HomeMy Public PortalAbout2020_tcmin0211COUNCIL MEETING February 11, 2020
Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:00 p.m. Mayor Burk presiding.
Council Members Present: Ron Campbell, Thomas Dunn (arrived at 8:00 p.m.),
Suzanne Fox, Vice Mayor Marty Martinez, Neil Steinberg, and Mayor Kelly Burk.
Council Members Absent: Joshua Thiel.
Staff Present: Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Deputy Town Manager Keith Markel,
Deputy Town Attorney Christine Newton, Director of Finance and Administrative
Services Clark Case, Human Resources Director Josh Didawick, Director of Public
Works Renee LaFollette, Parks and Recreation Director Rich Williams, Director of
Utilities Amy Wyks, Economic Development Director Russell Seymour, Leesburg
Police Chief Greg Brown, Director of Plan Review Bill Adman, Director of
Information Technology Jakub Jedrzejczak, Airport Director Scott Coffman,
Emergency Management Coordinator Joe Dame, Deputy Director Finance and
Administrative Services Lisa Haley, Deputy Director of Information Technology John
Callahan, Capital Projects Manager Terry Yates, Management and Budget Officer Jason
Cournoyer, Land Acquisition Manager Keith Wilson, Senior Management Analyst Cole
Fazenbaker, Public Information Office Assistant Leah Kosin and Clerk of Council
Eileen Boeing.
AGENDA ITEMS
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION was given by Council Member Steinberg.
3. SALUTE TO THE FLAG was led by Miss Nina Delpesche and Mr. Noah
Delpesche.
4. ROLL CALL Council Member Dunn arrived at 8:00 p.m.
a. Electronic Participation for Council Member Thiel
Mayor Burk advised Council that Council Member Thiel requested to
participate electronically for some of the items on the agenda.
MOTION 2020-033
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Steinberg, the
following was proposed:
To allow Council Member Thiel to electronically participate in the February 11,
2020, Council Meeting.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 5-0-2 (Dunn, Thiel absent)
1 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING February 11, 2020
Although the motion was approved to allow Mr. Thiel to participate
electronically, Mr. Thiel did not participate in the meeting.
5. MINUTES
a. Work Session Minutes of January 27, 2020
MOTION 2020-034
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Campbell, the
minutes of the Work Session of January 27, 2020, were approved by a vote 5-0-2 (Dunn,
Thiel absent)
b. Regular Session Minutes of January 28, 2020
MOTION 2020-035
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Steinberg, the
minutes of the Regular Session of January 28, 2020, were approved by a vote 5-0-2 (Dunn,
Thiel absent)
6. ADOPTING THE MEETING AGENDA (AMENDMENTS AND
DELETIONS)
On a motion by Council Member Fox, seconded by Council Member Campbell, the
meeting agenda was moved for approval.
Council Member Fox requested items 13.e. — Approval of Separation Agreement
with Town Attorney; and, 13.f. — Appointing an Interim Town Attorney be moved to
after 20.a. — Closed Session for Personnel Discussion. There were no objections by
Council to move these items.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 5-0-2 (Dunn, Thiel absent)
7. CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION
a. Certificates of Recognition: None.
8. PROCLAMATIONS
a. Proclamation: Black History Month.
Ms. Donna Bohanon, Chair of the Black History Committee for the
Friends of The Thomas Balch Library, Ms. Tanja Thompson, leader and
organizer of the Loudoun County Community discussions on the Lynching
Memorial Project, and Mr. Raymond H. Delpesche, current Post
Commander of VFW Post 1177 in Leesburg, each accepted a proclamation
and made a few comments.
2!Page
COUNCIL MEETING February 11, 2020
b. Mary Wiley
Mayor Burk noted that the proclamation for Ms. Mary Wiley would
be given to her at the service to be held later at the Providence Baptist
Church.
9. PRESENTATIONS
a. Presentation: Arts & Cultural District Rebranding and New Logo Design
Commission on Public Art Commissioner Elizabeth Ransom presented
Council with a new logo and the idea to rebrand the Arts and Cultural District in
downtown Leesburg. Ms. Ransom asked for Council's approval of the new logo
at a future meeting and that Council consider a pending Fiscal Year 2021 budget
request from the Commission.
b. Presentation: Town Manager's Proposed Fiscal Year 2021 Budget
Mr. Dentler presented the proposed Fiscal Year 2021 Budget to Council.
Key points:
• Town remains in a very strong financial position with highest
possible credit rating
• Modest growth projected
• No proposed increase in Personal Property or Real Estate tax rate
• Proposed budget focuses on Information Technology
• Capital Improvements Program continues to grow
• Recommended Pay -for -performance continue for staff based on a
3% average
• Fiscal Year 2021 is the last year of Fire and Rescue contributions
• One proposed enhancement — IT Systems Analyst
• Recommendation to maintain the rate of 18.44 v. equalized tax
rate of 17.5(
• Need for competitive salaries particularly in the Police Department
• Capital Projects Program will need $58M of the overall $232M of
the six -year plan
• Veteran's Park is progressing and will require funding
• Five-year Utility Rate Plan already approved
• Budget Work Sessions to occur during Council regularly scheduled
meetings
10. REGIONAL COMMISSION REPORTS
a. None.
11. PETITIONERS
The Petitioners section was opened at 7:54 p.m.
Michael O'Connor, 38683 Mt. Gilead Road. Spoke to Council in support of
Leesburg Town Attorney Barbara Notar.
3 1 Page
COUNCIL MEETING February 11, 2020
Jim Sisely. Spoke to Council in support of Leesburg Town Attorney Barbara
Notar.
Peter Burnett, 105 Loudoun Street. Spoke to Council in support of Leesburg
Town Attorney Barbara Notar.
Don Culkin, 105 Loudoun Street. Spoke to Council in support of Leesburg
Town Attorney Barbara Notar.
Curtis Allred, 463 Foxridge Drive. Spoke to Council about his dissatisfaction
with Council sharing personnel issues in the public.
The Petitioners section was closed at 8:13 p.m.
12. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION2020-036
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Fox, the following
consent agenda was proposed:
a. Water Pollution Control Facility Generator Programmable Logic Control (PLC)
Replacement and Upgrade
RESOLUTION 2020-020
Approving a Contract for Replacement of Generator Programmable Logic
Control (PLC) System at the Water Pollution Control Facility to Carter
Machinery in the amount of $386,750
b. Power System Study and Remediation Task Order for Water and Wastewater
Treatment Facilities
RESOLUTION2020-021
Authorizing a Task Order to Potomac Electrical Services, Inc. for Power Systems
Study and Remediation Tasks for Water and Wastewater Facilities
c. Sodium Hypochlorite Chemical Tank Replacement at Water Pollution Control
Facility
RESOLUTION2020-022
Approving a Task Order for Replacement of Two Sodium Hypochlorite Chemical
Tanks at the Water Pollution Control Facility to FJ Industrial in the amount of
$152,428
4 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING February 11, 2020
d. Easement and Right -of -Way Agreement with Northern Virginia Electric
Cooperative (NOVEC) for streetlights along Sycolin Road
RESOLUTION2020-023
Authorizing the Conveyance of an Easement to Northern Virginia Electric
Cooperative for Installation and Service of the Streetlights along Sycolin Road on
Town Property
e. Amendment to Approved Body Worn and In -Car Cameras Integration Contract
RESOLUTION 2020-024
Amendment to Approved Body Worn and In -Car Cameras Integration Contract
f. Appropriation of Donation Funds for Thomas Balch Library
RESOL UTION2020-025
Approving a Supplemental Appropriation for a Donation of $750 from the Mildred
T. Nichols Trust to Thomas Balch Library for Archival Processing
The Consent Agenda was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0-1 (Thiel absent)
13. RESOLUTIONS /ORDINANCES / MOTIONS
a. Tuscarora Creek Flood Mitigation and Stream Restoration Project —
Construction Change Order No. 7
Ms. LaFollette gave Council a presentation on the change orders that have
occurred since the project began in May 2019. She noted that the current change
order is coming to Council because it is over a hundred thousand dollars and
requires Council's approval in order for the Town Manager to be able to sign it.
Otherwise, it would be an administrative approval.
Mayor Burk noted the number of trees that have been planted with the
project.
Council Member Fox asked about the budget. Ms. LaFollette said that
the project is still within budget and with more than 50% of the work complete,
including some of the more complex or potentially problematic items done, that
she expects the project to come in under budget. Ms. Fox asked if landscaping
was included in the project scope. Ms. LaFollette confirmed that it was and that
the Town intends to apply for a one -for -one grant with the Virginia Department
of Forestry to get larger caliper trees for the project.
Council Member Campbell noted that things can happen during the
course of a project that necessitate change but that since the project is not yet
complete, there still could be some unexpected costs that arise.
5 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING February 11, 2020
Council Member Dunn confirmed with Ms. LaFollette that she
anticipates that the project will come in under budget. Ms. LaFollette confirmed
that was correct.
MOTION 2020-037
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Steinberg, the
following was proposed:
RESOLUTION2020-026
Authorizing Change Order No. 7 to the Construction Contract for the Tuscarora
Creek Flood Mitigation and Stream Restoration Projects with Avon
Corporation in the Amount of $125,234.20
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0-1 (Thiel absent)
b. Chesapeake Bay Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan
Ms. Wyks gave an overview to Council on the status of the Watershed
Implementation Plan Phase Three, also known as WIP3. She asked Council to
support corrective action to the problematic Chesapeake Bay WIP3 program, as
well as preservation of the State Water Quality Improvement Grant fund
program. The Watershed Implementation Plan has been a 15-year program
addressing and looking at reducing nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment
pollution, mostly in the Chesapeake Bay, but also in the local and state rivers and
streams. She added that the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
recently amended the waste code allocations and heavily impacted wastewater
facilities. Ms. Wyks said as a result, WIP3 is not currently a mandate yet, but the
discharge limit, if approved, and by 2025 would need to have phosphorus at 0.3
and nitrogen at 0.4 which the Town does not currently meet. She explained the
impacts of the proposed mandate which would include a costly update and
upgrade at the facility to Enhanced Nutrient Removal also known as ENR
estimated at well over $30 million. She added that approval of the mandate
could be approved in the next 18 months. She reminded Council that the Town
was part of a suit that was filed by VAMWA and Mr. Chris Pomeroy with
Aqualaw on behalf of the Town and then King George County as well as South
Central Wastewater Authorities. The Attorney General has requested a motion
to dismiss that lawsuit. Ms. Wyks reiterated that the draft resolution supports the
reassessment and reevaluation of the assumptions for wastewater facilities and to
support the recommendation of Virginia Association of Municipal Wastewater
Agencies (VAMWA), the correction of the problematic WIP3 plan and the the
preservation for the actual funding program itself.
Mayor Burk noted that she and Vice Mayor Martinez and Council
Member Steinberg attended Lobby Day in Richmond and noted that the
legislators are aware of this issue.
6 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING February 11, 2020
Council Member Fox asked why Leesburg was one of the hardest hit
municipalities. Ms. Wyks said that the Town would be unable to meet the
mandated limits if imposed. Ms. Fox asked if that in order to meet the limits if it
was a $30 million fix. Ms. Wyks said $30 million was based on 2005 estimates
and the amount could be even more today.
Council Member Campbell inquired as to how environmentalists are
reacting to the proposed mandate. He asked if the regulations are burdensome
because of the cost to upgrade the facility or is it really an unnecessary regulation.
Ms. Wyks said that localities have been working to meet the limits and with
VAMWA's assistance, localities have created a nutrient exchange that allows
municipalities to trade nutrients as needed if they are over or under the limits.
Ms. Wyks noted another concern is that they are mandating the municipal
wastewater authorities but are doing nothing to regulate related industries such as
farming and other sources of sediment nitrogen and phosphorus.
Council Member Fox asked if it was an unfunded mandate. Ms. Wyks
said that the second part of the request to Council is to support the revolving
grant fund program. Ms. Wyks noted that it's not a guarantee how much is
funded and then how it would be distributed but did not think it would be 100%
funding for all the utilities.
MOTION2020-038
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Steinberg, the
following was proposed:
RESOLUTION2020-000
In Support of Reconsideration of New Wastewater Regulations under the Virginia
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0-1
c. Proclamation for Mary Wiley
MOTION2020-039
On a motion by Mayor Burk, seconded by Council Member Steinberg, the
following was proposed:
I move to approve the Proclamation for Mary Wiley.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 5-0-1-1 (Thiel absent, Dunn abstain)
7 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING February 11, 2020
d. Reconsideration of Bus Shelter on Edwards Ferry Road
Mayor Burk allowed Ms. Mariella Torrico to speak on her community's
opposition to the bus shelter in the proposed location. Ms. Linda McCray
translated on behalf of Ms. Torrico.
Vice Mayor Martinez noted he held a meeting with the community the
previous weekend and there were at least 50 residents that showed up in
opposition of the bus shelter. He stated that while he is generally in support of
bus shelters in Town that he never has never seen a community come out in force
to oppose one. He asked for reconsideration of the vote at the last meeting where
the Town condemned the piece of property for this project.
Ms. Newton noted that the motion should be to approve the resolution
and not a reconsideration of the last vote. Council Member Dunn asked for a
Point of Order that the previous action should be reconsidered and then Council
could move forward with a new action. Mayor Burk did not agree and Council
Member Dunn appealed the decision of the Chair.
MOTION
On a motion by Council Member Dunn, seconded by Council Member Fox, the
following was proposed:
To appeal the decision of the Chair to not reconsider the previous motion before
proceeding with a new action.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Aye: Dunn, Fox, Campbell
Nay: Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Vote: 3-3-1 (Thiel absent)
MOTION 2020-040
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Steinberg, the
following was proposed:
RESOLUTION2020-028
To stop all work related to the development of a bus shelter along the south side of
Edwards Ferry road adjacent to the Heritage Square community, invalidate the
associated certificate of take, and seek reallocation of grant funding
Council Member Steinberg asked about the wording of the
"Whereas" section stating that the Council is determined not to proceed
with the construction of the Heritage Place shelter on the site. He asked if
it was necessary to include it and if it was related to the Resolution
approved at the previous meeting. Vice Mayor Martinez noted that it
doesn't do any harm to include it. Mr. Steinberg confirmed with Mr.
Martinez that Council is not being asked to intercede in any of the
communities' internal issues. Mr. Martinez said that the only thing
8 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING February 11, 2020
requested of Council from the community is to stop the bus shelter from
being built.
Council Member Dunn noted he was not in support of this when it
was brought up at the last meeting and said he regretted that the citizens
had to come back to voice their opinions again in opposition.
Council Member Campbell stated that he was also not in support
of the action at the last meeting. Mr. Campbell asked what happens to the
funds from the County if the Town does not proceed. Mr. Markel said the
Town will have to approach the County to see if it will allow the Town to
put it towards another facility in Town or if the money will have to be
returned. Mr. Campbell asked staff if any other locations have been
identified. Mr. Markel noted that there is another bus shelter on Fort
Evans Road that only received partial funding. Mr. Campbell asked Ms.
Newton if there were any costs associated with invalidating the Certificate
of Take. Ms. Newton said the Town has already paid the filing fee and
paid an estimated amount of the bona fide offer into the court. She
explained the process now is to petition the court to invalidate that
Certificate of Take by petition and that other than filing fees, the Town
would be asking to have the money paid into court returned to the Town.
Council Member Fox thanked the members of the community for
voicing their concerns against the project.
Mayor Burk asked Vice Mayor Martinez if he would do a write up
on his meeting with the community and share it with the rest of Council
and list some of the next steps needed. Mr. Martinez said he would
prepare a report along with the staff members in attendance. He noted
that there were unrelated issues that were brought up by the residents that
need to be addressed.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0-1 (Thiel absent)
14. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. TLSE-2019-0004, Leesburg South Floodplain Alteration/Reclamation
The public hearing was opened at 8:56 p.m.
Mr. Chris Murphy presented to Council a Special Exception application
to alter floodplain boundaries to reclaim 9.6 acres as usable land in the northeast
quadrant of South King Street at Evergreen Mill Road. Staff recommended
approval based on the following conditions that there is substantial conformance
and no waivers expressed or implied. Mr. Murphy and Mr. Bill Ackman
reviewed the area, the application and the FEMA designation process.
9 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING February 11, 2020
Key Points:
• The Planning Commission voted to forward a recommendation of denial
by a vote of 4-3 based on concerns regarding potential flooding on
surrounding areas and the Application preceding FEMA review and
approval
• The subject property is comprised of five separate undeveloped parcels
having a cumulative area of 46.89 acres
• Staff finds proposed alteration/reclamation be compatible with existing
and planned development and is harmonious with applicable sections of
the Town plan and all insurances related to the alterations of the
floodplain must still be reviewed and approved by FEMA through its map
revision process
• This is not the last stop in this application
• The floodplain overlay district was not established to prohibit alterations
to floodplains, instead, it has been established to ensure that such
alterations are consistent with National Flood Insurance Program
requirements, Town requirements and policies
• In addition to floodplain overlay use standards, all Special Exception
applications regardless of zoning or location and Town must comply with
a Special Exception approval requirements of zoning ordinance section
3.4.12
• Staffs review of this application finds no reason to believe the proposal
will adversely affect neighboring properties
• It's found to be compliant with Town plan and Zoning Ordinance
regulations
• It will not hinder the development of adjacent properties
• It will not create hazardous conditions for pedestrians and vehicle traffic
• Staff finds the application is consistent with the goals and objectives of
Town Plan and southwest planning area policies
• The application does not disturb existing wetlands and sensitive stream
corridor on the property. The alteration complies with applicable
provisions of the R-1 zoning district and floodplain overlay district and
serves public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning
practice
• Staff recommends conditional approval of the Special Exception
Council Member Campbell confirmed that the application for Special
Exception meets all of the criteria and guidelines responsible for use in this
floodplain area. Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct. Mr. Campbell asked if
the Special Exception process gives the Town the authority to enforce and has
standards has standards that they have to meet other than the model standards
that were developed before. Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct.
Vice Mayor Martinez noted some concerns brought to him by his
Planning Commissioner. He asked what effect there will be on the floodplain
expansion of the bypass, the expansion of Evergreen Mill Road or if the County
10 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING February 11, 2020
decides to take land to build extra lanes on the bypass. Mr. Ackman said their
engineers would have to do a similar study to what the applicant's engineer
would do. They would have to show no adverse impact on downstream
properties, upstream properties, and adjacent properties.
Council Member Steinberg asked staff why they were not able to convince
the Planning Commission. Mr. Murphy said he was not sure why they weren't
able to convince the Planning Commission. He said they tried to explain the
process to them and why it was established yet to no avail.
Council Member Fox asked for confirmation that this was a necessary
step in order for the landowner to even approach FEMA to have this as a
reconsideration. Mr. Murphy said that the Department of Conservation and
Recreation along with FEMA sent out model language for municipalities to
adopt in order for better administration of the National Flood Insurance
Program. The Town adopted those minimum standards and then some. With
the concurrence of FEMA, they reviewed the draft regulations that became the
floodplain overlay district that establishes the Special Exception that is in process
right now. Through the Special Exception process, Council can set the bar as to
where this floodplain boundary may be. Council Member Fox confirmed that
this is a first step that needs to happen, FEMA second, so that the Town can have
some extra control over what is discussed between FEMA and the landowners.
Mr. Ackman explained the complicated process of when they redrew the
floodplain lines. Ms. Fox confirmed that the Special Exception has no specific
land use application to it right now and no building and that what the Town is
asking for from our 2017 Ordinances is to say, "Mr. Landowner, you have an
extra layer of regulation," but also saying to our citizens for the Town, "We're
trying to protect you just a little bit more." Mr. Ackman also explained how fill
dirt is placed on a project to avoid erosion and shifting and how it is handled
through the site plan review process.
Mayor Burk asked about the amount of acreage in the request. She noted
that the original area that was in the floodplain was 18.9 acres, and then FEMA
added 5.8 acres to make it 24.7 acres but the applicant is asking for 9.3 acres to be
developed for potential development in this area. Mr. Ackman explained that
pre-2017 the FEMA's floodplain study was based on some projections that
probably went out to about 2020 or 2022 because that data was done back in the
'80s. The floodplain limits were set based on that. The new limit shows increased
imperviousness for the hundred -year storm, which isn't required to have the
tension associated with it. He said you can expect anytime you have additional
imperviousness that that water surface is going to spread because you're going to
have more water. Mr. Ackman said FEMA floodplains are defined in two
different ways: a floodway which is an area in which the water would flow
unobstructed if there were no culverts downstream, no bridges downstream, and
it's just the channel. That is called the floodway. He said that needs to remain
unobstructed and it cannot be filled in. The other is an overbank which is storage
area. He said the area where the storage is doesn't dictate the elevation of the
floodplain. He said the elevation of the floodplain is actually dictated by the
downstream culvert and that there are hydraulic models that are done to analyze
11 !Page
COUNCIL MEETING February 11, 2020
this. When the data is put into the model, it predicts how high the water surface
will get. He said it has no bearing on what the topography behind it looks like. It
just reaches an elevation, so it will fill up to that elevation. He said in areas of
storage, which is outside of the floodway, it doesn't impact how high the water
surface is going to get because filling in those areas and reclaiming those areas
isn't changing the elevation with a floodplain, which then goes upstream or
downstream as the case may be or adjacent to the site. Mayor Burk asked if they
are asking for more acreage to be developed than was changed. Mr. Ackman
confirmed that was correct. Mayor Burk asked if FEMA had not changed their
regulations, what they could develop there. Mr. Ackman said they would be
asking for the same amount of reclamation but that he could assume based on
what they've submitted, that the difference would be less. He added that the
limits would be the same, but some of it that's now in the floodplain wouldn't
have been counted towards reclamation because it would have already been
outside the floodplain under the old limits. Mayor Burk asked if they would even
have had to do it. Mr. Ackman said that is a decision that the Applicant would
have to make.
Mr. Bruce Deatley representing Washington -Virginia Traditional
Development Sites, Inc., along with Mr. Peter Kalaris representing the owner
and B.T. Nivas with Pennoni Associates who is the engineer for the project spoke
on behalf of the Applicant. Mr. Deatley addressed one of the concerns of the
Planning Commission. He also noted that they are not building anything in the
floodplain but intend to alter the floodplain to take it out of the floodway. He
reiterated that they are not building houses in a floodplain and that they intend to
create developable property. He added that the Town of Leesburg is more
stringent than FEMA for conditions of approval for floodplain alterations noting
that the Special Exception is one example. Mr. Nivas reviewed the project with
Council.
