what the scope is to be able
to advise council about what it is going to cost to even come up with
the cost analysis?
Dentler: Well I was going to jump in at some point. I was going to let
you finish. But, we certainly need some time to try to confirm what we
think your scope is and then to tell you what our approach would be—
what we recommend we can do and what we can't do. I certainly am
greatly concerned with our capacity, which for staffing is zero unless we
are going to move some things around. We have added a lot of things
over the last several months and so we would like to have the
opportunity to come back, provide you the scope, show you what the
work plan is and maybe how we can handle it and let you react to that.
Whether that means we are adding additional resources one way or
another— contractually or we are moving projects around, but I would
just be concerned with our ability to just in and do it. I never want to
mislead you without letting you know what we think the scope is and
what our concerns are with resources. That's all.
• Hammier: I would support directing staff to do just that so we could
get that information before we make any specific decisions. Thank you.
• Butler: Yes, definitely and all we are talking about for the main JLMA
is updating the financial analyses that were done a couple of years ago.
That may still be significant effort and you can come back and tell us
that, but I think I don't want you to—we are not talking about okay
here is the big plan. You say go and we are annexing. Kelly, you are a
firm no on both?
• Burk: I had a question for Susan. Is there—in the northern part—is
there a developer that is looking to develop that land?
Staff answer: I will put it this way. Nobody has approached staff about
this.
• Burk: And what, I think I am directing my question as much to Kaj —
what—you know we just had a thing from the planning commission
asking us to prioritize all the stuff that we have given staff to do and we
haven't even touched that and now we are looking at adding
something. I would assume this is a pretty significant project.
Staff answer: I think this was noted—we had hired a consultant to look
at—provide a fiscal analysis of the JLMA where it was broken down
into three areas. What I think it would involve—what I hear Council
saying tonight is they would like updated numbers for that. So, we
would have to go back to that consultant and find out what that would
cost, what the time frame would be for producing that information. So,
if there are areas outside of what they looked at—they looked at
primarily the JLMA and I think they looked at the area which is just
west of the JLMA, if I remember.
• Butler: Yeah, the southwest,just outside the town limits.
Staff answer: So, we would need to just see if that is what...
18Page
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
• Burk: But now you are adding additional— aren't we requesting that
you add additional land to evaluate also?
Staff answer: Yes, I believe so. We are looking at the north of
Leesburg—to the north of our corporate limits.
• Burk: No, I'm really not interested to—we have so much on our plate
right now. We need to take care of those things. I am concerned that
this is really being driven by development and I don't see it as being
beneficial at this point.
• Fox: When it comes to annexation and annexation goals, one of the
things that I keep in mind is when it comes before us it will be on a case
by case basis—we need to decide those things. What I wanted to know
from staff is if we were to go forward with some sort of financial
analysis, would it be easier to do it on a case by case basis, would it be
less stressful for staff to do it that way, or would it be better to do it the
way Mayor Butler is proposing?
Staff answer: When you say case by case, we have no official requests
for annexation at this point in time. We could do so if we received one.
• Fox: Would that be easier for you to do or would it be more cost
effective for the town to do it that way.
Staff answer: It would be probably more focused than a broader study,
so it depended on the scope of that property.
• Fox: Then, that's what I would probably support.
• Butler: Okay. So, it looks like we have three votes for each section. As
far as now, there are only three head nods, so I don't see any direction
for staff at this point in time.
2. Additions to Future Council Meetings
Council Member Dunn: It is not really necessarily in additions, but I would
like to know from staff when we can get the results for what I thought was a pretty
easy request to look at putting dining tables in convenience stores like Sheetz and
Wawas and things like that. I think that is coming up with the planning commission
at some point, but I think we brought this request and it sounded like all of council or
a super majority of Council was in favor of it. That was in December and now we are
in February and it still hasn't gotten to us.