Public Speakers:
Jenny Wolfe, 222 Alpine Drive. Spoke to Council against the Special
Exception application.
Andy Van Dyke, 117 Balch Springs Circle. Spoke to Council against the
Special Exception application.
Stephanie Sams, 249 Mindy Court. Spoke to Council against the Special
Exception application.
The public hearing was closed at 9:31 p.m.
Council Member Fox asked staff what the difference is between this area
and the Selma area where there has been recent flooding. Mr. Ackman said he
was not 100% familiar with the Selma scenario but from what he understands
12 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING February 11, 2020
and read in the paper is that the area was in a low lying area. He said when the
County approved Selma it met the requirements in place at the time that did not
require any kind of study to look at what a 100-year elevation would be in just a
regular neighborhood. Mr. Ackman said it tends to happen more in jurisdictions
that don't have overland relief requirements. He said that they're based on
assumptions that the water will never get more than a foot deep, and as long as
you keep a foot of freeboard from the bottom of the ditch to the first floor of the
house, that's assumed to be good enough. He noted that in the Town that's not
good enough because they have seen areas where when you get down towards
the bottom of a drainage divide, which is the case in Selma, where that water if
they had done a detailed study would have shown, it's probably three or four feet
deep. He said in the case of the Town Leesburg, they would never allow a house
to be built on any reclaimed land that would ever end up in a position like Selma
because the Town would do the overland relief study in addition to any FEMA
regulated studies to ensure that it didn't happen. Ms. Fox noted that is seems that
there are concerns with water in basements but that Evergreen Meadows appears
to be at a higher elevation. Mr. Ackman said he had not studied it directly but
that this mitigation project shouldn't have any impact other than what's
happening today, so it should be the same experience. If it floods today, it
shouldn't flood any worse.
Council Member Steinberg asked about the history of flooding in the
specific area. Mr. Ackman said he did not have any specific knowledge on this.
Mr. Steinberg asked about the substantial storm retention pond across the street
and if it had any effect on this situation. Mr. Ackman said that it shouldn't have
any impact on it and that when the pond was designed, it was designed as a
regional facility and almost to the 100-year storm event. Mr. Steinberg asked if it
it possible that the applicant would be coming before Council or staff to at least
have a potential development reviewed before they even begin this reclamation so
that they would understand if it's even worth their while or would they get into
the floodplain and do whatever they're going to do and then come forward to the
Town with an application. Mr. Ackman explained the several phases of
construction. The first phase would be administration. If this all goes through
and if FEMA approves it, then their next phase would be a site plan that's
administratively approved through staff. That would be only for grading. There's
no land use. It would just be putting grass back. Mr. Ackman said he believes it
was a farming operation in that area in the past so it would be put back into a
grass situation. Mr. Steinberg asked if the applicant would consider a deferral on
the Special Exception so that they can allay the fears of the residents and be sure
they absolutely have a clear understanding of what they are dealing with. He said
that would be his preference.
Council Member Dunn asked if there is a flood issue, can there be
provisions that the applicant is required to fix those issues should they occur. Mr.
Ackman said that is a legal question but that when he was a professional engineer
in the private sector that his firm carried several millions of dollars in liability
insurance on any plan that he signed. Mr. Nivas said his firm did the same. Mr.
Deatley said that once a property is taken out of a floodplain then it is subject to
13 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING February 11, 2020
individual insurance. FEMA is not going to insure anything within the
floodplain. Regarding the deferral, Mr. Deatley said conceptually they did not
have a problem with it but wanted a better understanding of what it is that the
deferral would yield.
Council Member Dunn also asked the purpose of the deferral. Mr. Dunn
also asked about the issues of flooding on an individual lot because of the
topography that they may be changing. Mr. Deatley said that he did not think
that was correct and that they have done an enormous amount of engineering
and aside from a few minor comments and upon Council approval that they were
ready to submit to FEMA. Mr. Deatley noted that he thinks it is understandable
that the community would be concerned but noted there are no upstream or
downstream impacts. Mr. Dunn expressed concern that something that they are
doing now that may seem unrelated could all of a sudden be related.
MOTION
On a motion by Council Member Steinberg, seconded by Mayor Burk, the
following was proposed:
To defer a decision on the Special Exception Application to a future meeting in
order to gain a greater understanding of exactly what the Town is dealing with and
also ally the concerns of the residents who are adjacent to this area.
Council Member Steinberg said that he and apparently the residents were
still trying to understand the project. He noted that there have been issues
throughout the country and Selma's recent issues is a cautionary tale. He added
that staff has done great work but with doubt still surrounding this action that it
was wise to wait.
Council Member Fox noted that FEMA came in and unilaterally said that
basically this is now a floodplain without any input. She noted as a property
owner that if somebody came into her property and said that they rendered it not
useful, then she would probably want a chance to talk to FEMA herself. She
believed that this is what this Special Exception is about is the opportunity to talk
to FEMA, ask them why and what can be remediated, if anything. Ms. Fox said
she would be in support of approving the Special Exception.
Mr. Campbell stated that he did not think a 4-3 Planning Commission
vote was overwhelmingly against the application when there were questions
about the project that could have been answered but individuals chose not to be
satisfied by those answers. He said there needs to be an expectation of what the
outcome of the deferral would be because other actions that Council has deferred
have dragged on. Mr. Campbell said he was in favor of moving forward knowing
that this is the beginning of the work and that Council has an opportunity to stop
this work, their participation doesn't stop here, they are not approving any
development and that the alteration to the flood plain should enhance it and
that's the work that is beginning.
14 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING February 11, 2020
The motion failed by the following vote:
Aye: Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez
Vote: 2-4-1 (Thiel absent)
MOTION
On a motion by Council Member Fox, seconded by Council Member Campbell, the
following was proposed:
RESOLUTION
Approving Special Exception TLSE-2019-0004, Leesburg South Floodplain
Alteration /Reclamation to Allow the Alteration of the Floodplain Boundaries on
the Property in the Northeast Quadrant of the Intersection of South King Street
and Evergreen Mill Road contingent upon the conditions that staff has set of
substantial conformance and no waivers expressed or implied.
Council Member Dunn noted he would not be supporting the motion
because of the citizen's concerns. He said that the residents have more
confidence in knowing what they have moved into their homes in a certain
situation and now the government is assisting someone to come in and change
that situation which causes them concern.
The motion failed by the following vote.'
Aye: Campbell, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez
Nay: Dunn, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Vote: 3-3-1 (Thiel absent)
MOTION 2020-041
On a motion by Council Member Dunn, seconded by Council Member Steinberg,
the following was proposed:
To defer this item to the February 24, 2020 Council Meeting for a vote.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg, and
Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0-1 (Thiel absent)
b. Public Hearing on Calendar Year 2020 Personal Property Tax Rates
The public hearing was opened at 9:57 p.m.
Mr. Case presented the proposed 2020 personal property tax rates. He
noted the separate adoptions of the personal property tax rate is required by the
County and the Town's centralized billing agreement. Loudoun County bills the
15 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING February 11, 2020
personal property taxes for the Town semi-annually in May and October. The
County needs Council to adopt the rate in February in order to be able to process
the bills for mailing for collection on May 1st. Mr. Case reviewed the proposed
rates. Mr. Case said the FY2021 proposed budget includes personal property tax
revenue of $2.2 million based on the current rates and the personal property tax
revenue is 4% of the general fund revenue. He noted the Virginia State statute
provides for personal property tax relief on vehicles that applies a percentage to
the first $20,000 of value. Mr. Case noted that the Town Manager is proposing
an unchanged personal property tax relief at 50% of the first $20,000 for 2020.
Mr. Case said the proposed Vehicle License fee is also billed along with the
Personal Property taxes with the agreement with Loudoun County. He said that
the Town Manager's recommendation is that it remains unchanged at $25 per
vehicle for all types of vehicles. Mr. Case said the vehicle license fee is assessed
on January 1, 2020, based on the size of the vehicle on that day and is not
prorated for anyone who moves during the year.
Council Member Dunn asked if the County will charge $25 for the
automobile tax. Mr. Case said the County does and that it was his understanding
that the bill could be different, but that would require programming, which the
County would charge the Town to do. Mr. Dunn asked what that charge would
be. Mr. Case said staff did not know. Mr. Dunn asked about prorating the bill for
those residents moving out of the Town during the year. Mr. Case said that the
personal property tax is changing and will be prorated under the new billing
agreement with the County but that the Vehicle Licensing Fee cannot be
prorated. He noted it is only $25 and is a yearly fee. Mr. Dunn asked if this fee
can be changed. Mr. Case said he was unsure if it could be changed and would
have to ask the County. He added that it would probably also be a programming
fee to make the change.
Council Member Fox asked if the Vehicle License fee was either charged
by the Town or the County. Mr. Case said that was correct.
Public Speakers:
There were no citizens wishing to address this public hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 10:03 p.m.
MOTION 2020-042
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Fox, the
following was proposed:
RESOLUTION
Setting Tax Rates on Personal Property (Section 20-22), Vehicle License Fee
(Section 32-84), and Personal Property Tax Relief (Section 20-30) for Tax Year
2020 and Amending Leesburg Town Code, Appendix B — Fee Schedule
Council Member Dunn made a separate motion.
16 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING February 11, 2020
MOTION
The following motion by Council Member Dunn, failed fora lack of a second:
Lowering either/or the vehicle license tax and/or the personal property tax
Council Member Dunn said he would not be able to support the main
motion because he said he would like to see Council provide more tax relief to
citizens.
The main motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: Dunn
Vote: 5-1-1 (Thiel absent)
15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. None.
16. NEW BUSINESS
a. None.
17. COUNCIL DISCLOSURES AND COMMENTS / ADDITIONS TO
FUTURE MEETINGS
Council Member Dunn commented that there were comments that were
coming in that people were trying to make a reference to a conflict of interest in
reference to the letter sent to the Editor of Loudoun Now. Mr. Dunn said
campaign contributions are not a conflict of interest. Mr. Dunn also noted that
Council has been going into a lot of Closed Sessions recently. He said the
citizenry has no idea what these Closed Sessions are about and noted that there
are actions taken by staff and Council in those Closed Sessions and there may be
issues that come up with staff that the public has no accountability. He added
that it makes accountability difficult for those things that do come up in Closed
Session. Mr. Dunn also noted that there seems to have been an effort by certain
Council Members that want to draw the Town Attorney into making rules about
how Council operates its Council meetings. He said he thinks that's highly
inappropriate seeing that the Chair is Council's parliamentarian. Mr. Dunn said
that is putting that individual staff member at a consequence when Council
should be deciding the fate of the meeting and not dragging staff into it. Mr.
Dunn reiterated that he believed the earlier motion regarding the Bus Shelter
should have been a reconsideration of the previous motion and then there would
be the opportunity to vote on the new resolution. Mr. Dunn also noted that he
has not taken any donations from Graydon Manor or their representatives. He
also noted that for many years, even before Graydon Manor came up, he voted in
opposition to the Town Attorney's contract and her performance.
Council Member Campbell congratulated the Black History Month
proclamation recipients. Mr. Campbell congratulated Mr. Curtis Allred for
opening Wild Wood Pizza in the Village at Leesburg. Mr. Campbell said he
17 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING February 11, 2020
believed that Council had some unfinished business in regard to the letter to the
Editor. Mr. Campbell read a letter that he asked Council to consider holding a
Work Session to discuss its release to the public because he believes the public
deserves an answer rather than just allegations that have not been addressed
publicly.
Council Member Fox disclosed that she met with Mr. Peter Kalaris on the
floodplain alteration/reclamation in South Leesburg. Ms. Fox noted on the
COIA forms that Council just completed that it says on page 2 that Council
Members are not required to disclose campaign contributions. She stated that she
will always do what's in the best interest of the Town no matter what anybody
says. Ms. Fox congratulated Mr. Curtis Allred on the opening of Wild Wood
Pizza. She also mentioned that she joined a field trip to the Belmont Cemetery
for the Enslaved and said it was a beautiful event and noted that four Boy Scouts
earned their Eagle Scout helping with the project.
Council Member Steinberg thanked Vice Mayor Martinez for arranging
and meeting with the community at the Heritage Way complex and hearing their
concerns and bringing them back to Council to give them the opportunity to do
the right thing.
Vice Mayor Martinez disclosed that he spoke to Mr. Gary Rappaport
about the text amendment that will be coming forward. Mr. Martinez said he
received a text and some information about Mr. Pete Fulcer and his son Rob. Mr.
Fulcer had a lot to do with Monroe Vo-Tech and that it is sad to see it
demolished after all the years that it's served this community and students. He
said that he is hoping that what will replace it will more than make up for what
the Town is losing.
18. MAYOR DISCLOSURES AND COMMENTS / ADDITIONS TO FUTURE
MEETINGS
Mayor Burk disclosed that she also met with Mr. Gary Rappaport regarding the
text amendment for the dog kennel at the Village at Leesburg. Mayor Burk said she also
met with businesswoman Ms. Debbie Henry about a text amendment for allowing a cat
cafe in the Village of Leesburg. Mayor Burk added that she met with Mr. Peter Kalaris
about the floodplain infill property discussed at the meeting. Mayor Burk thanked the
Town's Streets Department for their response to get rid of the debris after the tornado.
She noted that the Council hosted the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors at
Tuscarora Mill on January 29. Mayor Burk said she visited Loudoun County High
School on January 21 to deliver the Girls Volleyball Team with their proclamation and
certificates for winning the State Volleyball Championship. Mayor Burk said she
attended the Black History event at the Thomas Balch Library and said it was
fascinating. Mayor Burk said that she, Vice Mayor Martinez and Council Member
Steinberg attended VML Day to talk to Senator Boysko and Delegate Gooditis about the
bills sponsored by the Town. She added that they also had the opportunity to meet with
Attorney General Herring and to hear from Governor Northam about the state of the
State. Mayor Burk said she was informed that she had been elected to the VML
Executive Committee. Mayor Burk noted that she and Council Member Steinberg met
with Chair Randall and Supervisor Umstattd to discuss revenue sharing in the BLA
18 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING February 11, 2020
i
process. She noted that the Town is very close to an agreement and things are moving
very quickly.
19. TOWN MANAGER COMMENTS
a. None.
20. CLOSED SESSION
a. Personnel Discussion.
MOTION 2020-043
On a motion by Mayor Burk, seconded by Council Member Steinberg, the
following was proposed:
I move to enter closed session pursuant to Virginia Code § 2.2-3711 A.1. regarding
assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries,
disciplining, or resignation of the Town Attorney.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: Vice Mayor Martinez
Vote: 5-1-1 (Thiel absent)
Council convened in a Closed Session at 10:22 p.m.
Council reconvened in an Open Session at 10:41 p.m.
MOTION2020-044
On a motion by Mayor Burk, the following was proposed:
In accordance with Section §2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia, I move that Council
certify to the best of each member's knowledge, only public business matters
lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under Virginia Freedom of
Information Act and such public business matters for the purpose identified in the
motion by which the closed meeting was convened were heard, discussed or
considered in the meeting by Council. (ROLL CALL VOTE)
The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
Dunn —aye, Campbell — aye, Fox — aye, Vice Mayor Martinez — aye, Steinberg —
aye, Mayor Burk — aye (Thiel absent)
b. Approval of Separation Agreement with Town Attorney
MOTION2020-045
On a motion by Council Member Dunn, seconded by Council Member Campbell,
the following was proposed:
19 I Page
COUNCIL MEETING February 11, 2020
RESOLUTION2020-029
To Approve a Separation Agreement with the Town Attorney as discussed in the
Closed Session
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Steinberg
Nay: Vice Mayor Martinez and Mayor Burk
Vote.' 4-2-1 (Thiel absent)
c. Appointing an Interim Town Attorney
MOTION 2020-046
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Fox, the
following was proposed:
RESOLUTION2020-030
Appointing Martin Crim, Esq., to serve as Interim Town Attorney
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Campbell, Dunn, Fox, Vice Mayor Martinez, Steinberg and Mayor Burk
Nay: None
Vote: 6-0-1 (Thiel absent)
21. Adjournment
On a motion by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Dunn, the meeting
was adjourned at 10: 45 p.m.
34,1c,
Kelly Burk, JvIayor
Town of Leesburg
ATTEST:
ft
Clerk of Council
2020 tcmin0211
20 I Page
1
February 11, 2020 – Leesburg Town Council Meeting
(Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not
be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is
on the Town’s Web site – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Council meeting minutes.
Council meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia
Records Retention guidelines.)
Mayor Kelly Burk: I'd like to call to order the February 11, 2020 meeting of the Leesburg Town Council.
If anyone in the room needs hearing assistance, please see the clerk. Council Member Dunn is going
to be late, so Council Member Steinberg has offered to do the invocations and it will be followed by the
salute to the flag. Nina and Noah are going to do that for us. Council Member Steinberg.
Council Member Neil Steinberg: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the meeting of Leesburg Town
Council. I'd like to ask for a moment of silence, please.
[silence]
Council Member Neil Steinberg: Thank you all.
Mayor Burk: Nina and Noah, would you like to come up to the desk up there? You pull the mics down
a little bit for you. All right. Are you ready? I pledge-
Nina and Noah Delpesche: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[applause]
Mayor Burk: [chuckles] Thank you. Very good. [laughs] Let the record reflect that we are missing two
Council members tonight. Council Member Dunn will be arriving late and Council Member Thiel will be
participating electronically. I need a motion to allow Council Member Thiel to participate in the February
11, 2020 Town Council meeting electronically. That was moved by Mr. Martinez, seconded by Council
Member Steinberg. All in favor?
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed? That's five, zero, two. Minutes, we have two sets of session minutes of January
27, 2020. Do I have a motion?
Vice Mayor Marty Martinez: So moved.
Mayor Burk: Moved by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Campbell. All in favor?
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed? That's five, zero, two. Regular session minutes of January 28th, 2020.
Vice Mayor Martinez: So moved.
Mayor Burk: Moved by Vice Mayor Martinez, seconded by-
Council Member Steinberg: Second.
Mayor Burk: Council Member Steinberg.
Council Member Suzanne Fox: Madam Mayor?
Mayor Burk: Yes?
2
Council Member Fox: May I make a change in the agenda, please? I'd like to propose that we move
items--
Mayor Burk: We're not done. I got to get this finished.
Council Member Fox: Oh sorry. [chuckles]
Mayor Burk: The regular session minutes of January 28th, 2020, we had a motion by Vice Mayor
Martinez, seconded by Council Member Steinberg. All in favor?
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed? That's five, zero, two. Now, do I have a motion to adopt the meeting agenda?
Would you like to make that motion?
Council Member Fox: I want to make the motion and also make a change to it.
Mayor Burk: All right. Let's get to second and then we'll do that.
Council Member Ron Campbell: Second.
Mayor Burk: Council Member Campbell, is second. You want to make a change?
Council Member Fox: Yes. I'd like to move items 13.e. and f. to after a Closed Session to make those
items I guess numbers 20.b. and c.
Mayor Burk: All right. You don't want to move the Closed Session forward. You want to move the--
Council Member Fox: Not really. I don't know.
Mayor Burk: It's up to you. I just wanted to clarify. You want to move--
Council Member Fox: No. It's usually done at the end, so I'd rather get to business.
Mayor Burk: All right. You want to move 13--
Council Member Fox: 13.e. and f.
Mayor Burk: And f?
Council Member Fox: Yes. Those pertain, I feel, to the Closed Session, so I'd like to move them
afterwards.
Mayor Burk: 13.e. and f. Is there any discussion with this? Any problems with this? All right. All in favor,
indicate by saying that we're doing a whole agenda with moving 13.e. and f.
Council Member Campbell: Okay, yes.
Mayor Burk: All right, so all in--
Vice Mayor Martinez: Madam Mayor?
Mayor Burk: Yes?
Vice Mayor Martinez: One word.
Mayor Burk: Yes, sir.
3
Vice Mayor Martinez: Point of Order. Council Member Thiel is supposed to be participating. Shouldn't
he be put online for the vote?
Town Manager Kaj Dentler: Mr. Thiel will be called at the appropriate time for those items, which he
is already asked to speak.
Vice Mayor Martinez: The motion for his participation is only for the Town Attorney issues and the
Closed Session, correct?
Kaj Dentler: Those are the items that he is asked to speak to, including the Closed Session.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Okay. That motion should represent-- his participation is limited to.
Mayor Burk: Well, it's not particularly limited to. He is choosing to do that. We have this discussion--
Vice Mayor Martinez: I just wanted it to be pointed out that he is not participating in the Town Council
meeting, only on those specific agenda items.
Mayor Burk: All right.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Okay.
Mayor Burk: Okay. Yes, Mr.--
Council Member Campbell: I like to respond to that point. That's not necessarily true. He could decide
to call in. He could decide to make people know that he's available sooner. To limit his participation in
those items-
Vice Mayor Martinez: We're not limiting him.
Mayor Burk: No one's limiting him.
Council Member Campbell: - then I'm not sure why we need to clarify.
Mayor Burk: Well, there is no limiting. We have a motion, which is to accept the agenda with moving
13.e. and f. to after the Closed Session, so would actually become 21.a. and b. All in favor?
Council Members: Aye.
Council Member Fox: 20.b. and c. No, you're right. 21's adjournment.
Mayor Burk: All in favor, indicate by saying "Aye."
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed? All right. That passes five, zero, two. We have no certificates of recognition,
but we do have a proclamation tonight. We actually have two. The one proclamation we approved last
night, I will read it tonight, but this will be given to Mary Wiley at the service at the Providence Baptist
Church. The proclamation reads, "Whereas Mary Wiley will be honored as the oldest living member of
the Providence Baptist Church in recognition of Black History Month, and whereas Mary Wiley moved
to Leesburg, Virginia in the 1940s, whereas Ms. Wiley was baptized in 1947 at the Providence Baptist
Church by the late Reverend Chaplain."
"She's been an active member of the Providence Baptist Church for 73 years and a deaconess for
many years. She served on the usher board for over 50 years. She was the mother of the senior choir
and she served as a greeter and a president of the hospitality club. Whereas Ms. Wiley has been a very
active member of the community, she has donated to the local schools towards Thanksgiving and
Christmas baskets for families in need."
4
"She's participated in several school fundraisers. She's always reached out to bereavement families
with baked caramel or coconut cakes. Every Christmas, she makes cakes for her neighbors, doctor's
office, mailman, and the bank. They all could count on receiving cake from Mrs. Wiley, and whereas
Ms. Wiley was honored as the Providence Baptist Church Woman of the Year in May 2007."
"Her house that she used to own in Leesburg is currently named the Wiley House. Therefore, the Mayor
and the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia hereby congratulate Mary Wiley on her service to
the community and being a loyal member of the Providence Baptist Church for over 70 years,
proclaimed this 11th day of 2020." Ms. Wiley is 104 years old. We will be presenting that at the service,
but the other proclamations that we are going to be presenting tonight are for Black History Month.
It says, "Whereas in February of 1926, 61 years after the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the
United States Constitution, Dr. Carter Woodson, a noted historian, desired to recognize the
achievements and contributions of the African Americans in this country. Whereas National Black
History Month allows us to honor the achievements of and celebrate the heritage of African Americans
while we're calling the courage of their struggle to achieve equality."
"Whereas a nation, we take the time during this month to recognize and honor the contributions of
African Americans whose leadership and service makes us proud, and whereas Tanja Thompson was
a leader and organizer of the Loudoun County community discussion on the Lynching Memorial Project,
sponsored by the Equity Justice Institute, held at Douglass Community Center in Leesburg on March
16, 2019."
"Whereas this event brought together community leaders and residents to share their views on the three
lynchings that took place in Leesburg, Virginia in the early 20th century, and how the community might
acknowledge and commemorate the victims. Whereas throughout Mrs. Thompson's effort, we as a
community have taken the difficult first steps to come in terms with this chapter in our community's
history."
"Whereas volunteer leaders and organizers are also important and responsible to the success and
survival of many communities during the civil rights movement and today, and whereas Donna Bohanon
is the chair of the Black History Committee for the Friends of the Thomas Balch Library in Leesburg and
has given countless hours of time for many years to serve the Leesburg community in many capacities."
"Whereas Donna Bohanon is active in several community organizations engaged in functions such as
history programs, African-American centered education history tours, celebrations, and recognition of
local African-American leaders. Whereas Raymond H. Delpesche, the current Post Commander of
VFW Post 1177 in Leesburg has served his country in a community as a member of the United States
Navy, whereas he was the first American of African descent to hold the position of Post Commander
for the VFW Post 1177 and continues to distinguish himself through active leadership in many civic and
patriotic organizations."
"Therefore, the Mayor and the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia hereby proclaim February
2020 as Black History Month and the Town of Leesburg. We urge the citizens of Leesburg to join in
recognizing the contributions made by African Americans and the experiences of the African-American
community throughout the history of our nation, our State, our Country, and our Town, proclaimed his
11th day of February 2020." I would ask that you come down and join me as we present these.
[background conversation]
Mayor Burk: We want to acknowledge-- We're moving. Okay.
[laughter]
Mayor Burk: Ray, would you mind coming up first? We are very excited to give this to you and to honor
you today. If you do anything around Town, you'll see Ray, his wife, and his kids. They're there. They're
always active. They're always giving their time and their energy and their efforts at things that are going
on in Town. We're very lucky that you're here and we're very delighted to honor you tonight. What a
great representative you are for your community. Would you like to say a few words?
5
[applause]
Mayor Burk: Would you like to say a few words?
Raymond Delpesche: Yes.
Mayor Burk: Okay. [chuckles]
Raymond Delpesche: I'm rather shy, but I'll say a few words.
[laughter]
Raymond Delpesche: I would just like to say thank you, especially to my post members from VFW
1177 here in Loudoun County for their continuous support in my efforts to help the veterans of Loudoun
County as best as I can. I would also like to thank Chief Brown for his opportunity to help me and give
me the chance to help in my civic duties with the Police Department and the Leesburg Citizens Patrol
Team, where I volunteer as much time as I possibly can. It's an opportunity for everyone who was able
and willing to do so. I encourage much more people, young people, old people. I don't care. If you are
able to do so to come out and give back to the community as much as you can, I appreciate it.
Mayor Burk: Thank you very much.
[applause]
Mayor Burk: Donna? Now, if you want to talk about a force to be dealt with, oh my gosh. [laughs]
Donna has been so committed and so involved in the Black History Committee. That is just amazing,
things that you have accomplished and the things that you've done. Just recently, they had an event at
the Balch Library and it was an all-day event. I wasn't able to stay for the whole day, but the morning
program was phenomenal. It was so interesting. It was so instructional. It was a great opportunity and
we really appreciate all that you do to help educate us and making sure that we realize the contributions
that people in the African-American community have made and continue to make. Thank you very
much.
Donna Bohanon: Thank you.
[applause]
Donna Bohanon: I'd want to say thank you. I really appreciate the honor and the recognition. Thank
you, Ron Campbell, specifically, because as a member of the Council, he is also responsible for the
liaison with the Thomas Balch Library, which as you all may know or may not know, is our very own
history and research library. We are very lucky to have that institution here in the Town and in the
County.
I'd like to say on behalf of the Thomas Balch Library, the Friends of the Thomas Balch Library and the
Advisory Commission, we really appreciate you all support. For me, personally, doing this work for the
Black History Committee is a labor of love and appreciation for the lives lived and the stories told by the
African-American community. I really appreciate the support of the African-American community that
have been so gracious to tell their story so that we can learn and we can use those stories to look at
how our lives are parallel, what they went through. Also, I just, again, like to thank you.
Mayor Burk: Thank you. Thank you very much, Donna.
[applause]
Mayor Burk: The last one is Tanja Thompson, another woman of force. Oh my gosh. Her husband
describes her as a full-time student forever.
Tanja Thompson: [laughs]
6
Mayor Burk: When she finishes her degree, she then goes on and gets another one and another one.
Do we have to call you Doctor yet?
Tanja Thompson: Not yet.
Mayor Burk: Not yet. Okay. Come back when you do that. Tanja was instrumental in putting together
a function where the community got together and talked about the locations of the lynchings that
happened here and Leesburg. How do we want to commemorate them and what do we want to
remember them and how do we do it? It was a very insightful discussion. There was probably, what,
100 people there?
Tanja Thompson: Yes.
Mayor Burk: It was a very important event and we really appreciate all you do. All these people are so
involved in the community and to identify just one thing is so difficult because there are so many things
that you do, so thank you for everything. We appreciate it very much. Would you like to say a few
words?
[applause]
Tanja Thompson: Thank you so very much for that. I can say that as a student at George Mason
University, I think maybe some of my classmates are watching as well. It was actually a class project. I
like to say is that a class project that turned into a movement where we galvanize at least 100 and some
people within the community to sit down and have a respectful dialogue as it relates to the lynchings
that have occurred here in Loudoun County.
It was not easy as far as the discussion and the discussion was mixed. It wasn't just African Americans.
It wasn't just Caucasians, but it was individuals that came as far as Maryland and West Virginia to hear
what everyone had to say. We use what is called they were all cafe model where individuals had 20
minutes to talk about whatever the topic was at that particular table and then move to other tables.
It was phenomenal. We've gotten a lot of press and we have talked about it on numerous occasions.
I've definitely like to thank the Leesburg Diversity Commission for putting me in, but also for the Town
Council in approving it as well. Again, thank you so very much. Your voice does matter.
Mayor Burk: Thank you very much.
[applause]
Mayor Burk: These are just a few of the very impressive people we have in our community. Thank you
very much for coming today. That's it.
All right. We have two presentations for tonight and then we get to the petitioner section. The first
presentation is the Arts & Cultural District rebranding-- Bye. [laughs] Bye, Nina. [chuckles]
Nina Delpesche: Bye.
Mayor Burk: Bye. The Arts & Cultural District rebranding and the new logo design. COPA
Commissioner Elizabeth Ransom is going to be presenting.
Elizabeth Ransom: Hello, can you hear me?
Mayor Burk: Yes.
Elizabeth Ransom: Okay. I'm Elizabeth Ransom and I joined the Commission on Public Art last year.
I want to thank everyone on the Council for making time to hear this presentation. Particularly, I want
to thank Tom Dunn for my appointment. I'm sorry he's not here. It's been a joy to serve with COPA and,
in particular, under Donna's leadership. She's an amazing and dynamic chair.
7
I might also like to thank Leah Kosin for her role as our new liaison. She's already done a Live in
Leesburg for us about COPA and I hope you all look at it. Last March, you allocated $10,000 to COPA
to promote the arts in Leesburg. This is such a wonderful opportunity. We thought carefully about how
to use the funds. After reviewing several options, we determined the best use would be promoting the
Leesburg Arts & Cultural District.
Tonight, I will report on how we're investing that money and we'll seek your approval for a new logo for
the district, which is part of our plan. You might be wondering, "Wait, there's an Arts & Cultural District?"
A lot of people don't know about it. They wonder, "How big is it? Where is it? Who's in it? What does it
do?" Here it is. The Leesburg Arts & Cultural District was established in March of 2011.
The purpose of it is to foster the growth of arts and culture and to attract new businesses to stimulate
economic growth. That part might surprise you because people don't always associate the arts with
economic growth. According to the Virginia Commission on the Arts, the arts are a proven vehicle for
rural development, tourism growth, veterans rehabilitation, and school success.
A recent report from the National Endowment for the Arts showed that the arts contributed nearly $17
billion to the State GDP, 3.5%. Quite impressive. How do we get the word out? We did some research
in the DMV about how other arts and cultural districts are doing it and that helped us build our plan. The
plan is built around the following things: a new logo, banners, brochures, and events.
We reached out to Visit Loudoun, the Economic and Development Department, the Parks and Rec,
capital construction, and the Town Manager's office as well as the Friends of Leesburg Public Arts, and
a few Town commissions to come up with a plan. We decided to work on a new logo for the district and
the banners and brochures both printed electronic and a list of events to promote the district.
This is the old logo. It was developed in March 2011. We've engaged the services of graphic designer
Stilson Greene to refresh it and to give the district a new start. I'm going to share that in a few slides.
The first way we'd like to use the new logo is with banners throughout the Town. We figured out that
there are possibly two dozen light poles that demarcate the district and they can display on different
sized banners.
Just to give you a sense of how they will look, these are examples. This is right in front of Mom's Apple
Pie, you might recognize it, on a 14-foot pole. This is just an illustrative banner. It's not the logo that
we'll be using. This is on a higher pole. This is in another location on Catoctin Circle, which is quite a
bit higher. Same poll, different sized banner. In summary, we're very grateful for the $10,000 that you
provided us for this current fiscal year.
It provided a vibrant and fresh logo, beautiful banners, and a few extras in case they get damaged and
the brackets that will be needed to securely hang them on the poles. As an aside, I'd like to plant the
seed of an idea tonight. COPA funding for the next budget cycle would be very helpful to allow us to
continue to promote the district and the Town. We are formulating plans for a different kind of art show
for this next fiscal cycle. We will be back soon with information about that.
Before we get to the new logo, I'd like to credit the Economic Development Department and Visit
Loudoun, who both have been very supportive of this rebranding project and they're assisting with their
variety of exciting efforts. First of all, an electronic tool kit, which is basically a way that you communicate
via social media about the district, door clings for businesses to hang, a map of Instagram spots, which
might highlight galleries and murals and sculptures.
A digital marketing plan and advice to promote the district and also support for the Virginia Museum of
Fine Arts Artsmobile. I'm not sure if you're familiar with it, but the Artsmobile actually brings arts to us
from the Virginia Fine Arts Museum. It's a wonderful way to share arts from another setting in Virginia.
You may be wondering, "Where is that logo you've been telling me about?" I've been trying to keep
your attention. Here it is. Ta-da. This logo is fresh, energetic, a little jazzy.
It's intended to express the vibrancy of the arts but also reference Leesburg's historic past. Keep in
mind, it's a fluid logo. Once it's approved, it can be used on a variety of applications. It can be on
banners, websites, social media. You would use a different color depending on what kind of background
8
you'd be using it on. Representatives from the Economic Development Department, Town Managers,
and COPA worked for many months with the graphic designer.
After reviewing several options, we voted to approve this one at our meeting in February. We would
really appreciate your voting on this logo tonight or at your next meeting. Our hope is that we can
showcase it at the Leesburg Flower & Garden Show in April, which provides a wonderful opportunity to
showcase the new brand. Thank you so much for listening. I'm wondering if you have any questions.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg, do you have any questions?
Council Member Steinberg: I don't have any questions, but I want to thank you for your presentation
and all the hard work that COPA does. Arts are very important to the Town as is proven time and time
again, so I look forward to being able to support this effort. Thank you.
Elizabeth Ransom: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Campbell?
Council Member Campbell: I don't have any direct questions. Again, I want to say thank you also. I
know it's a lot of hard work for the commission. I know the passion that's put into it and the opportunity
to collaborate with other members of our Town are also extremely important. I look forward for this
grand unveiling and the energy, I think, again that programs and activities mean everything to a logo.
Logo in and of itself. Without the programs and activities, it's just a logo, but I know this represents a lot
more than that. Thank you and the Commission very much for your hard volunteer work. I appreciate
it.
Elizabeth Ransom: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Fox?
Council Member Fox: I'd like to reiterate your thanks. Real quick question. I remember you saying
there are multiple Commissions who worked on this. Who were they?
Elizabeth Ransom: I'll defer that question to Donna because she was part of that process.
Mayor Burk: Would you mind coming to the mic?
Donna Torraca: We worked initially with-- We asked all of the commissions to come in and meet with
us to talk about how we could promote the Arts & Cultural District the best way. We had Diversity
Commission, Environmental Commission. Parks and Rec was there.
Council Member Fox: Was there Economic Development?
Donna Torraca: I'm sorry? Well, Economic Development, yes.
Council Member Fox: Sounds like a collaborative effort.
Donna Torraca: Yes, right.
Council Member Fox: All right. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Vice Mayor?
Vice Mayor Martinez: I just want to thank you for your presentation and you can count on my continued
support for the Public Arts Commission. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Did I hear you have a request in there? Was there an ask in your presentation?
9
Elizabeth Ransom: The ask was, would you please approve this logo?
Mayor Burk: All right. Was there another ask?
Elizabeth Ransom: The other ask is to plant the seed of an idea that we will be submitting a budget
request for the next fiscal cycle and I hope that you will receive that warmly.
Mayor Burk: All right. Thank you, appreciate the information. I don't know that we'll be able to get it on
tonight's meeting, but we most certainly can get it on the next meeting at the end of the month to approve
the logo. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Elizabeth Ransom: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: All right. The next presentation has asked for 20 minutes. Does anybody object to a 20--
Council Member Fox: I object.
Mayor Burk: Yes. [chuckles] Well, I do, but that's all right. [laughs]
Kaj Dentler: I'll do my best.
Mayor Burk: All right. This is the Town Manager's proposed fiscal year 2021 budget.
Kaj Dentler: Madam Mayor, members of Council, I'm pleased to present tonight to you the proposed
budget for fiscal year 2021. This is my sixth presentation to you as your Manager on the budget. There
are several slides that are very similar as my theme is often very consistent, and that you'll recognize
as we go through this quick overview of the budget.
This is the second year of a two-year budget cycle. Last year, you may recall, not only did you approve
FY20, which is a year that we're currently in, but you also provisionally approved FY21, which really is
a guideline and map. You are not legally allowed to appropriate, therefore, through this budget process
you’ll work to do that here at the end of March to appropriate funds starting on July 1.
This budget includes the general fund, utilities fund, and the capital improvements program. The
highlights of the budget are some of these that you heard last night from our financial advisor David
Rose. First, the Town remains in a very strong financial position. You got the highest credit rating
possible by three of the major credit rating agencies in New York. Local governments cannot get any
higher rating than what we already have.
Our goal is to maintain that now that we've achieved it. That's often is harder than actually getting there.
We see positive growth in our assessment, but modest growth of 3.6% in reassessments. Not crazy
growth, modest growth. That's what we're looking for as a healthy community economically. We see
new development. 100 new units in calendar year 2019. 300 new units are expected in 2019.
All this good news is what we want to hear. Part of the theme tonight is caution. We want to make sure
that the decisions that we're making today, the short term, will not impact us in a negative way in the
long term. Therefore, all of my recommendations through this process is to continue the wisdom that
you shared on the budget process, make good, strong strategic decisions for the benefit of the Town
long term.
Some of the main focus areas, starting right off the bat, the headline is, "Is there a tax rate increase?" I
am not recommending any tax rate increase anywhere in the budget. Real estate, no increase. Personal
property tax, no increases. You have a public hearing tonight that Mr. Case will go through on that.
There are no recommended changes in fees. There are no recommended changes in other fees as
well.
Continuing that cautionary approach. The economy is strong. As we go through this, we have some
challenge points that if the economy shifts on us, we'll have some vulnerabilities. I don't think this is the
time to recommend a tax rate increase. The proposed budget focuses on information technology. That's
10
a focus area. The Council strategic plan that you've approved, you'll see that. Continued investment
recommended, focus on capital projects. Our program is, continues to grow.
Several years ago, we thought it was going to go down. Actually, we now have more projects than we've
had in many, many years and continuing to invest in our infrastructure. Even the things we don't see,
things are in the ground, important that we maintain, have a plan to take care of those today so there
are no problems tomorrow. Quick overview of the budget, the total budget in three areas: general fund,
capital improvements program in year '21, and the utilities fund totals almost $144 million.
$62.5 million in the general fund. The general fund shows an increase of about 3.9%. They use that last
bullet there back in 1997 as a quick comparison. It was almost $41 million and we're pushing $144
million. That's only there to show you and remind you, the Town has significantly grown and developed
over the years from when I started with the Town. Where does the money come in from to fund the
government? This chart is intended to show you that.
On the top left, the single largest source of our revenues. It comes from real estate taxes, 25%. On the
right side, underneath the areas that are grouped together, consumer taxes, they come up to 37%.
These are the vulnerabilities that I referenced in that cautionary approach. Although what we anticipate,
the economy remaining strong, at some point, something's going to happen.
Our ability to maintain and position ourselves is very important. These categories: meals taxes, sales
taxes, people, et cetera, these are the vulnerable areas. If the economy begins to slide and we over-
rely on this, this is where the consumers will make their first cuts and will feel that pain faster than
anywhere else because real estate revenue usually lags a little behind.
Again, the message is very positive, but we will not forget about thinking ahead and that's the main
point here. Where does the money go? Once we receive it, where do we spend it? The bottom left
shows 79¢ of every dollar that comes in goes to the areas that we believe is why we are willing as
residents to pay double taxes. Police, our largest investment area is 28¢ on every dollar. Capital projects
and debt service at 23¢. Public Works, is 21¢. Public Works is our streets, our grass cutting, our trash
collections, leaf and brush collection, et cetera, et cetera.
The next four slides show things that are going to impact our base budget. Our base budget is what is
already approved. Things that such as personnel, trash, et cetera. Things that we are committed to
doing, but there are going to be increases as we go through. These next four slides highlight those
areas. The first area is personnel. Some people don't like to talk about personnel. I like to put it right up
front.
It's 60%-plus of our budget and that is normal for local government. That is normal for businesses.
That's your highest cost. Our human capital is our greatest resource and assets that we have. We have
to maintain and take care of our employees, but our impact or the personal budget for '21 is about $1.2
million. The first bullet there reflects six new positions that were approved last year.
As you remember, Council authorized us to start in January and the funding was only provided for six
months. January through June. We're managed well for '20. Now, as we go into '21, we have to pay the
full 12-month salary. That's about a $400,000 impact to the budget right off the bat before we even start
conversations. The second area is an area that we got hit with from the State Pension Fund.
Some of their revenue assumptions did not hit their mark and they're passing their cost down to all the
local governments to pay. That's about $400,000 for Leesburg. Everybody's impact is different based
on the number of employees and the size of your organization, but that is an impact that we have to
absorb. The remaining is to continue our pay for performance increases that is based on an average of
3% for employees.
There is no COLA. A lot of local governments continue to go back to COLAs. I've not recommended
that. Some have gone away from pay-for-performance program. I don't think that's the best way to
manage our operation. I'm recommending that we continue the process of pay-for-performance based
on an average of 3%. The second slide talks about our investment in infrastructure and IT.
11
We have continued to invest in this area. We're seeing about a $415,000 impact to our budget as
Council is known and supported separating our internet connection from Loudoun County. Currently,
we receive our internet service directly through Loudoun County's system. By separating that, we're
improving the cybersecurity for them as well as ourselves. There's a cost for that for about 200-some
thousand dollars.
The second area is part of the strategic plan. To improve our cybersecurity is to migrate to Office 365
for the very specific purpose of improving our cybersecurity. Newest Council Members received same
types of spams and phishing attacks that we as employees received and sometimes are difficult to
figure out what is real and what is not. This improves our ability to defend that all.
The headlines are all across the world and certainly in the country of spam attacks and being
ransomware and held hostage. We're trying to avoid that. It's a small investment in reality. Third area
is project management costs for capital improvement program and our refuse and recycling contract.
Let's talk about the CIP first. Council has given a direction that you want to pay for our overhead by
cash annually.
This is in regards to our employees, our vehicles, our equipment to design, manage and construct, and
inspect all of our capital improvement projects. That total cost is $2.6 million to run that department and
operation. This proposed budget adds another $200,000 to that fund, meaning that we will have $1.6
million now, cash, going towards that $2.6M of overhead. We have a million-dollar gap to still close.
Every year, we've been adding money to this to reach your goal. This is your direction and this is the
best management practice for the organization. Refuse and recycling contract. We have increases that
occur every year that we must manage and we have growth. 300 new units are estimated to come on
board that has the $55,000 estimated cost. The contractual increase is that we've agreed to $90,000.
These are dealing with what we've already agreed upon and what we have to do. I believe our trash
service is very good. Of course, not everyone is always happy. When I think we've had very good
service over the years from our previous, we had some troubles a few years ago. That is not where we
are today. I'm very pleased. I think feedback I've gotten from you and most residents is very positive.
We want to continue this relationship.
In the fourth area of the notable increases to the base budget regards our Fire and Rescue
contributions. The volunteer companies, Fire and Rescue, are primary services and responsibilities of
the County. The Council made a decision to phase out our voluntary contributions to those companies.
As you can see, we're dropping it down. At FY21, we're dropping it down to the final payment of
$166,000 for the two companies combined.