The other thing was, again, one of our priorities, that we placed years ago was
working on the H-2 and the direction at the time was leaning more towards really
getting rid of the H-2 —not a rewrite of the guidelines that we continue to have—what
has been a failing policy. I can't help but think that has been dragging its feet due to
staff's reluctance and Council placing other priorities ahead of that. We are getting
ready to head into an election and I would like to see that taken care of before the
next election.
Susan Berry Hill: Council initiated the zoning text amendment for
convenience stores and allowing dining within convenience stores. That was initiated
on December 8 of last year. It is in progress right now with staff. It is targeted to get
19IPage
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
to the planning commission for public hearing on April 7 and to the Council on May
10. That is in the work plan.
Butler: The H-2 item is on the work plan somewhere. From the planning
commission, is that going to be coming back to Council to prioritize?
Berry Hill: The Council had approved a motion back in 2013 to look at the H-
2 as well as the East Market Street corridor and do an area plan on that area. So, we
have started that. I am happy to announce that we started work on the small area
plan for East Market. A part of that will be looking at the H-2 Corridor, the H-2
design guidelines and deciding within that planning process whether we should get rid
of the H-2 and replace it with something else or if we update the H-2 or whatever and
we will have a very public process on what to do with that coming up in the spring.
Dunn: Just real quick, again on the tables. Something that is sent down in
December and I know that the verbiage for the text for that has already been provided
to staff—to see that take from December to April when we have businesses that—
corporations that are looking to recruit new businesses to town based on that, it is
taking too long. I think, again,just being delayed especially when you have a
directive from Council to move quickly on it and almost all the tools have been
provided for you on that—that is taking way too long.
Vice Mayor Burk: There is a structure off of Sycolin Road. I don't know the
address of it. But Beauregard Estates has asked if there is something we could do to
kind of confine that structure. There is a lot of activity going on in the old house that
is falling down, especially in the summer times and nice weather. So, they were
wondering if there wasn't something that could be done to put a fence around it or
something like that to take care of that. I also wanted a discussion on the URAC
committee. We haven't called it together for many years now and a number of people
have asked are we will members of the committee? What is going on with it? Are we
ever going to meet again? So, if we don't need it, we should do away with it at this
point. I would really like to have those priorities that the planning commission sent
down to us and asked us to prioritize. I would really like us to do that. If I need to
ask for four votes, I would do so because I think it is important if you have the
commission that is busy trying to get all this planning stuff done and we don't give
them direction on what to do, they are left trying to figure out—trying to read our
minds. So, I would really like to get that on the discussion point as soon as possible
and if I need to have four votes, I'd ask for four votes?
Dentler: I don't think that's on the schedule.
Berry Hill: It is an information item that will be in your packet next time and
it is based on the presentation that I made at the planning commission in December
regarding work priorities. So, I think that was the intent—to do that as an
information item.
20IPage
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
Burk: But, I think we need to take some positions on it if we are going to tell
the planning commission what we want them to do and what we want them to work
on.
Dentler: You got your wish. That's fine.
Butler: So, would you like to change your information item to a work session
item?
Burk: Yes, I would.
There was consensus to have a work session item on planning work plan/prioritization.
Berry Hill: We did hear about a complaint about the house down from
Beauregard Estates. I have asked the project manager for the Montfaire to look into
that with the applicant to see if there is something they can do.
Burk: The last thing was, I am making an assumption—I want to make sure I
am correct that now you will take over the planning commission position, since
traditionally it has gone to the mayor.
Dunn: No.
Butler: The mayor wanted it. It wasn't always with the mayor. There was a
couple of years when Council Member Wright...I would be happy if you don't want
to serve as the liaison for that anymore, you are certainly welcome to. If you'd like to
have a different Council Member, then we could do that.
Burk: That's fine. In the last number of years, it has been the mayor and I
think that's what their expectation is that the Mayor would be the person there on the
planning commission, so that's why I bring it up.
Butler: We could discuss that off line. In the meantime, we can leave it as it is.
Back to your URAC question—would it be reasonable to have a brief staff memo as
to what it perceives as the status of the URAC and what is disposition ought or ought
not to be.