When we get to FY22, we will no longer have a contribution to make. From FY19 to FY22, the Town is
saving $500,000. Again, a conservative, wise financial decision, a cautionary approach that helps keep
our tax rate where we're comfortable with it being. There's only one enhancement that I have proposed
in the budget for FY21. That's an investment in our information technology. It’s a Systems Analyst
position to help us in our IT department and manage our growing enterprise operations.
We call ourselves the Town of the 21st Century. We have a very sophisticated, savvy community of
residents, businesses, and visitors. We have to also meet that challenge. We have grown our IT
department. We're continuing to grow. We've hired excellent staff and make great advancements. In
line with our IT strategic plan that Council has approved and unanimously endorsed by the Tech
Commission, I'm recommending that this position be funded.
I'm recommending that we start the position in January. That softens the impact to the budget in FY21.
We've already positioned ourselves for FY22 in order to fund that position entirely. That cost is $78,000
for the staff person for half a year. Again, the only enhancement that I have recommended. The real
estate, I've already mentioned, there is no recommend increase to that. I'm recommending that we
maintain the rate at 18.4¢.
The equalized rate is at 17.5¢. You know that I do not agree philosophically with the equalized rate and
I do not recommend that Council takes this position. I think it puts us in a negative situation that is not
12
healthy physically for our Town. If you were to drop that rate to the equalized rate, we would have to
cut $755,000 on the proposed budget. That will not be an easy task and it will impact us long term.
Councils made the decision over the last few years to maintain our tax rate. That has been a wise,
savvy financial position to take and it's consistent with the recommendations of our financial advisor
and our Finance staff. I urge you to continue that policy. Eventually, the Town is going to have to address
the fact that we are significantly growing. We have pressures upon ourselves that just growth alone will
not pay for.
That will put pressure on our tax rate. If we don't find new revenue sources either from those sources
that we already have and if we're willing to raise those, we find new sources. We have economic deals
that are out there that we're working on. If some of those opportunities come about, we will be able to
manage the tax rate in a place where most Council will want it to be. You will have options.
If none of those deals come about or we don't find new revenue sources, the pressure on the tax rate
will only increase and you'll eventually be forced to raise the taxes. At this point and there's no
recommendation to do so, I do not urge you to go to equalize. I strongly recommend that you maintain
the tax rate at 18.4¢. This chart shows you the impact on the average home. Single-family homes,
townhomes, and condos.
Again, this is all average. Single-family home, the average assessment in Leesburg for FY20 is
estimated to be at $532,000, rising by $20,000. That annual increase is $79. Townhomes, the increase
is recommended annually at $36, $27 for condo. All three categories are approximately $20,000
increased investment in their value. That's pretty good for the amount that, annually, we're looking at
by maintaining our tax rate.
This chart is one that I show every year. Some of you like it, some of you don't. I view that means it
would probably be a chart that we should be showing everybody. What this only is intended to do is to
show that our tax rate compared to the Purcellville, Vienna, and Herndon is much lower. I believe that
our residents, which I'm one of, we get a great value for the services that we receive for the tax rate we
pay. Not recommending that we go up to those rates, just showing you that we're far below those other
areas.
What's not included? Often I'm asked by Council and others, "What did you not include? How did you
make your decisions?" There are four categories I want to talk about in this for your consideration.
Council discussed a few months ago increasing the amount of funds available for snowstorms.
$600,000 number was used at that time. There was no corporate direction given to include it. I look to
add it in. I felt I could not do it unless I increased a tax rate and I felt we did not need to do that at this
time.
I do think through the next 12 months, we need to work together to find a way to improve our funds that
we have. We will take care of everything that we need to do in our snowstorms. We will not stop because
we're short of funds available in our certain accounts. We will move money around until you draw from
our unassigned fund balance to pay those final bills and readjust, but I do think that we eventually need
to begin to look at different ways to fund it.
One of my recommendations to you as we go through this budget process is when we get to in
December and the final audit is done for this current year, that if there is available surplus money that
we assigned up to $600,000 in a reserve fund for storms. Although this mentioned snowstorms, it's
important for us to remember that just last Friday, we went through a storm that although it only impacted
us a minor swath of people, it could have been much larger.
Everyone that was impacted needed help and we have to roll and take care of our residents and we did
that. I'm looking for us to be able to begin to fund a reserve account that is specifically for storms and
we'll talk more about that through the budget process. The second area is just a variety of positions that
have been requested by departments and these aren't even all of them.
It does include Police Officers, Thomas Balch Library, Information Technology that I did not include in
the budget because it was time to move forward with those and that we are not in the best position to
13
do that. Third category that I'm greatly concerned about is not only for Police but all of our employees.
Although specifically in the public safety area of Police, there is a major effort in the law enforcement
community to recruit and keep their officers, recruit new officers and keep their existing ones.
It's a highly competitive market today. Chief Brown has done a fantastic job of working to draw in quality
new officers and to keep our officers, but the pressure is growing. Eventually, we need to address their
compensation where we will position ourselves out of the market and we will begin to lose officers. That
is a great concern. If you go back to one of those slides I showed earlier, 28¢ for every dollar is invested
in Police.
That's our highest area that we placed on our double taxation for our resident. That's an area that, over
the next 12 to 24 months, I think we need to have more conversations about. We are already working
internally to bring you proposals, but there are no additional compensation identified in this budget.
Finally, $38,000 approximately has been requested from the boards and commissions for a variety of
things.
I did not include them in the budget. I have no opposition to any of them. I just believe that is your
decision to make. They are identified in your proposed budget. If you decide to add them, then we will
make sure that the proper adjustments are made in the budget so you can fund them accordingly. I see
I’m getting close. Capital improvements program. Two last areas to go. Six-year program, we are in the
second year of that six-year plan.
$232 million over the six years. In FY21, it's $58 million of which 55% are transportation projects. These
are the projects that are identified for various stages of development. The interchange at East Market,
Battlefield, and Route 7 has currently started its construction. The process getting mobilized. There are
two projects that are identified for construction at Ida Lee. One is the roof over the pool. The facility was
built in 1990. It's time for a new roof.
The last one is a new project. It's a seasonal bubble over one of the existing three-court pods. This is
about a million-dollar project. We're recommending $400,000 from proffers that we already have and
then the revenues from the program will pay the rest of the debt service, plus make profit for the Town.
Highly successful [unintelligible 00:52:17] program. We'll talk more about that.
Police station and airport hangers continued to progress in the designing of Evergreen Mill Widening
project. There's a design project or capital project under design or to go in design for Town shop that
was built in 1989 and has to be rearranged in order to accommodate the space. There's no growth
place. There's nowhere for them to go. They have to rearrange the space that they have grown.
The last area that I want to talk about and is very important is the Veteran's Park at Ball's Bluff. This is
a project that we acquired the land when I was the Park's Director. 86 acres on the Potomac, but we've
not progressed with the development anyway. That's okay. We landbanked that. That's a good long-
term decision. Council made a good decision to request the Council to fund it, $4 million. The County
to fund it. I'm sorry.
The County has placed that in their CIP and it is progressed to this point in FY21. It is now ready to be
funded. Mr. Hemstreet presents his budget tomorrow night to the Board, assuming that is still in there.
If hopefully approved by the Board, we can expect to have the funds to begin to develop that project.
The utilities fund. Proposed budget is almost $34 million. 18 million of it is operations and six and a half
million in capital projects.
You've already approved a five-year rate plan. That includes how the revenue is to follow. A very healthy
program. It includes four new positions as part of that approved plan. In summary, the Town remains in
strong financial shape of the highest-rated credit rating possible. I'm recommending that we maintain
our real estate tax rate at 18.4¢ and all other personal property rates that we continue to invest in
information technology.
We're focusing on capital projects, but we continue to focus as well and keep an eye on the long-term
decisions. Any decision we make today will have an impact on us tomorrow. The proposed work
schedule is similar to what we've done the last few years. You have three work sessions. They're all on
14
your regular nights and adoption at the end of March. We start two weeks earlier than we've had over
the last few years, but we still have the same amount of time frame that we're discussing it.
It's important that we hit those dates because we have to turn over our property rates and our real estate
rates to the County because our agreement is for the County to bill and collect as a consolidated
program. Residents have a variety of ways to get the information off our website, social media, et cetera,
asking questions. Look at the budgets, et cetera. I'm going to ask the staff if they'll come up and pass
out the books to you here in closing.
We're pleased to present the budget to you. I'm sorry I went over. Almost made it. We look forward to
working with you. There's a lot of things for you to review in the budget. As you get the documents, we'll
set up individual meetings with you to discuss them and then prepare for the work session. Thank you
for your time tonight.
Mayor Burk: Thank you, Mr. Dentler, even though you went three minutes over your time limit. We'll
take care of that later. I'm going to ask Council members, since we're just getting the budget, to hold
your questions from tonight. We have a number of meetings that are scheduled. You will be meeting
privately individually. If we could take the time to go through the document and then bring our questions
at another time, that would be useful. Thank you.
All right. Does anybody have any regional commission reports? All right. That takes us to our petitioner
section. One of the first orders of business is to hear from the public. All members of the public are
welcome to address Council on any item, matter or issue. If you wish to speak, we ask that you sign up
at the podium and that we also ask that you would identify yourself. If comfortable doing so, give your
address for the taped record. Please spell your name for closed captioning purposes.
Any public speaker will be requested to state their name and spell it. In the interest of fairness, we ask
that you observe the five-minute time limit. The green light in front of you will turn yellow at the end of
four minutes, indicating that you have one minute remaining. At that time, we would appreciate you're
summing up and yielding the floor when the bell indicates your time has expired. Under the rules of
order adapted by this Council, the five-minute time limit applies to all. The first name on our sheet tonight
is Michael O'Connor followed by Jay Cruz.
Michael O'Connor: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Vice-Mayor, members of the Town Council. My name
is Michael O'Connor, I live at 38683 Mount Gilead Road in Leesburg. I've been a resident in Leesburg
over 20 years now and resident of Loudoun longer than that. Originally from Chicago, but the last 20
years, I call Leesburg my home. I'm here tonight to make a comment or at least give my support to the
employment status of Barbara Notar. I've been involved in Leesburg and Loudoun County for a long
time. I was the chairman of Oatlands on the board of Morven Park. I chaired the Loudoun Museum here
in Leesburg.
I'm the butt of many jokes in regard to wide sidewalks and maybe First Fridays, but in all of these cases,
I've had the pleasure of dealing with and being a witness to what Barbara Notar has done. Not only for
what we'd look to do as a Town but for the Town and what the Town wants to become. Leesburg is
going through a renaissance. There is not one storefront available for rent in this Town today. 10 years
ago that was not the case. Seven years ago that was not the case. The reason for that is that this Town,
as much as people would love to say it's difficult to deal with or do business in, this Town is a great
place to do business with, a great place to be a part of, and a great place to visit.
You folks have done that. Your staff have done that. She's a great part of that staff. I have never seen
her take a position that I didn't, at some point in time, agree with or come to agree with, and I've been
on the wrong side of several of them, but in each case, I've felt that she's done it for the Town, she's
done it because it's her job, and more importantly, she's done it because it's legal and that is her job.
I've owned several businesses in this Town, so I say I'm a little bit involved here. I've been involved in
many of the businesses here in Town and I support many of the businesses here in Town. I've owned
and managed a company of over a hundred people, and I've had the tough decision to fire several in
my day.
15
Never ever a pleasant mission ever. Firing someone is a very serious responsibility, not only with
yourself and your company but to that person that's on the wrong end of that firing. I can tell you having
witnessed what happened in a Town not too far from us not too long ago for what was found to be an
inappropriate firing. Regardless of the financial issue, regardless of whether it's right or wrong, anything
else, what did it do to that Town? What did the discontent, the malcontent within the Town Council,
within the government of itself, what did it do to that Town and its reputation?
I can tell you tonight if we filled this room with the people that I have spoken to that find that Barbara
Notar has been a credit to this Town, this place could be full right now. A lot of them don't show, but
that's the way of the world. She's been a credit to this Town. I know her only from the work that she
does. I don't think I've ever even seen her outside of that office she sits in, but I'll tell you if, in fact, what
is rumored to be happening, if, in fact, that happens, I hope to God there are real reasons.
Because I for one have had great dealings with Barbara Notar, I think she's done a good job, I think she
represents the Town that she loves, and I would hope that we soften our positions, get on with the
business of the Town, and move on and keep this renaissance going. We're all happy here. Thank you
very much.
Mayor Burk: Thank you, Mr. O'Connor. Jay Cruz is followed by Jim Sisely.
Jay Cruz: I pass.
Mayor Burk: You pass?
Jay Cruz: I don't want to take your time.
Mayor Burk: Okay. Jim Sisely followed by Peter Burnett.
Jim Sisely: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Town Council, and staff. Nice to see you again. I want to
jump right in this. I'm here this evening to speak and support Barbara Notar. I've been on the founding
committee on the Commission of Public Art. I was on the Board of Architectural Review as a long-
standing two-time member, Vice-chair of the board architectural review. I was two terms on the
Economic Development Commission and chair of the Economic Development Commission.
During that time, I had the pleasure of working with Ms. Notar and I can tell you without failing she
provided excellent legal counsel, good guidance, she was highly responsive, wonderfully informed, and
in every single act that I ever observed, she had the Town's back in every way. I believe that she
continues to be a significant and positive employee of the Town of Leesburg, and I would like to see
that continue. In the 12 years that I've known her as both a Deputy Town Attorney and the Town
Attorney, she's been accessible, she returns telephone calls.
The Town of Leesburg is not the only jurisdiction that I've done business with as an appointed party,
and I can tell you, the Town of Leesburg, with the support of the Town Attorney, Barbara Notar, is better
because of her actions. We have not always been in that case as a Town. There was a case in the past
where we had a Town Attorney, and it was evident that her actions were, shall we say, egregious. I
think when we talk about senior staff members of this type, and the dismissal of somebody with the type
of institutional knowledge that Ms. Notar possesses, any firing has to be based on egregious, negative,
clear actions on the part of that employee.
The last thing that I want to share with you is, as elected members of this community appointed to take
an oath to support the best interest of the Town of Leesburg, and the citizens of the Town of Leesburg,
I think that an action to dismiss a senior staff member such as Ms. Notar should be a seven-zero vote
in support of the dismissal, and it's clear that you don't have a seven-zero vote. Now, here's the outcome
of that, as the previous speaker just stood up here and talked about, I believe that there's a stain, a
serious stain, a permanent stain on our neighboring Town immediately to the west, and it's not the only
Town in the Commonwealth of Virginia that has a similar stain.
I would be terribly disappointed in what I see as fine elected individuals with the intention to make the
best Town possible vote in a split decision because it's going to make it look like you're voting on party
16
lines. It's not good for the Town. Most of you that are in support of Ms. Notar's decision, you're either
going to not run for reelection or you're up for reelection in 2020. I believe that's going to weigh against
your efforts to become reelected. I asked you this evening to strongly step back, act independently,
vote your conscience about what is right for the Town of Leesburg.
Keep Ms. Notar as the Town Attorney and let's go back to supporting the Town efforts to build on our
currently strong economy and look to the future for better days. Thanks.
Mayor Burk: Thank you, Mr. Sisely. Peter Burnett is followed by Don Culkin.
Peter Burnett: Good evening. My name is Peter Burnett, that's spelled B-U-R-N-E-T-T. Have I
complied? My address, my office address is 105 Loudoun Street, Southeast here in Leesburg. I figured
out recently that I spent most of my waking hours in Leesburg for closing in on half a century. I don't
know whether I should be proud of that or not, but at least I'm standing here upright talking to you all.
I will say that while a lot of different things have happened in Leesburg over the years, I've been involved
in various private projects and various public efforts and one thing and another, and varying outcomes,
but a consistent theme throughout my decades in Leesburg is that we have always had a Town Council
that we could be very proud of. That has had its differences among its members, it has had citizens
here, including me on many occasions, expressing opinion one direction or another. I don't think
anybody has ever looked at the Town Council as engaging in any kind of rumor provoking scurrilous
kinds of talk that, unfortunately, we have seen on this issue that the two prior speakers have spoken to.
As a lawyer, I see the job of an Attorney, who is an advisor as being one of giving that lawyer's best
professional opinion about a given subject. I can tell you from experience that many times a client
doesn't like the advice they hear, many times they don't take the advice they hear. I think the same is
true of the Council to the extent that there's been any opinion from Ms. Notar that is objectionable, that's
what votes are for. It seems to me that if you have the votes to discharge her as she serves at your
pleasure, if that's your thinking, you will also have the votes to disregard her opinion.
No client has to take their lawyer's opinion, but I do think it's important to consider what the others have
said, which is what is the impact on the integrity and the public confidence in this important entity? This
Town Council is leading a very visible community, very vibrant community, one we're all extremely
proud of. Simply, I don't have an answer for you, but I think anything you can do to avoid this
rumormongering that is going on and can only, it seems to me, get worse.
If there is some way that you can deal with whatever the issue is that is so troubling without the
discharge of this person who, and I agree, by the way, with the others who have said that Ms. Notar, in
my experience, has been nothing but professional. I've worked with her on various projects, but I've
also worked with her on Bar projects and other things for the benefit of the public. She comes across
to me and has for many, many years as a completely straight shooter. I think it's got a lot of folks
scratching their heads, it doesn't fit quite right for folks.
I think it will undermine the Council as a whole and I hope you will consider finding a way to allow Ms.
Notar to continue, and at the same time, have your political fights, have your disagreements. That's
what you're here for. That's great that you're doing it, but don't do things that are going to ultimately
work to the detriment of the reputation of you and this community. Thank you very much.
Mayor Burk: Thank you, Mr. Burnett, followed by Mr. Culkin.
Don Culkin: Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Don Culkin, it's C-U-
L-K-I-N. I also work at 105 Loudoun Street Southeast. I'm an Attorney here in Town with Burnett
Williams and also have a piece of a couple of buildings here in Town, and I've been involved in some
downtown organizations over the years. I'm also here to comment on my interactions over the years
with Ms. Notar since she first came to Town, if I recall correctly, promoting adult literacy.
Then came to work for the Town and became the Deputy Town Attorney and then became Town
Attorney, and as everyone else before me has said, has been nothing but professional and nothing but
a great job representing the Town. I have one interaction with her that illustrates what I think her
17
reputation is in Town involving a case that we have for one of your employees unrelated to Town
activities the case was. We needed some documents from one of your departments and it was out of
left-field and out of the ordinary course, and we were having difficulty working it out with the relevant
Town employee.
We were pulling our hair out as was your employee. I get a call from Barbara and then she explains to
me what she's done to fix the problem. It didn't even occur to me that she was going to get involved in
it and when she got involved, the problem was fixed and everyone got along with their business. I just
remember thinking that I wish more attorneys could work like that. The Town's interest recovered, my
interest recovered, and that is Barbara's reputation. She's a straight shooter. Michael O'Connor
mentioned that she's a credit to the Town, I certainly agree with that. She's a credit to the profession
and that the Town is well-represented.
I congratulate the Town for adding Ms. Newton to the staff. The Town very well represented. I'm just
concerned that there seems to be some decision brewing that has not been explained and it just seems
odd is the word to me. When I read about this, I said, "This is so odd" that Barbara Notar is not properly
representing the Town. I don't know of a single Attorney who would agree with that. Her reputation is
uniformly excellent, and I urge you to proceed with caution. I appreciate you listening to me this evening.
Mayor Burk: Thank you, Mr. Culkin. Mr. Culkin was our last speaker. Is there anybody in the audience
that didn't sign up that would like the opportunity to speak at this point?
Curtis Allred: Good evening, Council, Madam Mayor, Vice-Mayor, Council. My name is Curtis Allred,
I live in 463 Foxridge Drive, Southwest Leesburg, 20175. I am here regarding Ms. Notar's and the
Council's public display of a human resources issue. To borrow from Kaj's presentation, I quote, "Human
capital is our greatest resource and we have to take care of our employees." Other notes from that or
the word cautionary is mentioned multiple times, and then there's a common in there related to pay for
performance. I'm speaking on behalf of myself only regarding the public display related to Barbara
Notar's employment.
I'm not speaking in favor of Ms. Notar, I've only had limited interactions with her and quite honestly, the
things didn't go the way I wanted them to, but that's irrelevant. If you don't like the way the rules are,
you either work to get them changed or in the process, you actually learn why they are the way they
are even if it doesn't work for you. I'm here because I'm concerned. Members of Council have made
public what should have been a strictly internal personnel HR. matter. As a body, you've made an
employee's job status a matter of politics, whether for or against, the disrespect that this shows our
Town employee is completely unacceptable.
As a voter, I get to review you every time you're up for reelection. I get to vote, that's how I let you know.
My vote is private. It's in a slip of paper, I drop it in a box. I don't write my vote to the newspaper if I
don't get my way more than just a letter to the editor. As a business owner, I have to make personnel
decisions on a near-daily basis. My team expects those to be made in confidence, even if made by a
committee, and if I fail in this, I run a strong risk of losing their loyalty. Our Town staff is absolutely no
different. We're all trusting that you as a body will do the right thing. I urge you to consider this as you
move forward from this currently mishandled situation. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Thank you, Mr. Allred. Is there anybody else in the audience that didn't sign up that would
like to have the opportunity to speak at this point? All right, not seeing anyone, I will close the petitioner
section. Thank you all very much for coming out. Approval of the consent agenda is the next item that
we will be dealing with. Number 12.a. is the approving a contract for replacement of the generator
programmable logic control system at the water pollution control facility to Carter Machinery in the
amount of $386,750.
Number 12.b. is authorizing the task order to Potomac Electric Services Inc. for the power system study
and remediation tasks for water and wastewater facilities.
Number c. is approving a task order for replacement of two sodium hypochlorite chemical tanks at the
water pollution control facility to JF Industrials in the amount of $152,428. Number d. is easement of the
right of way agreement with Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative for Street Lights along Sycolin Road
18
authorizing the conveyance of an easement to the Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative for installation
service of street lights. Number e. is an amendment to approve body worn and in-car camera integration
contract. Number f. is approving a supplemental appropriation for the donation of $750 from the Mildred
T. Nichols Trust to Thomas Balch Library for archival processing.
Is there anything that anybody wants removed from the consent agenda? All right, do I have motion?
Moved by Mr. Martinez, seconded by Ms. Fox. All in favor? Anybody have any comments at this point?
All in favor indicate by saying aye.
Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: The vote is 6-0-11 with Mr. Thiel not here. All right, we have a resolution for Tuscarora
Creek, flood mitigation, and stream restoration project. Construction change order number seven and
this is to authorize the change order number seven to the construction contract for Tuscarora Creek,
flood mitigation, and stream restoration project with the Avon Corporation in the amount of $125,234.20.
Do you have a presentation?
Renee LaFollette: I have a very quick presentation for this project because I understand there are
some questions related to this change order. The Tuscarora Creek project, the construction contract
was awarded by Town Council in the amount of $5,385,905. The project budget overall for the project
is $7,559,200 for two projects which is our flood mitigation project and our stream restoration projects
and a TMDL. That includes everything for design, land acquisition, utility relocations, and construction.
We began construction on May 20th of 2019. We have six change orders that have been approved
administratively that total $66,323.76.
Those change orders are as follows. The first one was for cameras to monitor the stream restoration
work since this is our first type of project that we've done like this. We knew we had flooding in the area,
we wanted to be able to monitor the stream during construction and post-construction. Change order
number two, we had a material called Fleximat. The specification changed from the time we bid to
award of the contract, so we had to pay the contractor for those changes. Change order number three,
we had a conflict with a Verizon line that was not designated in the field prior to construction. We had
to demobilize and then remobilize the sanitary sewer crew.
Change order four, we had to replace 62 feet of a sanitary sewer line at the Utility Department's request.
Change order five, we had a large tree that we agreed to remove during easement negotiations. Change
order number six, we had a manhole that missed a note during design and we ended up having to fill
that in the field. Change order number seven is the big change order for $125,000 and change for
additional what's called toe revetment stone, and that is an issue that was brought up during design.
We had some areas in the project that were shown for this use of stone and once the plans were finally
approved, there were six additional areas that needed this material and it's used where they're stressing
the stream bank for terms to keep the erosion down, and this project is a stream restoration project to
decrease nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loading. This was part of that. The change order is
coming to Council tonight because it is over a hundred thousand dollars and requires Council's approval
in order for the Town Manager to be able to sign it. Otherwise, it would be an administrative.
We approve change order is the Virginia Public Procurement Act and the Town's CIP policies, and
procedures, and procurement policies allow us to go to 25% or $50,000 whichever is greater on a
construction contract. Change order number seven, even though it is a large change order, puts the
total project at 3.52% above awarded contract cost and we are currently under budget.
Mayor Burk: Is that it? Is that your presentation?
Renee Lafollette: That's it.
Mayor Burk: Thank you. That is quite a project.
Renee Lafollette: It is.
19
Mayor Burk: My gosh, seeing the work that's been done on that and the changes.
Renee Lafollette: This is a current picture.
Mayor Burk: I think you've planted a couple of hundred trees there, it seems like.
Renee Lafollette: More than that.
Mayor Burk: Really? Wow. Does Mr. Steinberg, do you have any questions? Vice Mayor?
Vice Mayor Martinez: No.
Mayor Burk: Council Member Fox.
Council Member Fox: Yes, thanks. You answered most of the questions I asked, so thank you. I
wanted to make sure you have those before tonight. Under budget is great. How much under budget
are we?
Renee Lafollette: We have $300,000 remaining in the project, $125K, will take part of that. We don't
know, we still have half of the project to build this spring.
Council Member Fox: I was wondering, that was my next question, when is it slated to be finished?
Renee Lafollette: Right now, because of all of the rainy weather, we're approximately a month and a
half to two months behind schedule, so we're anticipating that will be done in the summer of this year
versus late spring, and we'll finish a lot of the landscaping in the fall for the project.
Council Member Fox: The landscaping is already included in the current budget?
Renee Lafollette: Landscaping is included in the current project budget. We did apply for a grant from
the Virginia Department of Forestry to be able to plant larger caliper trees. It's a one for one match, and
we'll use some of the landscaping money from this project as that match to be able to get larger caliper
trees.
Council Member Fox: All right, those were my questions. Thanks.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Campbell.
Council Member Campbell: Yes, thank you. I guess my concern isn't about what we've done, it's what
is still yet to be done and sometimes unknown. I know sometimes change orders are a matter of
construction costs increase, so things that we miss during design or things that we even maybe have a
mutual liability and sometimes some of these change orders are even shared with the contractors
because of things that either they fail to estimate or we fail to estimate. I'm worried with so few dollars
left and we've gone too far to stop, at some point, no one likes to be surprised.
As much as possible, I know you and your staff stay on top of it, but these unanticipated things may
have to be forecasted if we're better able to find resources to pay for, again, with so much left of the
project yet to go. It looks like a few more unknowns may be happening here or there. I'm not an engineer
by any means, but again, going by your own numbers about national averages and change orders,
we're not out of the woods yet, literally. Thank you, I know what you can do.
Renee Lafollette: True, but we do have half of the project done. A majority of the difficult work in the
second phase has been done with the footing for the wall, not encountering any rock with that so that it
was one of the unknowns that we had and the storm pipe that we're installing is over 50% in. I feel we're
in a good position for this project knowing we've done enough digging downstream that I'm fairly
confident that we'll still bring this project and under budget.
Council Member Campbell: I look forward to that day. Thank you.
20
Mayor Burk: Mr. Dunn.
Council Member Dunn: When you say we're under budget, if you can go back one screen, I think it is,
is that bottom number is what you're referring to as still being under budget?
Renee Lafollette: That that bottom number, that $5.6 million there is what our total construction
contract is. The total budget for both project is $7.5 million. That includes all of the design, land
acquisition, utility relocations, and construction. Before this $125,000 change order, we had $300,000
in change as a balance in the project. We still have one and three quarters.
Council Member Dunn: Even though you're requesting this change order, your expectation is that the
project will still come in under budget.
Renee Lafollette: Yes.
Council Member Dunn: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: All right, do I have a motion?
Vice Mayor Martinez: So moved.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Martinez is making the motion to authorize a change order number 7 to the
construction contract of the Tuscarora Creek mitigation and stream restoration project with the Avon
Corporation in the amount of $125,234.20. This was moved by Mr. Martinez seconded by Mr. Steinberg.
All in favor?
Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed? That's 6-011. Chesapeake Bay, phase three watershed implementation plan.
Who's doing that one?
Amy Wyks: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of Council. I'm here to give a brief overview on
the status of the Watershed Implementation Plan, Phase Three, also known as WIP3. Tonight in front
of you, we have a draft resolution that's asking Council to support corrective action to the problematic
Chesapeake Bay WIP3 program, as well as preservation of the State Water Quality Improvement Grant
fund program. The Watershed Implementation Plan has been a 15-year program addressing and
looking at reducing nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution, mostly in the Chesapeake Bay, but
also in the local and State rivers and streams.
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality recently amended the waste code allocations and
heavily impacted wastewater facilities. As a result, WIP3 is not currently a mandate yet, but the
discharge limit, if approved, and by 2025 would need to be phosphorus at 0.3 and nitrogen at 0.4. Just
to put it in perspective, on my next slide, I'll talk about how our current permit is phosphorus at two
milligrams per liter and nitrogen at eight, so significantly impacted. The Leesburg Water Pollution
Control facility, our current treatment processes and operations exceed these proposed limits.
If they're mandated, we will be required to have an update and upgrade at the facility to Enhanced
Nutrient Removal also known as ENR. The Town is a member of the Virginia Association of Municipal
Wastewater Agencies, also known as VAMWA. VAMWA is the one that's recommending and requesting
boards and councils to support the adoption of the draft resolution. There's 46 out of 87 municipal
wastewater facilities that are impacted, and Leesburg has been identified as the hardest to be hit in the
Potomac River Basin.
We estimate the upgrade in order to meet those requirements well over $30 million. It's also a difficult
design and construction timeline in order to be online by December of 2025. Just a quick legislative
update, as you know down in Richmond, there's currently three budget amendments that are under
consideration to delay the enactment and reevaluation of the DEQ assumptions. There's two in the
house. Delegate Bulova from Fairfax is on that one, as well as there's one in the Senate by Senator
21
Hanger. Again, WIP3 today is not a mandate, but regulatory enforcement could be approved within the
next 18 months.
As you may remember, the Town was part of a suit that was filed on behalf of VAMWA is the one that
worked on it, Chris Pomeroy from AquaLaw and he filed that on behalf of the Town, and then King
George County as well as South Central Wastewater Authorities. The Attorney General has requested
a motion to dismiss that lawsuit, and that's the status on that at this time. The draft resolution supports
the reassessment and reevaluation of the assumptions for wastewater facilities. It's our understanding
Chris Pomeroy will be meeting with key stakeholders in the coming months.
Again, tonight we're just asking for Council to support the recommendation of VAMWA, the correction
of the problematic WIP3 plan on, not only the Town but other utilities, and then the preservation for the
actual funding program itself.
Mayor Burk: Thank you. Are you finished? Thank you. We, a number of us, Mr. Steinberg, myself, and
Vice Mayor Martinez, we were down at Lobby Day and the legislators most certainly are very aware of
this and very concerned about the impact, so I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see some significant
changes. Does anybody else have any questions? Mr. Vice Mayor?
Vice Mayor Martinez: No.
Mayor Burk: Council Member Fox?
Council Member Fox: Yes, just one quick question. You mentioned that Leesburg is the hardest hit.
Why is that?
Amy Wyks: Within the Potomac River Basin because our facility is not able to meet the limits that would
be imposed. We're one of the ones.
Council Member Fox: You're saying to meet the limit is a $30 million fix?
Amy Wyks: That is estimated from 2005. We escalated that from 2005 and that's just based on that
estimate at the time. It could be even more.
Council Member Fox: So you're saying if it does become a mandate, we have to find $30 million.
Amy Wyks: Correct.
Council Member Fox: You said legislators are working on this? Okay, thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Campbell.
Council Member Campbell: I just have a question from an environmental perspective. Your answer
probably is we're meeting our current Chesapeake Watershed discharge limits based on the numbers
that you showed. How are environmentalists reacting to the DEQ recommendations? Are they in favor
or support? Obviously, anytime we can limit the amount of nutrients into the wastewater, it's not a bad
thing, it's a good thing. It's a bad thing for us because of the financial burden. So is the opinion that the
regulations are only burdensome because of the cost to upgrade our facilities or is it really an
unnecessary regulation? I don't know VAMWA's position, but are they saying it's just not necessary?
Amy Wyks: I can't speak to what other environmentalists are saying, I can say based on the perspective
that we know and being a participant within VAMWA. The biggest concern with VAMWA is, again, they
represent municipal wastewaters and over the last 15 years, the focus has been on having municipal
wastewater authorities be the ones that are meeting the limits. So through VAMWA's assistance, we've
created a nutrient trading program. Again, different municipalities can trade nutrients, so if one's over,
someone else can take who's under and they share and there's a trading program.
As a municipal wastewater group, we've managed it and with the nutrient program and other things that
we've been doing, we've been exceeding, definitely meeting and many cases exceeding. They continue
22
to come to the municipal wastewater authorities to do the regulations, they're not really mandating
anything related to industry, farmers, and other sources of the sediment nitrogen and phosphorus.
Council Member Campbell: Again, I only raised the question because I think we also have to tell a
story to our citizens about what we're doing, and so they can understand it's not just an elected body,
legislative lobby event, it's a citizens' concerns and environmental concerns and to have folks on our
side, they have to know what we're doing, so somehow I think we have to tell our story. Yes, sure, it's
going to be a cost, there's a pressure, we have great working relationships I think people need to know
that we're not avoiding meeting any kind of environmental standards, but there are some real impacts,
but if they don't know what we're doing currently, then becomes a problem.
Thank you for sharing because I just learned something.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Dunn. Mr. Steinberg. Okay.
Council Member Fox: Can I ask one more quick question?
Mayor Burk: Sure.
Council Member Fox: Is it an unfunded mandate?
Amy Wyks: The second part of tonight's support is for that water quality, the revolving grant fund
program, but again, it's not a guarantee how much is funded and then how it would be distributed. I
don't envision it would be a 100% funding for all the utilities.
Mayor Burk: Do I have a motion in supportive of the reconsideration of the new Wastewater Regulation
Center Virginia Chesapeake Bay TMDL Phase Three Watershed Implementation plan. Moved by Mr.
Martinez, second?
Council Member Steinberg: Second.
Mayor Burk: Seconded by Council Member Steinberg. All in favor?
Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed? That 6-0-1. I move the proclamation for Mary Wiley's proclamation.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Second.
Mayor Burk: Seconded by Vice Mayor Martinez. Is there any discussion on this? All in favor?
Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed? That is 5-0-1. 5-0-1-1, that's right, Mr. Thiel is not here. Reconsideration of the
bus shelter on Edwards Ferry Road.
Vice Mayor Martinez: I don't have the resolution in front of me, but I brought this back and I do know
that there are petitioners.
Mayor Burk: Do we have it somewhere?
Vice Mayor Martinez: Okay, and so I wanted to bring this forward. I do know that there were some
petitioners in the audience that wanted to speak to this, but we're confused about the petitioners' section
and wondered if you would be willing to grant them a few minutes to talk.
Mayor Burk: That's not generally our procedure, but if no one on staff has an issue, nobody on Council
has an issue, I'll give them 10 minutes in total.
23
Vice Mayor Martinez: Okay.
Mayor Burk: Do they have more than one person speaking?
Vice Mayor Martinez: Just one as far as I know.
Mayor Burk: So that's five minutes.
Linda McCray: Madam Mayor and Town Council, my name's Linda McCray, I'm here to translate.
These are our residents from the Plaza area and Heritage area and are here to speak on behalf of the
concerns that are arising up on the bus shelter. We had a meeting on Saturday, a community meeting
about the concerns with the construction of this bus shelter. The community itself is very concerned
about the project itself and would like to have a reconsideration for it to not even be in place. This is
Mariela who will speak on that behalf and I'll be translating for her.
Mayor Burk: All right.
Mariela Torrico: [Spanish language]
Linda McCray: My name is Mariela and I'm part of the board member for the HOA and Heritage.
Mariela Torrico: [Spanish language]
Jay Cruz: I'm also a resident of Heritage Square.
Mayor Burk: I'm sorry, what did you say?
Jay Cruz: I'm also a resident of Heritage Square.
Mariela Torrico: [Spanish language]
Linda McCray: On Saturday, we met all together to be able to discuss the issues and concerns we
have with Council Member Martinez.
Mariela Torrico: [Spanish language]
Linda McCray: To express the general consensus we denied as the members of the community do not
want a bus shelter constructed where it's proposed to.
Mariela Torrico: [Spanish language]
Linda McCray: Mr. Martinez saw that how we were a multi-ethnic community.
Mariela Torrico: [Spanish language]
Linda McCray: We have quite the blend of ethnic blend where we have whites, Hispanics, Hindus,
and--
Mariela Torrico: [foreign word]
Linda McCray: African American residents in this community.
Mariela Torrico: [Spanish language]
Linda McCray: We all have agreed that the reason why we do not want this bus shelter is for the
security that may be compromised with this bus shelter for our kids.
Mariela Torrico: [Spanish language]
24
Linda McCray: We have a bus stop for our kids that's in the near vicinity of where this bus shelter is
proposed.
Mariela Torrico: [Spanish language]
Linda McCray: Another concern is the fact that we have a children's park area near that shelter as
well.
Mariela Torrico: [Spanish language]
Linda McCray: Also, there is an additional cost that it will come at our expense with the building of this
bus shelter.
Mariela Torrico: [Spanish language]
Linda McCray: The costs are incurred as far as the trash collection that is added to a secondary bill
and also the landscaping cost.
Mariela Torrico: [Spanish language]
Linda McCray: We also find ourselves on a crossroads of an election process.
Mariela Torrico: [Spanish language]
Linda McCray: Which is that we have a president that has been in place for 20 years. We have
elections coming up where our voice is not heard by the current president and decisions are being made
without our input.
Mariela Torrico: [Spanish language]
Linda McCray: We would like to ask the opportunity to have you help us change our community.
Mariela Torrico: [Spanish language]
Linda McCray: We believe that in changing the direction that we're in by changing the leadership, we
can change our community for the betterment of all.
Mariela Torrico: [Spanish language]
Linda McCray: We pay a lot of money in HOA fees, they supposedly go to our kids in projects but none
of that is ever seen.
Mayor Burk: Linda could you convey that she needs to wrap it up with the time.
Linda McCray: [Spanish language]
Mariela Torrico: Okay, sorry. [Spanish language]
Linda McCray: So we would like to work with this Council and to have us work together in the
betterment of our community. We have serious issues in our community, whether it be organized crime,
whether it be drugs, whether it be theft. We want to change our community and have you at the forefront
of it for our children's future.
Mariela Torrico: Thank you.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Gracias.
25
Vice Mayor Martinez: If I might. You guys can sit. I have always been in favor of bus shelters and
trying to get as many bus shelters as we can built, but I've never seen a community come out. One of
the biggest issues I have is that their current leadership did not give the community opportunity to speak
and view or present their views. As I sat there on Saturday listening to everybody, there was at least 50
residents showed up that I think there is at least 48 of them said they do not want the bus shelter. They
wanted to keep it as it is, and being on the Transit Advisory Board, I know there are ways we can
improve the current bus shelter.
I'll be working with the Transit Advisory Board to find ways to do that. I do think that this is also the first
time whenever we built a bus shelter that the community came out to us and spoke against it. With
reservations because, like I said, I'm very much in support of bus shelters in areas where people could
use them, in this particular case, I want to reconsider our approval of the bus shelter in Edwards Ferry
Road, especially since we've had to claim eminent domain, and I would like to reconsider that motion
and cancel the bus shelter project.
Mayor Burk: You're making a motion to reconsider. Is there a second?
Council Member Steinberg: Second.
Mayor Burk: Seconded by Council Member Steinberg? Is there any discussion at this point?
Council Member Steinberg: Yes.
Mayor Burk: Yes, Mr. Steinberg.
Council Member Steinberg: I just have a question on the resolution of the last point.
Christine Newton: Excuse us. I think your motion is technically going to be a motion to approve the
resolution and not one for reconsideration.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Right.
Mayor Burk: Okay, so you're going to--
Vice Mayor Martinez: Would you want me to read that?
[background conversation]
Council Member Dunn: Point of order.
Mayor Burk: Yes, sir.
Council Member Dunn: We have a resolution that has already been passed. In order to vote on a new
resolution, you need to reconsider, make a motion to reconsider, which then when that's voted for
positively, then there's a vote to actually reconsider, and then you can vote on a new motion, but you
can't do all that in one motion.
Christine Newton: He doesn't need to present this as a motion for reconsideration. You voted on a
motion, we took action in response to that vote, and this is asking for essentially a new action to reverse
the previous. That is embodied in the resolution that you have and essentially you can read just the
header in order to make your motion.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Okay, so I move to stop our work related to development.
Council Member Dunn: Point of order.
Mayor Burk: What, Mr. Dunn.
26
Council Member Dunn: I know that the sitting Town Attorney is probably new to Council, but the
voluntary procedures for Council are made by the decision of the Chair and not the Town Attorney.
Again, there should be a motion to reconsider and then a motion to stop the order. Because there's
already been a vote to move that forward and it needs to be reconsidered, and then give us the
opportunity to vote it down. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: All right, we are being advised by the Town Attorney that we do not have to do a
reconsideration that this is a totally different resolution altogether.
Council Member Dunn: Motion to appeal the decision of the chair.
Mayor Burk: Is there a second?
Council Member Fox: Second.
Mayor Burk: Okay, all in favor.
Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed?
Council Member Steinberg: Nay.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Martinez.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Nay.
Mayor Burk: That doesn't pass three, three. Move forward Mr. Martinez.
Vice Mayor Martinez: I move a resolution to stop all work related to the development of a bus shelter
along the south side of Edwards Ferry Road, adjacent to the Heritage Square community, invalidate
the associated certificate of take and seek reallocation of grant funding.
Mayor Burk: That's a motion by Vice-Mayor Martinez, seconded by Council Member Steinberg. Any
discussion at this point, Mr. Steinberg?
Council Member Steinberg: Just two questions. The final Whereas before "therefore resolved", the
Council is determined not to proceed with the construction, is that related to our previous decision or is
that related to the above resolution? Because when we originally discussed this, we were going to
proceed, but had the opportunity at any point to halt the entire procedure if we wanted to. That's just a
point of clarification on that.
Mayor Burk: Which one are you talking about?
Council Member Steinberg: "Whereas the Council is determined not to proceed with construction of
Heritage plus shelter on the site", was that from our previous action or is that involving the resolution
above?
[silence]
There are several things here referencing the community--
Mayor Burk: I'm just trying to find it. Where--
Council Member Steinberg: Okay, back of page.
Mayor Burk: Back of the first page.
27
Vice Mayor Martinez: [unintelligible 01:48:17] It’s the whereas just above the, "therefore resolved."
Council Member Steinberg: I'm trying to understand if that "whereas" is particularly necessary. That's
all.
Vice Mayor Martinez: It does no harm, so there's no [unintelligible 01:48:39].
Council Member Steinberg: The only other thing I want to clarify. I just want to be sure that from the
community, we're not being asked to intercede in their internal.
Vice Mayor Martinez: No.
Council Member Steinberg: Okay, that's all.
Vice Mayor Martinez: No, we've talked about that. The only thing we can do is stop the bus shelter
from being built.
Council Member Steinberg: Very good. Okay. Thank you. Thanks.
Vice Mayor Martinez: That's all it is about.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Dunn.
Council Member Dunn: As the folks who came last time, I was opposed to this being built then. I'm
still opposed to it. I think that the zeal with which the majority of Council wanted to spend government
money and take government action over these safety concerns for the citizens. I said at that time it
would be a shame to have you all come back. It's a shame that you all had to meet as a group to satisfy
a Council member who voted for this initially and now to have to come back to us when this could have
very simply been done two weeks ago. I regret that you had to go through all of this just for us to get to
the same decision.
For those who are concerned more with taking government action, to seeing government put to work,
to spending government money, to ensuring that staff has stuff to do over the concerns and the safety
concerns that you brought before its lifetime, I think is a shame. I'm glad that we are reconsidering this
and that we're going to be setting this straight. Again, I regret that you and the citizens had to go through
this because this could've been settled two weeks ago very simply by a majority vote, which is now
taking place. I'm able to make decisions based on citizens' concerns without much concern for what the
government is doing.