Dentler: I can provide that now. At this point, our position is we do not feel
there is a need for URAC to be involved. We just sent down our rate study. We
moved into that direction—when the time comes, we get closer that we need to
review our rates, then that is your decision point if you want to reengage URAC, but
at this point we don't see that there is a function for them unless that is something you
wish for them to do.
Butler: So, basically the summary is the URAC committee is in abeyance until
the time when we need to revisit the rates when the five year plan or something is up.
21 Page
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
Hammler: I agree because obviously we just finished our rate study but the
added benefit is we have two members on that committee who represent customers
who are not citizens of the town. To the extent that we may just want to keep the
committee it its kind of form in case they feel, or any member, feels a need and
requests of council to reconvene for any reason. That would be my recommendation.
But at least getting input from them before we make any decision and of course the
broader community.
Butler: So, your recommendation is to keep it in a state of abeyance until
somebody feels the need to reconstitute it.
Hammier: As an opportunity to solicit feedback, should we need it on any
number of issues—not just rate related, but customer relation issues or any other
thing.
Butler: Or any other thing. So, that's the current state. Do I see four head
nods to change that state to something else. Okay, I'm not seeing any enthusiasm at
all on that.
Council Member Hammier: I have three items please. The first is formally
requesting a debrief from our blizzard/snow storm operations. Overall costs,
reimbursements we can expect because we had a state of emergency. If we could get
information on who we actually had mutual aid agreements with in place because
ultimately that directs whether we can get reimbursement. I know we had sort of
brainstormed could we seek other municipalities around the state that may be able to
lend us equipment or any number of things. Those mutual aid agreements have to be
in place. If I could get support—it could just be a memo. But, ultimately a debrief
memo.
Dentler: It is coming before you anyway because I will be making a request
for Council to provide funds from the unassigned fund balance to reimburse the costs
that are well above what we budgeted. That has been our approach. That is coming
before you very soon. Either the next meeting or the one after that.
Hammier: Any issues, Kaj, with the specific things that I had requested but we
can take that off line some. That's great. The other two, is requesting that Council
receive the same briefing that we received at the Loudoun County Economic
Development Advisory Committee and also a copy of the full retail study report that
was presented that the County ED department commissioned. It is a really good
report and ultimately we would probably want to include some key stakeholders, the
downtown business association, you know, obviously any other retailers but key
stakeholders that may be interested in that briefing with us. And then finally, if you
haven't already heard....
221Page
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
Butler: That briefing—how much effort will that take you or is it something
you can just like copy and send it?
Dentler: We have already sent you—I think Council Member Hammier has
already sent you the copy. We can resend it.
Hammier: I didn't get the full report. I just sent the handout.
Dentler: We are waiting for the full report. Once we get that, we will certainly
forward that to you and then you can tell us what you want to do with that.
Hammier: I tee'd up through Buddy how we formally request that through the
county. But finally, Tuscarora's football coach, Coach Burnett, was awarded the Don
Shula High School coach of the year award, which is a very big deal. It was a
$25,000 cash reward- $15,000 going to the school. He was sent to the Super Bowl. I
would love to see us bring him in and congratulate him formally from the town
council and I will mention it in my comments tonight because he is also a
phenomenal teacher. I can only speak from my son's perspective—he has him for AP
Econ—just one of the best teachers he has ever had. He is just a wonderful source of
inspiration for kids on so many different levels, so I appreciate that certificate for him.
Martinez: I forgot to mention that I will be unavailable for tomorrow night's
meeting.
Council Member Fox: As far as the debriefing is concerned, will part of this
debriefing what we can do to help ourselves in future storms with respect to VDOT. I
would like to know how Leesburg as an entity of this county and as an entity of the
state paying taxes to both can access VDOT equipment when there is a state of
emergency.
Dentler: We are already working on that. But yes, we will provide that.
Fox: That will be part of the report?
Dentler: We are working through that now. Whether we have it all at the
exact time, but we are working through that so we can provide you some detailed
information. It is an important part for us as well.