As I said at that time, there's an old adage that- are very dangerous words, and those are, "Hi, I'm from
the government. I'm here to help." This was not one of those situations we were helping, but it is a
concern. I'm glad that you all are getting that which you seek and that there are Council members who
have realized that there was a better way to handle it so we're able to fix this tonight. Hopefully, this
works out for you. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Who else at this point? Mr. Campbell?
Council Member Campbell: I was also one of those who voted against this last time. It made me,
again, for the citizens' concerns. My questions are to staff, if there's staff here that can help me because
what this res-- I'm also for bus shelters. I believe that the human need, as I've said before in our
community, really requires and need some. I listened to the concerns presented last time and I voted
against proceeding. I don't think I've heard anything new that would make me question my no vote
about proceeding.
From the staff perspective, we have gone through a legislative process with these community block
grants. We now then formally going to take action to tell the County, "We don't want it." What does that
do to any funding that we have? I'm willing to abandon this particular project, but does it have a cost.
28
Renee LaFollette: The block grant that we received for this particular project was for two bus shelters,
one on the north side of Edwards Ferry and one on the south side of Edwards Ferry. If we take this
motion and we move not to build this structure, we will have to approach the County to find out if we
have to give the money back or if they will allow us to put it towards another facility in the Town. We do
not know the answer to that question currently.
Council Member Campbell: Do we have any other immediate project identified?
Renee LaFollette: We have the bus shelter project that is on for Fort Evans Road that we received
only partial funding of the request that we put forward. That's where we would most likely request the
County to move that money if they would be agreeable to doing so.
Council Member Campbell: This is our question for our Attorney. We've already filed the take action.
Is there cost involved in stopping that take action?
Christine Newton: We've already paid the filing fee and we've paid an estimated- what we call the
amount of the bona fide offer into court. What the process now is to petition the court to invalidate that
certificate of take and you do that by petition. Other than filing fees, we would be asking to have the
money paid into court returns to the Town.
Council Member Campbell: This particular motion starts that process.
Christine Newton: It authorizes us to take that action, yes, to petition the court for judicial approval to
invalidate the certificate.
Council Member Campbell: I'm just trying to make sure that this resolution does exactly what we want
it to do this time. We want to stop the action, talk about the community block grant funding, reverse the
take action, and then no bus shelter will be built on this site. We're not having this discussion again.
Staff, that's clear? Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Fox.
Council Member Fox: I just like to reiterate that I really appreciate the community coming out. I see
more of you here. Thank you very much. I'm happy to hear from you. We don't always hear about
problems when we take on some of these projects. I, for one, didn't want to force something that wasn't
wanted last time and I don't want to force something now either. Sometimes we don't know what's best
for our community because we're not there all the time but you are so I fully support this. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Martinez, I was wondering if you would consider-- This sounds like you've had a really
very interesting and important meeting with the community. I wonder if you would work with staff to
come up with a report for us so that those of us that were not there could learn what were the issues.
In that report, could you also have next steps associated with it?
Vice Mayor Martinez: I would be more than happy with the staff that was there. We can all contribute
to that. That's great. If I might finish the- I have the last comments. One of the reasons I voted for the
take last time was that I wanted time to be able to sit down with the residents to view exactly where the
bus shelter was going to be and hear their concerns. As we were out as this was evolving, there were
the homeowners concerns, the police concerns, the trash concerns. A whole bunch of issues came up
during our community meeting that were addressed.
I understand that what ended up happening was more than what I definitely expected and I was really
pleased with the turnout. What I wanted to do was make sure that when I bring this up, that we didn't
just stop the resolution that we had last time, but that we actually stopped on work moving forward on
the bus shelter. If I would have just reconsidered the motion from our last meeting now that would have
just been the determination of take. This way we actually stopped the whole project. That's all. Thank
you. I appreciate the Council support.
Mayor Burk: All right. This is to direct staff to stop all work on the development of the proposed bus
shelter that was located on the south side of Edwards Ferry Road adjacent to Heritage Square
29
community. The Town's Attorney is directed to take all steps necessary and appropriate to obtain judicial
approval to invalidate the certificate of take without liability to either party. Town Capital Project staff is
directed to work with Loudoun County staff who are responsible for administrating the approval. The
approved Community Development Block Grant funds to resolve how do the funds will be allocated to
this proposed shelter construction, may be reallocated to other public transit-related projects within the
Town if necessary, to be returned to the County, and no other portion of Edwards Ferry Road, sidewalk
and bus shelter, Capital Improvement Projects, including the bus shelter in the other location, shall be
affected by this resolution.
We have a motion by Mr. Martinez, seconded by Mr. Steinberg. All in favor?
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed?
Mayor Burk: This is 6-0-1. All right. That takes us to our first public hearing. I call to order this February
11th, 2020 public hearing of the Leesburg Town Council. Thank you for coming out. Unless there's an
objection, I will dispense with the reading of the advertisement. If you wish to speak. We ask that you
sign up on the sheet in the hallway. If you did not get a chance to sign up, we will give you the opportunity
to speak. Also, please identify yourself and give your address for the taped record.
In the interest of fairness, we also ask that you observe the five-minute time limit. The green light in
front of you will turn yellow at the end of four minutes indicating that you have one minute remaining. At
that time we would appreciate your summing up and then opening the floor when the bell indicates your
time has expired. Under the rules of orders by this Council the five-minute time limit applies to all
citizens. However, rather than have numerous citizens present remarks on behalf of the group, the
Council will allow a spokesperson for the group a few extra minutes. In that instance, we would ask
speakers, when they sign up, to indicate their status as a spokesperson, the group they represent, and
the request for additional time.
Our procedure for the public hearing is as follows. First, there's a brief presentation by staff. Second,
members of the public that have signed up to speak will be called and given five minutes to make their
comments. The public hearing item on the agenda for tonight is TLSE-2019-0004 Leesburg South
Floodplain Alteration/Reclamation.
Chris Murphy: Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of Council. I'm here this evening to present
the staff report for Special Exception 2019-004 Leesburg South Floodplain Alteration/Reclamation. This
evening, Council is being asked to approve a Special Exception to alter floodplain boundaries to reclaim
9.6 acres as usable land in the northeast quadrant of South King Street at Evergreen Mill Road.
This comes to Council with staff's recommendation of conditional approval as provided in the resolution
attached to the February 11 public hearing staff report. When the commission sends this application to
the Council with a recommendation of denial, that denial is based on concerns relating to the review
process and concerns relating to potential for flooding in surrounding areas. The subject property is
comprised of five separate undeveloped parcels having a cumulative area of 46.89 acres.
The property is zoned R-1 with the H-2, the Creek Valley Buffer, and floodplain overlay districts affecting
portions of the property. Of the total 46.89 acres, 24.7 acres are designated as floodplain by FEMA.
Prior to 2017, FEMA only designated 18.9 acres as floodplain here. Using updated topography and flow
data, FEMA revised its floodplain boundaries, resulting in 5.8 additional acres to the subject property
being included. The present application seeks to pursue reclamation of 9.6 acres from the total
floodplain area, leaving 15.1 acres unaffected.
Now, as part of the 2017 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map revisions, new requirements were instituted
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. A model ordinance to this effect were
provided by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation to enact as minimum standards.
The Town did this but included additional safeguards to preserve other natural features such as stream
corridors, wetlands, steep slopes, and woodlands through Special Exception review.
30
Now the illustration in the slide here shows the existing extent of the floodplain on the subject property
with the blue color dash line. Again, this encompasses 24.7 acres. Here, highlighted in yellow are the
areas proposed to be reclaimed through the floodplain alteration. This area equals 9.6 acres in total.
Note how the proposed grading remains completely out of the wetlands and stream corridor areas.
Additionally, it stays out of the floodway. Right here in this area, that's in this highlight, is existing
wetland. It's on the property.
I know that the boundaries, the proposed grading to the alternative floodplain remains completely
outside of those floodplain boundaries. Right here is the stream corridor for Tuscarora Creek. A dashed
line along the perimeter of that designates the boundaries of their Creek Valley Buffer. Again, the
proposed grading in this area will remain outside of all of those areas. Highlighted in blue area, it's a
15.1 acres of floodplain that will be unaffected by the proposed reclamation.
The subject property is situated in the Town Plan southwest planning policy area and designated for
either low density residential or community commercial development as this application does not
propose development, but does involve grading on vacant land. We have land use objective number
one of the Town Plan to guide us. "Preserve natural resources and design development so that these
resources are incorporated as amenities." As I pointed out in the previous slide, fill operations will
remain completely out of the existing wetlands and at Tuscarora Creek stream corridor.
Natural resources, chapter two, establishes the goal to preserve, protect and restore natural resource
features commensurate with the growing community Leesburg is. In other words, proposed alteration
will preserve existing wetlands streams corridor and the Creek Valley buffer while preparing the property
for potential future planned development. As a Special Exception, the floodplain overlay district the
application must measure to the use standards established in zoning board in section 7.11.10. Staff's
analysis of the application, materials submitted are conclusive, proposed floodplain alteration will not
pose a danger to life or property from increased flood heights and velocities, from materials being swept
downstream or by the contamination of public water and sewer systems.
Staff finds proposed alteration/reclamation be compatible with existing and planned development and
is harmonious with applicable sections of the Town Plan. All insurances related to the alterations of the
floodplain must still be reviewed and approved by FEMA through its map revision process. It's important
to note that this is not the last stop in this application. It's also important to point out that the floodplain
overlay district was not established to prohibit alterations to floodplains, instead, it has been established
to ensure that such alterations are consistent with National Flood Insurance Program requirements,
Town requirements and policies.
In addition to floodplain overlay use standards, all Special Exception applications regardless of zoning
or location and Town must comply with a Special Exception approval requirements of Zoning Ordinance
section 3.4.12. Staff's review this application finds no reason to believe the proposal will adversely affect
neighboring properties. It's found to be compliant with Town Plan and Zoning Ordinance regulations. It
will not hinder the development of adjacent properties. It will not create hazardous conditions for
pedestrians and vehicle traffic.
Staff finds the application is consistent with the goals and objectives of Town Plan and southwest
planning area policies. The application does not disturb existing wetlands and sensitive stream corridor
on the property. The alteration complies with applicable provisions of the R-1 zoning district and
floodplain overlay district and serves public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning
practice. Plus, as a result, staff recommends conditional approval of the Special Exception, and that it
has attached the draft resolution to that effect with the staff report.
This concludes my presentation. Thank you, Ma’am.
Mayor Burk: Thank you.
Chris Murphy: Both Bill and I are here to answer any questions you may have on the application.
Mayor Burk: All right. Mr. Dunn. Mr. Campbell.
31
Council Member Campbell: Just a couple of affirmations I guess to get from you. This application for
a Special Exception meets all the criteria and guideline for responsible use in this floodplain area?
Chris Murphy: It does, yes.
Council Member Campbell: The Special Exception process gives us the authority to even enforce and
has standards that they have to meet other than the model standards that were developed before?
Chris Murphy: That's correct.
Council Member Campbell: It was in the judgment of the staff again, reiterating that this application
should be approved.
Chris Murphy: Yes, it does.
Council Member Campbell: Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Martinez.
Vice Mayor Martinez: A couple of questions I have that was brought to my attention by my Planning
Commissioner, was that the concerns, and she brought this to my attention, and I certainly wouldn't be
bringing it up if I didn't also believe in some of these concerns, long-term wise. We're looking at
expansion of the bypass. We're probably looking at the expansion of Evergreen Mill Road. How will that
have an effect on the floodplain? Not only that, if the County decides to take land, to build that extra
lanes on the bypass, how will this impact this application?
Bill Ackman: It would definitely have some kind of an impact but before that could be done, their
engineers would have to do a similar study to what the Applicant's engineer would do. They would have
to show no adverse impact on downstream properties, upstream properties, and adjacent properties.
Vice Mayor Martinez: You're saying that whenever Evergreen gets to four lanes, and whenever the
bypass expands to more lanes, that the Applicant today will be okay long-term wise, and that the County
will have to make sure that they don't adversely impact his current position.
Bill Ackman: What the County would have to do in the future is they would have to make sure they're
not adversely impacting the floodplain. With regard to if they were to adversely impact that property,
that would be a property rights issue, that would be handled differently.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Okay. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg.
Council Member Steinberg: I'm just wondering why you were not able to convince the Planning
Commission? Since they voted against us four three, other than what Councilman Martinez brought up,
what were their primary objections here?
Chris Murphy: I'm not exactly sure how we weren't able to convince the Planning Commission
otherwise. We tried to explain to them what the process is, why it was established yet to no avail. I
cannot explain why.
Council Member Steinberg: Ok. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Fox.
Council Member Fox: To piggyback off of the last question. My understanding is this is a necessary
step in order for the landowner to even approach FEMA to have this as a reconsideration.
32
Chris Murphy: Let me step back and explain, sort of describe why the process is what it is. Again, in
my presentation, I noted that the Department of Conservation and Recreation along with FEMA sent
out model language for municipalities to adopt in order to ensure better administration of the National
Flood Insurance Program. In addition to that, not only did the Town adopt, we adopt those minimum
standards, but we went beyond that. With the concurrence of FEMA, they reviewed the draft regulations
that became the floodplain overlay district that establishes the Special Exception that we're going
through right now.
Now, that Special Exception through that authority, as you know, with any other Special Exception,
grants Town Council the discretion to apply certain conditions for uses other-- Basically, FEMA doesn't
care if there's wetlands there. FEMA doesn't care about steep slopes or woodlands there. However,
you as the Council, we as staff, and we as members the citizens of the Town, we care about the
aesthetics and the natural resources in our Town. By implementing the Special Exception process as a
precursor to applying to FEMA, you as Town Council set the bar as to where this floodplain boundary
may be.
For the sake of argument, again, I showed you an illustration that this Applicant is remaining completely
out of all the wetlands that's on its property. If he had gone to FEMA, without the floodplain overlay, if
he had gone the FEMA first without the floodplain alteration, encompassing all of that wetland, there'll
be nothing you can do about that. FEMA would approve it. Now the only thing FEMA looks at is the
flood elevations. That's all they care about. However, with the Special Exception implemented, you
have the authority that if the Applicant came in and wanted to get rid of that wetland, you can say, "We
disagree and we are going to put a condition that you remove the wetlands from your alteration area."
Council Member Fox: This is a first step that needs to happen, FEMA second, so that we can have
some extra control over what is discussed between FEMA and the landowners.
Chris Murphy: You can put extra protections in for those things that are important to us and the Town
Plan says natural resources. You'd be able to step in with conditions to say-- Basically, if you approve
what's before you today, the standard for substantial performance will be that boundary that's on the
Special Exception plan so when they go to FEMA, you've set the bar where that line is going to be,
where the floodplain alteration is going to be versus FEMA setting the bar and you as Council trying to
manipulate that or forcing the Applicant to go back to FEMA to go through that process again to get
those things you want from this application.
Council Member Fox: When FEMA redrew the lines, they did so on their own. They didn't have any
input from any of the landowners or anything like that?
Bill Ackman: It was a complicated process. Originally, the Town was not going to opt-in to the new
FEMA lines because in many areas, they increased. We felt like that could have an adverse impact to
some of the existing landowners. Well, I went up to Philadelphia and I met with the representatives of
FEMA. Basically, what they told me was, "Sure, you don't have to opt-in but you'll never ever get any
floodplain study ever approved again because the mapping that we would be using would be obsolete."
They wouldn't be able to review any FEMA floodplain studies because it would be on the old system,
not the new. We were encouraged heavily to join in.
What happened was FEMA takes a look at updated topography because topography changes over time
through just natural stream degradation and how the stream recuts itself over time. In addition,
development occurs. In most jurisdictions, FEMA floodplain limits are set based on what's on the ground
today. There are several jurisdictions in the nation. Very few of them, Leesburg and Loudoun County
happened to be one of them, where growth is populating so quickly that by the time it's mapped within
months it's already outdated.
What FEMA did in this case was they did a 20-year projection based on not only what's on the ground
back in 2016-2017 when this was being generated by them but they, also, took into account what the
projected growth would be in Loudoun County, the various towns within the County, including Leesburg.
Then they hired a consultant to do a master floodplain study throughout the County because the Town
is within the County we were part of that. We were allowed to look at the study and comment on it the
best we could but it was pretty much the show was being run by Loudoun County. We did have our
33
engineers look at it for general consistency to make sure that we- a level of comfort at 30,000 feet is
pretty much what we had because the model was just huge.
Council Member Fox: Okay. Got you. When all said and done, this Special Exception has no specific
land use application to it right now, no building, no nothing like that. What we're asking for from our
2017 ordinances, to say, "Mr. Landowner, you have an extra layer of regulation," but also saying to our
citizens for the Town, "We're trying to protect you just a little bit more." That's what's going on here.
Bill Ackman: That's exactly right. We've not said anything to FEMA yet. We've done a cursory review
of the floodplain study where we're fairly comfortable with the limits they've set but before we would ask
FEMA to approve it, we would put it through a fairly stringent review with my staff. I've got two guys that
did extensive work at Dewberry through the FEMA process. We got very competent staff that can look
at this, make a very educated and a very high-quality decision for the Town to make sure that we are
getting what we want and we are not impacting anybody upstream, downstream, or adjacent to the
property.
Council Member Fox: Okay. Thank you.
Bill Ackman: If I could have one more thing. To further answer your question, this does not mean they
can go and put fill-- If you approve this tonight, they cannot go and start putting fill in the ground
tomorrow. They would still have to go through our process, FEMA's process but wait, we're not done
yet, they still have to go through the plan review process for a site plan to show where the dirt would be
placed. Through that site plan process, it would have to be placed exactly where it was shown on the
FEMA floodplain study and alteration that was approved by FEMA.
Council Member Fox: Speaking of the dirt, we talked about this just a little bit when I met with you. I
was always concerned at any kind of filter would shift. I mean, we've heard about that thing happening.
What does the Town do to make sure that wouldn't happen over years?
Bill Ackman: Right. There's always a risk over time that the dirt is going to shift. What we can do is try
to minimize that risk. The way we minimize that risk is through the site plan process. Through the site
plan process, some would require what's called structural fill. Structural fill is what you see under your
roadways. It's what builders put under their building so they don't settle because we don't know what
the future of this project is. We would mandate through the site plan process that the entire site be filled
with structural fill. It's a little more expensive but at the end of the day, it gives a better product for the
end-user, whoever that might be, whether it be a homeowner, whether it be a business, whatever it may
be in the future, we don't know because that application isn't before us.
In placing that fill, the site plan also talks about moisture content and compaction. They're not just
dumping it and walking away from it, where you see a lot of pile sitting around, you see what we call
reeling or little dollies coming down through the stock files. That won't happen because it will be
compacted in accordance with a geotechnical recommendation. If this goes through and the site plans
approved, there will also be conditions in that the geotechnical engineer will need to be on-site during
placement of that fill to ensure that it meets the requirements of that cycling.
Council Member Fox: Basically, if this passes tonight, we're just allowing a landowner to talk to FEMA.
Bill Ackman: Correct.
Council Member Fox: Okay. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: I have a couple of questions. The one slide you had said that the original area that was
in the floodplain was 18.9 acres, and then FEMA added 5.8 acres to make it 24.7 acres.
Bill Ackman: Correct.
Mayor Burk: But the Applicant is asking for 9.3 acres to be developed for potential development in this
area?
34
Bill Ackman: Yes. Let me try to answer that the best I can. Pre-2017 the FEMA’s floodplain study was
based on some projections that probably went out to about 2020, maybe, or 2022 because that data
was done back in the ‘80s. The floodplain limits were set based on that. The new limit shows increased
imperviousness for the hundred-year storm, which isn't required to have the tension associated with it.
You can expect anytime you have additional imperviousness that that water surface is going to spread
because you're going to have more water.
When you have more water come down through there, it's going to spread. Now FEMA floodplains are
defined in two different ways. There is a floodway that is the area in which the water would flow
unobstructed if there were no culverts downstream, no bridges downstream, and it's just the channel.
That is called the floodway. That's that needs to remain unobstructed and it cannot be filled in.
Then you have overbank. That overbank is storage area. I know this sounds a little confusing, but what
happens is the area where the storage is doesn't dictate the elevation of the floodplain. The elevation
of the floodplain is actually dictated by the downstream culvert. There's hydraulic models that are done.
They are very complicated, so it's very hard to explain. Anyway, when the data is put into the model, it
predicts how high the water surface will get. It has no bearing on what the topography behind it looks
like. It just reaches an elevation, so it will fill up to that elevation.
In areas of storage, which is outside of the floodway, that doesn't impact how high the water surface is
going to get because filling in those areas and reclaiming those areas, isn't changing the elevation with
a floodplain, which then goes upstream or downstream as the case may be or adjacent to the site.
Mayor Burk: They're asking for more acreage to be developed than was changed-
Bill Ackman: Correct.
Mayor Burk: -by FEMA? If FEMA had not changed their regulations, what could they develop then?
Bill Ackman: They would be asking for the same amount of reclamation-- I'm going to assume based
on what they've submitted, but the difference would be the amount of reclamation would be less. The
limits would be the same, but some of it that's now in the floodplain wouldn't have been counted towards
reclamation because it would have already been outside the floodplain under the old limits.
Mayor Burk: They wouldn't even have to do it?
Bill Ackman: I'm sorry?
Mayor Burk: They wouldn't have to do it, it's out of the floodplain?
Bill Ackman: They would have to make that decision.
Mayor Burk: We don't know what it could be used for?
Bill Ackman: At this point, no. I don't know.
Mayor Burk: Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you very much. Eileen emailed me so we do have a
presentation by the Applicant. Is that correct? [silence]
Bruce Deatley: Madam Mayor, Members of Town Council, my name is Bruce Deatley. I'm here tonight
representing Washington-Virginia Traditional Development Sites, Inc. I'm here tonight with Peter
Kalaris, representing the owner, and BT Nivas, who is with Pennoni Associates, who is the engineer for
this project. I think at the outset, I just want to say we appreciate the opportunity to amplify on the staff
report, the staff presentation. I think they've done a pretty good job. I just want to disregard what I was
going to say and maybe address, first of all, Mr. Steinberg's comments or questions with regard to the
position of the Planning Commissioners and why they recommended denial.
One of the Planning Commissioners expressed concern about a previous, I guess, an existing car
dealership that had cars flood in the parking lot because the parking lot was in the floodplain. First of
35
all, don't give you the history of that but it is my understanding that it was always known that that area
was floodplain, remains in the floodplain. We are not building anything in the floodplain. We're altering
the floodplain to take it out of a floodway. I don't think it's really quite the same.
Another comment on the person who recommended denial was the person did not believe in building
houses in the floodplain. We agree houses should not be built with floodplain but that's not what we are
doing. What we're doing is altering the floodplain at some time when we have an idea what the future
use will be that will be developed with property. I think it's important to clarify that.
One other comment I'd like to mention is that Leesburg is much more stringent than FEMA, as far as
their conditions for approval of floodplain alterations. The Special Exception is one example. Another
example is the fact that FEMA, Loudoun County, most jurisdictions allow a one foot level increase in
the rise. Leesburg does not allow any increase in the level of rise and I think that's significant
consideration. I'm sure a lot of it is because it's a much more compact area. Again, I think it speaks to
the stringency that the Town requires for any person who wants to alter floodplain.
Getting back to the Planning Commission, this is an engineering exercise and I can certainly appreciate
why there may have been confusion on the part of some of the Planning Commissioners. I'm not an
engineer. I have to take the word of the engineers because I don't understand a lot of what they say as
well. I think if there was perhaps an opportunity to provide greater clarification, perhaps people would
have had a greater understanding of what is actually being proposed.
I am not, as I said, an engineer. We do have our engineer here. We were going to have him make a
presentation. I do think that the staff has done a pretty good job of probably replicating what BT was
going to say but I think it's important for us to go ahead and have him make that presentation anyway.
If you have any questions, we would be glad to answer them afterwards. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Excuse me, sir. You do realize you are on timer, you have six minutes.
BT Nivas: Okay. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Thank you.
BT Nivas: Good evening, everyone. My name is BT Nivas. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the
Commonwealth of Virginia and I'm also certified floodplain manager certified by the Association of State
Floodplain Managers. Just to briefly go through this, as you can see on the exhibit, the red limits of the
property in question of the property which is subject to this application which is around 48 acres. The
stream channel is on the corner of the property on the northwest corner which enters the property
through South King Street and leaves Route 7 which is underneath existing four box culverts there.
As you can see the hatched area, orange area there is basically the effect of the area that conveys the
water. The floodplain conveys the water to this property. I have worked on detailed hydraulic analysis
of this floodplain working closely with the Town's engineering staff and following the FEMA and Town
approved methodologies in performing a floodplain study. As for the results of that study, the affected
area through which the water is conveyed to this property is that orange hatched area. The rest of the
area as we heard earlier is basically the storage of water and the water that is getting backed up due
to the culverts under Route 7.
Our proposal information does not encroach into this orange area. That is why there will be no increase
in water surface elevation and there will be no adverse impact of properties upstream or downstream
of our site. All these have been analyzed using FEMA approved methodologies and we have gone
through three submissions to the Town. We are at the tail end of the Town's review process, which is
to get the Town Council's approval prior to submitting to FEMA for approval. Thank you all for your time
and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Burk: Is there anyone who has any questions at this point? Okay, we're going to hear from the
public now. It doesn't look like there's any questions at this point. We're going to hear from the public.
Our first speaker is Gamal Youssef and followed by Jenny Wolfe. Have we changed our mind?
[chuckles]
36
Youssef Gamal: Yes. [chuckles]
Mayor Burk: You don't want to come up and speak.
Youssef Gamal: Yes, I'm going for [inaudible 02:28:31].
Madam Mayor: Okay, Jenny. Jenny Wolfe is followed by Andy Van Dyke.
Jenny Wolfe: Good evening. I'm Jenny Wolfe, that's W-O-L-F-E and I'm a Town resident and a member
of Evergreen Meadows. My address is 222 Alpine Drive here in Leesburg. I'm here this evening to
express my concerns over the alteration and regrading of the floodplain next to Tuscarora Creek. I
believe the Town Council should reject the Special Exception for three reasons. FEMA has designated
24.7 acres of this property as floodplain. This is major floodplain, not minor flood plain.
This is concerning, considering, and let's not kid ourselves, that this land will eventually be developed.
You don't just regrade land to regrade land. This adds even more impervious surface unless area for
storm water to infiltrate the ground.
The Special Exception asks to alter the topography of this land and reduces the floodplain even smaller.
Mayor Burk, you mentioned this then prior to the 2017 redrawing by FEMA. This is also concerning
because we had the wettest year on record less than two years ago. Many of my neighbors, for one
reason or another, had water and flooding issues in their basements that year myself included. The
reduction of floodplain coupled with climate change and increases in precipitation amounts have me
worried for my community and the future community that will most likely reside on that land.
Lastly, I would like to remind the Town Council about Selma Estates who saw extensive flooding in their
homes recently. Let that be a lesson learned. This area of land owned by the developer already has
room to build. Let's not take away that natural resource that already exists. The water has to go
somewhere and I don't want it in my home. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Thank you, Miss Wolfe. Andy Van Dyke.
Andy Van Dyke: Madam, Council, thank you. Andy Van Dyke, V as in Victor, A-N, D as in Delta, Y-K-
E, address 117 Balch Springs Cir, Leesburg, Virginia. Miss Wolfe said most of what I wanted to say
about Selma and so forth. The development which is going to take place is-- My concern is the Town
doesn't accept the liability, such as the Selma, in potentially having to buy houses that are in the area.
If the development does go through, if you do allow the extra property from the watershed to be taken
back, they just agree to the five point, or I think it was six acres, instead of the nine point whatever.
FEMA made the adjustment for some reason. If things do go forward with the development that you
would maybe insist that they get some sort of insurance policy to cover the Town as opposed to the
Town picking up the tab for having to buy something back the developer don't. That's pretty much it.
Mayor Burk: Thank you, Mr. Van Dyke. Mr. Youssef, did you wish to speak?
Youssef Galam: [inaudible 02:31:53]
Mayor Burk: Is there anybody else that would like to speak that didn't have a chance to sign up. Please
come forward.
[silence]
Stephanie Sams: Hello, my name is Stephanie Sams, S-A-M-S. I live at 249 Mindy Ct. Are you able to
pull that video up showing where everybody is? Yes, thank you. The stuff that you see in the red and
the pink that is the new neighborhood that they just built, and with that, you have all water right there.
I'm not sure if you would call that a dam, but that's basically what it is. If anything were to happen to
that, we had a record of rains, anything like that, all of that is going over here. If you go back to the other
side, I think behind it.
37
Yes, sorry. You had good points. Okay, actually, this one here, where it shows more of the
neighborhood. Mr. Youssef and I actually live in this little circle, right here. We are very apt to have lots
of flooding if all of this is allowed. As a resident, I drive around every which way, and they're building,
building, building and that's great, but I don't feel like they need to take the risk on this when you have
plenty of space to build and not on a floodplain. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak that
didn't have a chance to sign up? All right, that being the case, I will close the public hearing at this point.
Ms. Fox, did you have something?
Council Member Fox: Yes. I have a couple of additional questions, follow-up questions.
Mayor Burk: All right.
Council Member Fox: It's for staff. I heard some concerns that I wanted to see if you could address
because they're concerns, the Selma concern. That was big news, and I get it. Can you let us know,
and I think the insurance policy, I've never thought of that before, but can you tell us why it may or may
not be different in this case?
Bill Ackman: I'm not 100% schooled on the Selma case, but what I can tell you from what I've read in
the papers is that that property was in a low lying area. Having been in the private sector for many years
before I came to work for the Town, I did a lot of work in Loudoun County. Loudoun County has
regulations for what I often catch a little bit of flak over, is overland relief for the 100-year storm. Whether
it's FEMA floodplain, which is based on drainage acreage or it's something less than what FEMA
regulates for a 100-year storm, our staff looks at that. Any house that will be built in the Town under our
current regulations, should never be in the position that Selma was in.
Selma was in a position where the engineer met the County requirements at the time. The County
requirements at the time did not require any kind of a study to look at what a 100-year elevation would
be in just a regular neighborhood. We do that even in the smallest neighborhoods up near the top of a
drainage divide. Things like what happened at Selma is very unique. It tends to happen more in
jurisdictions that don't have overland relief requirements that are based on studies.
They're based on assumptions that the water will never get more than a foot deep, and as long as you
keep a foot of freeboard from the bottom of the ditch to the first floor of the house, that's assumed to be
good enough. In a Town that's not good enough because we've seen areas where when you get down
towards the bottom of a drainage divide, which is the case in Selma, where that water if they had done
a detailed study would have shown, it's probably three or four feet deep.
In the case of the Town Leesburg, we would never allow a house to be built on any reclaimed land that
would ever end up in a position of Selma because we would do the overland relief study, in addition to
any FEMA regulated studies to ensure that that didn't happen.
Council Member Fox: Okay, so you're saying that Town regulation is a little more stringent than
County?
Bill Ackman: Yes. When it comes to overland relief, yes, and that's exactly why. A good example, a
few years ago, you might remember the bypass was closed because of flooding during the widening
and that was because some construction debris got into a culvert. There was nowhere for that water to
go. There was no overland relief so it just pond it and it filled up and it closed the, I guess, it would be
the eastbound lanes. If that were a road that were approved in the Town of Leesburg, that would not
happen because we wouldn't allow a sump condition without a secondary path of overland relief to
occur. That's what happened in Selma if you can imagine that. They had all this water coming in, trying
to get out by pipes, but there was no other way for it to go. When the pipes get clogged either by debris
or too much water, it backs up into the house with no other place to go, but in the house. In the Town,
that wouldn't happen, shouldn't happen.
Council Member Fox: Okay. Yes, because you're the engineer, right?
38
Bill Ackman: Yes. [laughs]
Council Member Fox: We heard a concern about water in the basements and I'm sure other folks have
had issues with this too. This parcel, if I think of Evergreen Meadows, I don't know where all the houses
are situated and this parcel is I feel like Evergreen Meadows is higher. Does this parcel have a bearing
on that?
Bill Ackman: I haven't looked directly into that. If the elevation of that parcel is higher, it should have
little impact if any. Actually, let me rephrase that. This mitigation project shouldn't have any impact other
than what's happening today, so it should experience the same. If it floods today, it shouldn't flood any
worse. I don't know the history of that neighborhood whether it-- I don't know the extent of it.
Council Member Fox: Okay. Okay, thanks.
Mayor Burk: Do you any questions, Mr. Steinberg.
Council Member Steinberg: Yes. Well, that was going to be one of my questions. What is the history
of the flooding in that specific area? You're saying you don't really have any particular knowledge and I
guess specifically as it applies to the neighborhood--
Bill Ackman: I don't have any specific knowledge on that.
Council Member Steinberg: Okay. Given the storm retention pond, which is substantial across the
street, how if in any way does that have any effect on this situation?
Bill Ackman: It shouldn't have any impact on it. When that pond was designed, it's a regional facility.
It's designed almost to the 100-year storm event. It should be holding back the majority of even the
large storm events that occur in that neighborhood. Should that dam breach or break, there was a dam
breach analysis done when that pond was approved several years ago. I don't remember the exact
results, but I believe we would not have approved that plan if it showed any houses being flooded by it.
Council Member Steinberg: Okay, and I assume that dam was built to the more stringent
specifications that we would expect today as opposed to say the one that we dealt with in the Exeter.
Bill Ackman: Yes, absolutely. In today's world, ponds of that size are required to gain approval by the
State. The dam embankment that was designed didn't just go through our review process, wasn't just
the word of the geotechnical engineer preparing the details of that dam, but it actually went to the State.
They have a State engineer, that's all he does. In fact, he signs plans once a month and that's when he
signs. There's one day a month he signs and his staff, he and his staff do all the reviews on State-
mandated dams. That's when ponds are a certain size. That pond qualified for that review and we made
sure that it went through that stringent State review.
Council Member Steinberg: Okay. Is it possible that the Applicant would be coming before us to at
least or so staff to at least have a potential development reviewed before they even begin this
reclamation so that they would understand if it's even worth their while? Or would they get into the
floodplain and do whatever they're going to do and then be coming forward to the Town with an
application?
Bill Ackman: There's really several phases of construction. The first phase would be administration. If
this all goes through and if FEMA approves it, then their next phase would be a site plan that's
administratively approved through staff. That would be only for grading. There's no land use. It would
just be putting grass back, so you'd be seeing something similar to what's out there today. I believe it
was a farming operation in that area in the past, so it would be put back into a grass situation at the end
of the day.
Council Member Steinberg: When the work was done that we would not be expecting to see the riprap
that we see across the street with the speed and warm pleasant-looking situation.
39
Bill Ackman: There would probably be slopes. No steeper than 3:1 and it would be grass. You wouldn't
see riprap. You wouldn't see any concrete, not at this phase.
Council Member Steinberg: Well, I'm going to offer since we already had a situation the Council
Members commented on that we weren't necessarily listening to residents. We have three residents
here who have concerns and I recognize you all are engineers. You have a much greater understanding
of this than we do. I would beg patience on the part of the Applicant, so that we can absolutely have a
much better understanding about what this is all about. I realize you deal with this every day, we don't
see it very often. If the Applicant would consider a deferral on the Special Exception so that we can
allay the fears perhaps of the residents and be sure we absolutely have a clear understanding what
we're dealing with then that would be what I would prefer. Thanks.
Mayor Burk: Are you asking the Applicant at this point?
Council Member Steinberg: No, I’m just [inaudible 02:42:37].
Mayor Burk: All right, Mr. Dunn.
Council Member Dunn: Thank you for bringing up the insurance idea. I didn't have it in my mind to
think of it that way, but I did have a consideration that should there be flood issues. One, that's a huge
inconvenience. They don't want to be there. If there is a flood issue, can there be provisions that the
Applicant is required to fix those issues should they occur?
Bill Ackman: That would probably be a little more of a legal question. What I can tell you is as a
professional engineer myself when I was in the private sector, I had several millions of dollars of liability
insurance for any plan that I sign. If something were to happen based on one of my designs, then
somebody could sue my company at the time. The insurance company if it was proven that it was
negligence, then the insurance company would pay the damages. I'm assuming BT that’s the same
with your firm.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Dunn, did you have any--
Council Member Dunn: I think they were going to give an answer to that. Were you planning on
responding to that?
Bruce Deatley: I was just asking about the deferral question. I think the answer to the question would
be once a property is taken out of floodplain then it's subject to the individual insurance. FEMA is not
going to allow, they're not going to insure anything within the floodplain. Once it’s outside the flood plain,
then it's the owner's responsibility to maintain insurance and he's on the hook. Not the County, not the
Town or any government agency. As far as the deferral is concerned, I don't think we conceptually have
a problem with that. I think we'd like to have an understanding of what it is that you would be looking for
if that makes any sense.
Mayor Burk: But Mr. Dunn is the one speaking at this point.
Council Member Dunn: I’m sorry?
Mayor Burk: Mr. Dunn is the one that's-- It's his time right now.
Council Member Dunn: I was curious as to what that would be too. I think that you would probably
have to go a long way to alieve the concerns of the citizens. I know that while we may be talking about
satisfying a floodplain that while the area may not flood, there could be issues of flooding on an
individual basis because of the topography that you're changing even on individual lots.
Bruce Deatley: You mean from the alteration there might be?
Council Member Dunn: Yes, there could be alterations, because the design wasn't as effective as you
had planned that could cause runoff to go in another direction potentially.
40
Bruce Deatley: I don't think that’s correct. We've done an enormous amount of engineering work
already to the point where with some minor comments were really almost ready to submit to FEMA. In
all the work that we prepared to date, and again BT can speak to it much better than I can, there are no
downstream or upstream impacts. As a matter of fact, the closes that the altered floodplain would be if
approved is 218 feet from the actual stream channel. We are so far away from the stream channel.
We're not touching any of the wetlands. There should literally be no impact.
Again, as I mentioned before, the Town requires that there will be no rise in water level before they will
even allow for it to be permitted and go to FEMA, so that the Town's requirements were so much
stringent, so much more stringent than either the County’s or FEMAs that we are very confident that
there are no issues.
I think it is understandable that a community would be concerned about the impact of floodplain
alteration anywhere near them, but I think the reality of the situation is, in this particular case, there are
no upstream or downstream impacts. Now, lot of people's properties get wet, they flood. It's unrelated
to this, but can be related to the development of the property, how it was designed, how it was
engineered and not related to this. Anyway, I--
Council Member Dunn: Well, and that's where my concern is, is that something you may be doing
now that may seem unrelated could all sudden become related. I know for myself for not putting my
situation into their situation, but when my new construction home was built, the builder came in decided
that that berm would look better a few feet over. In doing so, the two drainage facilities that are to the
left, now that water doesn't go there, it goes into my yard. Once that fills up, it goes down into my
neighbor's yard. I don't want to see something like that happen to them by your actions that may seem
unrelated but all of a sudden become very related.
Bruce Deatley: Right. Now, I think we'd have to take a look at their properties, number one. They may
actually be at a higher elevation than our property is, I couldn't tell you. I also know that the engineering
requirements today are certainly much more stringent than they have been even as late as five or six
years ago. I know it sounds self-aggrandizing, but I think that the Town has done a pretty good job of
holding developer's feet to the fire as far as health, safety, and welfare issues, so.
Council Member Dunn: I guess I'm just confused about-
Bruce Deatley: I'm sorry?
Council Member Dunn: -when you said your property, but isn't the developer the same developer of
the property of the homes we're talking about. No?
Bruce Deatley: No.
Council Member Dunn: Okay. I thought it was. You're saying that that's--
Bruce Deatley: Evergreen Mill is on the other side of Route 621. I'm sorry, Evergreen--
Council Member Dunn: I want to make sure I had envisioned where we're talking about. I thought I
had it, but you cleared it up. All right. Well, thank you. Thank for the information. Thanks staff.
Mayor Burk: All right. Is there a motion that someone wants to make at this point? Mr. Steinberg?
Council Member Steinberg: I'd like to make a motion that we defer decision on the Special Exception
to a future meeting in order to just gain a greater understanding of exactly what we're dealing with and
also be able to perhaps allay the concerns of the residents who are adjacent to this area.
Mayor Burk: Is there a second to that? I'll second it for discussion. Do you have any additional
comments you want to make on this?
Council Member Steinberg: I do. I think one of the reasons the residents are so concerned, I mean
we have many examples and not just in this area, but throughout the country. If Selma's not a cautionary
41
tale, I don't know what is of assurances being made and then end results being less than satisfactory.
I take nothing away from the work of the staff. I know it's been a great work and in the end, maybe this
is a good idea, but we have doubt in the room. I'm still trying to get hold of the idea that you can raise
the level of the land but not raise the level of the water.
It seems like a fairly basic concept, and yet for some reason I can't quite get it. I apologize for that, I'm
not an engineer. It probably is a fairly simple process, but for some reason, I'm not getting it, obviously
the residents aren't getting it. My feeling is we can do our jobs and make everybody feel more
comfortable. If it's okay with the Applicant, then those are the comments that I would make. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Council Member Fox.
Council Member Fox: I guess the only thing I would say is FEMA came in and unilaterally, basically
said, this is now a floodplain without any input. Now, if I put myself, I mean I'm a property owner. If
somebody came into my property and said that and rendered my property not useful, then I would
probably want a chance to talk to FEMA myself. This is what this Special Exception is about, is the
opportunity to talk to FEMA, ask them why and what can be remediated, if anything. That's all this is
doing. I would be for voting for it tonight.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Campbell?
Council Member Campbell: At some point, and I do appreciate all the concerns, because I think that
gives us questions that have to be answered to some satisfactory standard. I don't think a Planning
Commission vote of four-three is overwhelming against particularly when there are questions that could
have been answered but individuals chose not to be satisfied by those answers. I think our process
also something has to be trusted and for that particular extent, and I've said this before, when we defer,
I don't know why we deferred without expecting an outcome and some of the things that we've deferred
have dragged on.
To me, it isn't about simple satisfying questions, because you can't satisfy, but only thing you can satisfy
is the process. Have we gone through the right steps? Have we looked at the right engineering studies?
This isn't the end of the process, it's only the beginning. Can we look at similar cases in other places
that have flooded? Yes, we can. At some point, we move forward and vote.
I remember a vote that was taken a few years ago to build a South King Street project in a flood plain,
and there were studies and requirements and things that were done. Now, that project is being built.
The end of it is we don't know if it worked or not, the engineering, but there was a confidence between
the Town and the engineers and the studies and the additional costs that was made that this was a
reliable project. We made a decision last week about something, then we overturned it this week.
I'm in favor of moving forward knowing that this is the beginning of the work and we have the opportunity
to stop this work, but our participation doesn't stop here and we're not approving any development, the
alteration to the flood plain should enhance it and that's the work that starts to begin.
Mayor Burk: Anyone else at this point? All right, we have a motion on the table to defer this to another
meeting that was made by Council Member Steinberg seconded by me. All in favor of the deferral,
indicate by saying aye.
Council Member Steinberg: Aye.
Mayor Burk: And aye. Opposed?
Council Members: Nay.
Mayor Burk: That's Mr. Dunn, Mr. Campbell, Ms. Fox, Mr. Martinez. Okay, and then Mr. Thiel is not
here. That motion fails. That goes to one, two, three, four. Okay. Is there another motion?
Council Member Fox: Madam Mayor I'd like to make the motion to approve TLSE 2019-0004.
Leesburg South Floodplain Alteration/Reclamation approving the Special Exception that the Leesburg
42
South Floodplain Alteration/Reclamation to allow the alteration for the floodplain boundaries on the
property in the Northeast quadrant of the intersection of South King Street. Contingent upon the
conditions that staff has set.
Mayor Burk: What were the conditions that staff has set?
Council Member Fox: Substantial conformance and no waivers expressed or implied.
Mayor Burk: Okay. All right. Is there a second?
Council Member Dunn: Second.
Mayor Burk: Seconded by Mr. Campbell. Is there any additional discussion at this point? Yes, Mr.
Dunn.
Council Member Dunn: I won't be supporting this knowing that the citizens' concerns, their concerns
for possibly delaying it, what they want to hear is that it just isn't going forward. They feel more assured
that they know what they have and they form more confidence in what they have. They bought their
homes in a certain situation, moved into those homes in a certain situation, now the government is
assisting somebody to come in and change that situation, which causes them concern. Having had a
family member just go through a flood a few years ago in Baton Rouge and lose everything, you just
don't play around. There's a certain risk there. I can understand their concerns and to just say, "Well,
we're going to pass these off, because we think we know better." I'm just not there, so I'm going to have
to vote against this. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: All right, we have a motion from Ms. Fox, seconded by Mr. Campbell, any additional
discussion at this point? All right. All in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: That's Mr. Campbell, Ms. Fox, Mr. Martinez. Opposed?