Dunn: If I could add to that, Dave. I had asked Kaj for this in an email a
week or so ago. If anything can be provided us prior to the meeting so that we can
ask questions and staff is not saying we don't have that information—so if we could
come to the meeting knowing they have it or not.
Mayor Butler: I have three items —one is it seems like the webcast, the sound
is pretty much non-existent. You really need to crank up the sound on the video. I
have had a couple of people mention that. For most people, you need to crank it up.
23 Page
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
It used to work fine. There used to not be a problem with the webcast volume at all.
In fact, I have listened to some of the webcasts while I was remotely participating and
it was wonderful, but it seems like the last few, almost impossible to hear anything. I
just wanted to check on that. Second thing is, the NVTA meeting that I volunteered
for the last time, that I thought was immediately prior to the meeting that I am
already going down to Falls Church for on Thursdays is now a different Thursday. I
really can't attend that. I am already going down to Falls Church once a month for
this. To make it twice a month is a little bit too much. If there is anybody who would
to volunteer to be the representative...I think it is the second Thursday now. I'll get
you the information.
Hammier: If you could distribute that to us, that would be great.
Butler: The third thing is, this is based on a request that was made a couple of
months ago by Marty, which I thought was a great idea. He proposed that the
Council have essentially like an off-site meeting for a couple of hours on Saturday
without staff to kind of hammer out what Council's priorities would be for the next
year. Or some kind of vision going forward. I thought that was a wonderful idea at
the time. I still think it is a wonderful idea. I was wondering—obviously after
February 18, but as close in as possible. I was wondering if you could ask council
members what dates or times may be available. When do you anticipate having like
the off-site budget meeting?
Dentler: I present the budget at your next meeting next Tuesday and I have-
I'm not sure—let me see—your public hearing is on March 8. I do have budget work
sessions that are for March 28 as well as March 7. So, basically I am beginning to
load up your calendar on every available date to see what we need to do.
Butler: Would you look somewhere like the 20th-27th—sometime on the
weekend. Saturday mornings is when we have traditionally done it. I know that you
may or may not have weddings then, but in any case if you could query Council, I
would like to do that before we do the budget discussions because where Council
decides it wants to go would be good input, I think, to the budget. So, I would rather
do that first rather than have all the budget discussions and then start to talk about it
later.
Hammier: For the record, I am not available the weekend of the 20th.
Butler: Let's do the best that we can. We don't necessarily need every single
Council member. I'd like to have the whole council, but if it has to be the 21S` or the
28th or an evening, anyway just try the best that you can.
Notar: One of you would have to take minutes. It would be a public meeting.
24 Page
Council Work Session February 8, 2016
Butler: We will figure it out. Once you get some time, yeah, it would be a
public meeting. When we say no staff that doesn't necessarily mean zero staff. A
staff member to take minutes would probably be wonderful.
Dunn: Do we have four people that want to do this?
Butler: Whether or not, it is a special meeting. Let's find out if Kaj can ask
and find out what the response is.
Dunn: If we don't have four council members that want to do it, then staff
doesn't have to do any work toward preparing it.
Butler: In theory, I could hold a special meeting and just say whoever wants
to show up, show up and we will do the best we can with whoever shows up. Okay?
I'd rather try it and see what we can do because I think it is a necessary prequel to the
budget discussions.
Dunn: I'd rather not do it personally and without staff there, there may end up
being more empty council seats. Some people may not survive without staff
intervening.
Butler: We can bring a sergeant at arms. I think Marty's intent was basically
that staff wasn't the one who drove it. It wasn't staff presenting and Council reacting
to it. It was Council figuring out what they want and then give Staff a chance to react
at a different time. It doesn't necessarily mean—we'd still have snacks and stuff.
Dunn: Oh, then I'll be there.
On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Vice Mayor Burk, the meeting
was 'jo ed ' p.m.
VOW •
Clerk of Cowl it
2016 tcwsmin0208
' Page e