Council Members: Nay.
Mayor Burk: That would be Mr. Dunn, Ms. Burk and Mr. Steinberg. Is there another motion on the
table?
Council Member Dunn: Unfortunately, I'm not looking for a deferral for action. However, I guess if that
happens, it's up to staff, but I will make a motion to postpone this vote to our next meeting. By the way,
did the public hearing get closed on this or was this a public hearing?
Council Member Fox: Yes, it got closed.
Council Member Dunn: Seeing how we're at a deadlock, unless somebody feels that we can break
that deadlock tonight then I would make a motion to postpone this to our next regular meeting for a
vote.
Mayor Burk: Is there a second?
Council Members: Second.
Mayor Burk: Seconded by Council Member Steinberg. Any additional discussion? All in favor, indicate
by saying aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed? So that would pass 6-0-1. All right. We'll see you, gentlemen, again. The next
public hearing. I call to order February 11th, 2020, public hearing of the Leesburg Town Council. Unless
43
there is an objection, I will dispense with the reading of the advertisement. If you wish to speak, we ask
you to sign up on the sheet in the hallway. If you did not get a chance to sign up, we will give you an
opportunity to speak. Also, please identify yourself and give your address for the tape to record. In the
interest of fairness, we also ask that you observe the five-minute time limit.
The green light in front of you will turn yellow at the end of four minutes indicating that you have one
minute remaining. At that time, we would appreciate your summing up and yielding the floor when the
bell indicates your time is expired. The rules of order adopted by the Council, the five-minute time limit
applies to all citizens. However, rather than have numerous citizens present remarks on behalf of the
group, the Council will allow a spokesperson for the group a few extra minutes.
In that instance, we would ask speakers when they sign up to indicate their status as spokesperson,
the group they represent and their request for additional time. Our procedure for the hearing tonight is,
first, there is a brief presentation by staff. Second, members of the public that have signed up to speak
will be called and given five minutes to make their comments. The public hearing on the agenda tonight
is for Calendar Year 2020 Personal Property Tax Rates. Mr. Case.
Clark Case: Good evening, Mayor Burk, Council Members, members of the public. My name is Clark
Case. I'm the Director of Finance and Administrative Services for the Town. I'm here to present the
2020 personal property tax rates. The separate adoption of the personal property tax rate is required
by the County and Town’s centralized billing agreement. Loudoun County bills the personal property
taxes semi-annually in May and October. They need an answer from us in March in order to be able to
process the bills for mailing in April for collection on the 1st of May.
The personal property tax rate is prorated for vehicle moves within the year and per the agreement with
the County, the personal property tax rate has to be adopted by Town Council in February. There is no
proposed change in the property tax rates from 2019 to 2020. Aircraft are at one-tenth of one penny,
motor vehicles $1 per $100 of assessed value and tangible personal property $1 per $100 of assessed
value, and bank capital at 80¢ per $100. These are the rates that have been in effect for many years,
there have been no changes. We did come to Council and asked for Councils' indication of whether
they want to make any changes in December and there were no indications of changes.
Any changes would have implications both for the current year budget and for the proposed 2021
budget. The 2021 proposed budget includes personal property tax revenue of $2.2 million based on the
current rates and the personal property tax revenue is 4% of the general fund revenue. The Virginia
State statute provides for personal property tax relief on vehicles that applies a percentage to the first
$20,000 of value.
The Town Manager is proposing an unchanged personal property tax relief at 50% of the first $20,000
for 2020. The proposed vehicle license fee is also billed along with the personal property taxes under
our agreement with the County. The Town Manager's recommendation is that it remained unchanged
at $25 per vehicle for all types of vehicles. The vehicle license fee is assessed on January 1st of 2020
based on the size of the vehicle on that day and it is not prorated for moves during the year. At this
point, I'm willing to answer any questions you may have.
Mayor Burk: All right. Is there any questions from anyone at this point? Mr. Dunn?
Council Member Dunn: Thank you. Can the automobile tax be changed from that which is charged by
the County in other words can the County charge the same $25?
Clark Case: Yes, the County does and my understanding is that the bill could be different, but that
would require programming, which they would charge us for.
Council Member Dunn: What would that charge be?
Clark Case: We don't know.
Council Member Dunn: You don't know? What about-- we've had some, not a lot, but there's been
some concerns over the year about the prorating issue. Is there a way that we can prorate, because
44
there were some people who has concerns the fact that they've gone out of the County or they come
into it and why are they paying the full bill when they haven't--
[crosstalk]
Clark Case: That is changing in the current arrangement for personal property tax, it will be prorated
under the new billing arrangement, but the vehicle license fee cannot be prorated. It's only $25 and the
Treasurer--
Council Member Dunn: So it's $25? That's a yearly fee then?
Clark Case: It's a yearly fee.
Council Member Dunn: But the personal property tax, it can be prorated.
Clark Case: It will be prorated under the new billing arrangement with the County.
Council Member Dunn: But it wasn't before?
Clark Case: It was not when the Town was doing it separately.
Council Member Dunn: There's no charge for that?
Clark Case: Pardon me?
Council Member Dunn: There's no charge for that?
Clark Case: Well, they charge us for it, because they charge us to do the billing for it. It's included.
Council Member Dunn: I'm talking about changing it to be allowed for proration.
Clark Case: We're complying with the County's process. The County has always prorated, we did not.
We're moving to the County's process of prorating, which is the old process prior to 2014.
Council Member Dunn: [chuckles] Okay.
Clark Case: We're going back to the process that used to be used prior to 2015.
Council Member Dunn: Okay, and is there-- and I'm not sure if you answered my question, maybe
you did. Did you say that we could change the--
Clark Case: The vehicle license fee?
Council Member Dunn: Yes.
Clark Case: At this time, I don't know for sure. I was told by the Treasurer it needed to be $25, because
that's what the County is charging this year. Whether we could change it for next year, we would have
to ask. There would probably be a programming charge and we would have to ask the developer of the
software what that amount would be and we would have to pay for that.
Council Member Dunn: Okay, and I didn't see it, I probably missed it, but did you have an estimate in
here of what the anticipated total revenues going to be for the personal property tax?
Clark Case: Yes, it's $2.2 million.
Council Member Dunn: That's right. I did see that. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Fox?
45
Council Member Fox: Just one question it raised for me after are some comments of Council
members. In this vehicle license fee, this is not double feed? This is either County or Town, correct?
Clark Case: That's correct.
Council Member Fox: Okay. Thanks.
Clark Case: That's why [inaudible 3:03:11] is important.
Mayor Burk: Any other? All right. There is nobody that signed up to speak at this public hearing. Is
there anybody in the audience that would like to that didn't sign up? Being that there's nobody there
rushing to the podium, I will close the public hearing and ask if there is a motion? Okay, the motion is
Setting Tax Rates on Personal Property (Section 20-22), Vehicle License Fee (Section 32-84), and
Personal Property Tax Relief (Section 20-30) for Tax Year 2020 and Amending Leesburg Town Code,
Appendix B – Fee Schedule. Correct? All right. Yes, Mr. Martinez, is there a second?
Vice Mayor Martinez: Yes.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Fox was second. Okay.
Council Member Dunn: Madam Mayor.
Mayor Burk: Any comment? Yes?
Council Member Dunn: I'll just throw this out. I'd like to make a motion, see if the Council would
entertain lowering either/or the vehicle license tax and/or the personal property tax.
Mayor Burk: Well, we have a motion on the table. Are you adding? Are you making that a friendly
amendment?
Council Member Dunn: I'm making a motion.
Mayor Burk: You're making a motion?
Council Member Dunn: Yes.
Mayor Burk: Okay. Is there a second? So that fails for lack of a second. We're back to the main motion.
Council Member Dunn: The only comments I'll have is I won't be able to support this, because I would
rather see us being able to provide more tax reliefs to the citizens. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: All right, all in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed? Okay, that's 5-1-1. Okay, and that takes us to-- Thank you, gentlemen. That
takes us to our Council disclosures and comment, additions to future meetings. Mr. Dunn?
Council Member Dunn: I don't have any disclosures, but I will say that for some of the comments that
were made tonight and some of the comments that have been coming in, although they haven't been
that many, I know that there were issues that people were trying to make in reference to the letter to
the Editor by certain Council Members, that that was a conflict of interest. I'm not sure if people
understand exactly why they should, especially those who are on Council what a conflict of interest is,
is for a specific dollar amount that is a personal gain to the individual, their family or the companies that
they or their families work for.
Campaign contributions are not a conflict of interest. If we want to in the State, in the Commonwealth,
excuse me, determines what a conflict of interest is, and if that were the case, there were speakers
46
here tonight who have had favorable votes from Council members who have received campaign
contributions from at least one of the individuals that spoke tonight. I think as one of the other speakers
mentioned, that there is a lot of, I forget the word they use, but we'll call it innuendo that is going around
about why all this is being done.
One of the things that I think that people need to understand is that a lot of work that you are seeing
these days by Council, in fact, we're going into more Closed Sessions within the last year that I think in
all of my 12 years combined on Council. There's a thing about going into Closed Sessions. One is the
citizenry has no idea what we're doing in there other than a title of what that Closed Session is for.
Additionally, there are actions taken by staff and Council in those Closed Sessions and there may be
issues that come up with staff that the public has no accountability, and it makes accountability difficult
for those things that come up in Closed Session.
Additionally, I would mention to the Council this evening that there seems to have been an effort by
certain Council Members that want to draw the Town Attorney into making rules about how we operate
our Council meetings. I think that's highly inappropriate seeing that the Chair is our Parliamentarian. To
draw the Town Attorney or any other staff member into making decisions of our meeting puts, I think,
that individual staff member at a consequence when we should be deciding the fate of our meeting and
not dragging staff into it.
The issue that was brought up tonight, the reason why the motion was out of order was because you
were doing a motion to reconsider the original motion. What we voted on is not the original motion.
Therefore, we could not reconsider this motion. It was not the original motion. It also gives those people
who may not want to reconsider the original motion an opportunity to vote not to reconsider. That's why
I said that the issue should be voted on the issue to reconsider yes or no, and then you have the
opportunity to vote on the new resolution. I think it's a resolution, yes.
The new resolution, which is not the same resolution that we should have reconsidered. But rather than
taking the time to consider other Council Members, there seems to be a very quick effort by certain
Council Members because of political legions, dislike, disbelief, whatever, to just write off what some
Members say. That's unfortunate. There's not much we can do about that, but I will make it clear for,
and hopefully we'll be wrapping this up that once again, as far as Graydon Manor is concerned, that
was not the only issue dealing with the Town Attorney.
I have never even spoken to somebody from Graydon Manor. I haven't taken donation from Graydon
Manor. I wouldn't even know what a Graydon Manor person looks like. I have for many years before
Graydon Manor even came up, I have voted in opposition to the Town Attorney's contract and her
performance. Hopefully, we can start to move some of these behind us as we move forward. Thank
you.
Council Member Campbell: I have no disclosures tonight. I want to say congratulations to our Town
Black History recipients Raymond Delpesche, Donna Bohanon, and Tanja Thompson. I want also to
congratulate Curtis Allred on opening a Wild Wood Pizza this past weekend in the Village of Leesburg,
but because I believe we also have some unfinished business and we just can't move forward, I think
as a Town Council without addressing the concerns that were expressed in a letter to the Editor. What
I want to demonstrate for the public tonight is exactly other ways the situation could have been handled,
because I was asked this question by someone this week where there other ways to handle it. I'm going
to read a letter into the public record.
Next week or next time we meet, I will ask my colleagues to consider a work session on this letter to
vote on it for its release to the public, because I do believe the public deserves an answer rather than
just allegations that have not been addressed really publicly. This is how the process of engaging the
Council and the community can work.
Dear Leesburg Community on Thursday, January 30, 2020, three members of the Leesburg Town
Council wrote a letter, submitted it to be published in our local newspapers, Loudoun Now, Loudoun
Times-Mirror. This letter contains serious allegations of misconduct against four other Council
members. The letter also contained information that represented an exposure brief of confidential
47
personal information. The letters were signed with official Town titles, but this was not an approved
Council action. This action is not covered by any legislative immunity.
The letter was reckless in its distribution, putting the Town at risk for needless litigation. The letter, as
a matter of urgency, was unnecessary as there were no imminent schedule for a personnel decision,
and the process of evaluation was still occurring. The letter was defamatory in its false claims of
collusion, bribes, lack of integrity and unfair treatment of a Town employee. All allegations were
challenged in a closed-door meeting and no evidence was presented to substantiate any of the claims
made in the letter.
This Council by taking no action sets in motion the two familiar notion that some are above the law and
can do and say whatever to accomplish political goals. All Council members took an oath to pledge
loyalty to the people of Leesburg and not to any particular political party, special interest or developer.
There were no formal charges of improper behavior made against any Council member on any of the
issues presented in this letter to the Editor.
This distribution of these false allegations has caused many of you, our citizens, to be concerned about
how you are being represented and this type of unprofessional behavior by three members of this
Council only serves to confirm your fears. The Leesburg Town Council faces many important decisions
over the next few months that will affect the next decade and beyond. These decisions will require
honest deliberations that should not be partisan or conducted with anger and hostility.
The current atmosphere in the Town Council is toxic, and it's shameful that all the false allegations and
other claims that were shared in local publications were only made to cause harm, not to heal or create
any unity. Leesburg deserves better from its public servants and the contents of that letter should be
discussed in an open meeting and submitted to Council for a vote to approve its release to the entire
Town.
The work that you have elected us to perform is important work. Please know that we will hold each
Council member accountable for actions that discouraged your trust in us as a body. Since the release
of this letter to the Editor, we have moved to hold a meeting to revise our Ethics Policy and we have
been working on a new Code of Conduct that will hold us all accountable to put aside our personal
political differences and act in the best interest of our Town. The damage is done and it's only the three
who have exhibited the most unprofessional behavior who at this time have not pledged to do the
important work of this Town in a fair and honest fashion.
Mayor Burk: Ms. Fox.
Council Member Fox: One quick disclosure, I did have a meeting with Mr. Kalaris on February 10th
about the floodplain alteration/reclamation in South Leesburg. As Council Member Dunn was giving his
comments, since I just filled out a COIA information packet about 25 pages worth. I took a look at page
two. One of us was told that we received a gift from a developer. I took a look at what the gifts do and
do not include and it does not include in section four a campaign contribution properly received and
reported pursuant to Chapter 9.3 of our State Code.
That information I can tell you firsthand has always been open, transparent, appreciated and accepted.
I will always do what's in the best interest of the Town no matter what anybody says. I want to go ahead
and congratulate Curtis of Wild Wood Pizza. He's got quite the place over there and I wish him well on
that.
The last thing I wanted to mention is I had the opportunity to join a field trip. I think it was the very first
field trip over to at the Belmont Cemetery for the Enslaved. It happened on a really rainy day this past
year or this past week and it was a beautiful event, very well done. I'm very excited, because not only
did a lot of communities come together, communities that don't normally work with one another, but four
scouts actually earned their Eagle Scout project, helping that project along. To be part of that whole
process was a really great experience for me. I want to congratulate them. Thank you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg.
48
Council Member Steinberg: I have no disclosures. I do, however, want to thank Vice Mayor Martinez
for arranging and meeting with the community at the Heritage Way and hearing their concerns and
bringing those back to us and then us having the opportunity to do the right thing, so to speak. Thank
you.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Martinez.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Well, in the spirit of doing the right thing for our community, thank you Neil. I
appreciate the support from Council on that. I also have a disclosure, I talked with Gary Rappaport
about the text amendment that we're going to be bringing forward and that was done on the 29th. I got
a text and some information about Pete Fulcer and his son Rob. Mr. Fulcer had a lot to do with our
Monroe Vo-Tech. It's sad to see it being torn down and demolished after all the years that it's served
this community and served the students going there.
I know there was a lot of nurses brought out of that, plus some other vocations. I know my wife really
loved the horticulture part of the Vo-Tech. It is with sadness that we see it being demolished, but I am
hoping that what replace it will more than make up for what we're losing. That will be all for me. Thank
you.
Mayor Burk: All right. I would like to disclose that I also met with Mr. Rappaport about the text
amendment for the dog kennel at the Village. I also met with businesswoman Debbie Henry about a
text amendment for allowing the cat cafe in the Village of Leesburg. Today, I met with Mr. Kalaris about
the floodplain infill property that we discussed tonight. Those are my disclosures.
I would very much like to acknowledge the Town's Street Department for the excellent effort to get all
of the debris off the streets after the tornado. I walked the neighborhoods on Saturday that were affected
and talked to many of the residents. I can say to a person, they praise the Town staff for their hard work
and all of their efforts to help people clean up the mess. They gave me story after story of how the staff
had gone above and beyond to help them. It was horrible that so many of our residents were impacted
by this storm. I, as Mayor, am truly proud of the Street Department employees and congratulate them
on a job well done.
If there's anyone still in need of help to get rid of the debris, please give me or Town Hall a call so we
can help with the situation. On January 29th, the Council held a reception with the County Board of
Supervisors. It was very a friendly event and I'm hopeful that we will have turned the page in our
relationship with this 2020 board. On January 21st, I went to Loudoun County High School and
presented the girls' volleyball team with our proclamation. They were very excited and appreciative and
asked me to be sure to thank the Council for recognizing them.
On February 21st, I attended the Black History event at the Thomas Balch Library. It was put together
by Donna Bohanon and the Black History Committee. It was the history about the Arcola Slave Quarters
in the [unintelligible 03:22:21] house. It was truly fascinating. The whole morning was very well done
and I want to thank the Black History Committee for all their hard work to make it happen.
On February 6th, myself, Mr. Martinez and Mr. Steinberg went to Richmond for VML day. It was
important to talk to our Senators Boysko and Delegate Gooditis about the bills that they had sponsored
for the Town. We also had the opportunity to meet with Attorney General Herring and to hear from
Governor Northam on the state of the State. I was informed at this point that I had been elected to the
VML Executive Committee.
On February 7th, I and Mr. Steinberg met with, taking Vice Mayor Martinez's place, met with Chair
Randall and Supervisor Umstattd and staff to talk about revenue sharing in the BLA process. We're
very close to an agreement and things are moving very quickly. I'm very excited at the future that it
holds for Leesburg. That is all I have at this point and Town Manager has nothing. All right. I move that
we move into a Closed Session pursuant to Virginia Code 2-2.2-3711(A)(1) regarding the assignment,
appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, discipline, and resignation of the Town
Attorney. Is there a second?
Council Member Steinberg: Aye.
49
Mayor Burk: Moved by Ms. Burk. Seconded by Council Member Steinberg. All in favor?
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed?
Vice Mayor Martinez: Nay.
Mayor Burk: Okay, that's 5-0-- No, it's five-- Okay, there was a nay. Okay. That's right, 5-1-1. Well, Mr.
Thiel is not here. Have we called Mr. Thiel at this point?
Council Member: Madam Mayor, Mr. Thiel had notified me that he was not available this evening.
Mayor Burk: All right. Okay. Yes?
Council Member Dunn: Can we stay here?
Mayor Burk: The hall is full of people?
Council Member Dunn: [inaudible 03:24:22]
Mayor Burk: All right. If no one has any objection-- All right.
[CLOSED SESSION – 10:22 p.m. – 10:41 p.m.]
Mayor Burk: In accordance with section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia, I move the Council certified
to the best of each member's knowledge. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open
meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and such public business matters
for the purpose identified in the motion by which the closed meeting was convened or heard, discussed
and considered in the meeting by Council. Mr. Dunn.
Council Member Dunn: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Campbell.
Council Member Campbell: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Mrs. Fox.
Council Member Fox: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Martinez.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Mr. Steinberg.
Council Member Steinberg: Aye.
Mayor Burk: And Ms. Burk. Aye. Mr. Thiel is absent.
Council Member Dunn: Madam Mayor.
Mayor Burk: Yes.
Council Member Dunn: I move to approve a separation agreement with the Town Attorney.
Mayor Burk: Does the whole thing have to be read? Is that sufficient to just read the title? I'm sorry.
50
Council Member Dunn: Do you want to state as discussed in the Closed Session? I move to approve
a separation agreement with the Town Attorney as discussed in Closed Session.
Mayor Burk: Is there a second? All right. Any discussion? All in favor indicate by saying aye.
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: That's Mr. Dunn, Mr. Campbell, Ms. Fox, and Mr. Steinberg. Opposed?
Vice Mayor Martinez: Nay.
Mayor Burk: That's Ms. Burk and Mr. Martinez. Alright. There is another motion.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Madam Mayor I'd like to move. Authorizing a Contract between the Leesburg
Town Council and Vanderpool, Frostick & Nishanian, P.C. to Appoint Martin Crim to Serve as Interim
Town Attorney effective February 12th, 2020.
Mayor Burk: Is there a second?
Council Member Fox: Second.
Mayor Burk: Seconded by Council Member Fox. All in favor?
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed? That one passes with 6-0-1.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Move to adjourn.
Mayor Burk: Is there a second?
Council Member: [inaudible 03:45:43].
Mayor Burk: What?
Christine Newton: Madam Mayor, I think the motion that the Council Member Martinez read the
heading for was the old version of the motion for the Interim Town Attorney and we have given you an
updated version at the dais.
Mayor Burk: Yes, this is what I took out.
Vice Mayor Martinez: I took it out of the blue folder already. This is the one I took out of the blue folder.
Christine Newton: It doesn't say the word contract in the heading. The new one does not say the word
contract.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Okay. You want me to reread that heading? Authorizing the Leesburg Town
Council and Vanderpool, Frostick & Nishanian, P.C. to Appoint Martin Crim as Interim Town Attorney
effective February 12th, 2020
Mayor Burk: We don't have a blue one.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Okay. Appointing Martin Crim, Esquire to serve as the Interim Town Attorney.
That was easy.
Mayor Burk: [laughs] All right. That was-- That was moved by Mr. Martinez, seconded by Council
Member Fox, all in favor. Anybody change your vote on this one? All in favor?
51
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed? 6-0-1.
Vice Mayor Martinez: Move to adjourn.
Mayor Burk: I would assume you want the agreement back? Have a motion to adjourn. Do I have a
second?
Vice Mayor Martinez: Tom Dunn.
Mayor Burk: Tom Dunn. All in favor?
Council Members: Aye.
Mayor Burk: Opposed?
Vice Mayor Martinez: All right.
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.