Leesburg Engineering Summit Panel Discussion - June 9, 2026
Leesburg Engineering Summit Panel Discussion - June 9, 2026
On June 9, 2026, the Town of Leesburg hosted an Engineering Summit panel discussion featuring town staff and private-sector experts. The panel aimed to identify challenges in the project approval process, share best practices, and explore ways to improve efficiency, predictability, and collaboration. Panelists included Pete Lazarevich (Gordon Engineering), Amy White (Utilities Director), Renee LaColette (Director of Public Works and Capital Projects), Bill Ackman (Deputy Director, Chief Engineer), and Don Knudson (President, Knudson Companies). The discussion was facilitated by an unnamed moderator.
Discussion Items
- Challenges in Project Approvals: Pete Lazarevich cited a lack of predictability in the process, noting that written rules are sometimes interpreted inconsistently. Don Knudson emphasized that projects take too long and called for metrics (e.g., an eight-month target for site plan approval) and a second annual summit to measure progress. A show of hands from the audience confirmed many shared these concerns.
- Common Errors and Mistakes: Amy White highlighted that developers often fail to contact utilities early about public facilities permits, availability fees, and test pits. Renee LaColette noted delays caused by requests to change standard bonding forms and incomplete punch lists. Bill Ackman identified recurring issues: inconsistent handicap ramp designs, mismatched data across plan sheets (e.g., pipe sizes), and landscape plans that ignore underlying utilities and easements.
- Balancing Code Compliance vs. Preference‑Based Comments: Pete Lazarevich suggested that design recommendations be clearly marked as such and discussed early. Don Knudson proposed memorializing preferred design approaches through memoranda or education sessions. Panelists from the town explained that some “preferential” comments stem from maintainability concerns (e.g., deep storm sewer access) and could be formalized.
- Tips for a Smoother Process: Bill Ackman advised designers to trace all changes through every plan sheet and to call staff with questions, especially at decision points. Pete Lazarevich stressed coming to the process solution‑oriented and maintaining open communication. Panelists emphasized that early, collaborative discussions reduce later surprises.
- Audience Questions: An audience member (Kevin) asked whether other agencies’ comments (e.g., tap‑fee details) could be provided earlier to avoid late surprises. Another attendee inquired about the best timing to discuss Design and Construction Standards Manual (DCSM) modifications; Bill Ackman responded that the earlier the better, and staff can provide informal “head nods” on draft modifications. A third question raised the possibility of receiving individual reviewer comments as they are completed rather than waiting for a consolidated comment letter; the panel noted that while consolidated letters prevent conflicts, they are open to releasing preliminary comments with disclaimers.
Key Outcomes
- Panelists and audience agreed that early communication, clear expectations, and proactive coordination among all agencies can reduce review cycles.
- The town committed to exploring ways to release individual reviewer comments earlier (on request) and to memorialize commonly‑granted modifications in the DCSM update.
- Don Knudson recommended a resource assessment to ensure the town has adequate staff to meet review timelines, especially given state mandates.
- The moderator and panelists expressed interest in holding a second annual Engineering Summit to track metrics and continue improvements.
Meeting Transcript
Okay. Now I get to be the facilitator to the panel. Yeah, you can take that one Pete. All right, well. Thank you all for agreeing to serve on our panel of experts. Let me introduce the panel here. So to my left. Pete Lazarevich, Chief Operating Officer for Gordon Engineering. Thanks for being here, Pete. We got Amy White, who is the utilities director with the town. Thanks for being here, Amy. Renee LaColette, the director of Public Works and Capital Projects. Thank you, Renee. Bill Ackman, Deputy Director, Chief Engineer with the Department of Community Development and the Engineering Division. Thanks for being here, Bill. And then Don Knudson, president of the Knudson Companies, a local developer here. Don, thanks for being here as well. So we've got some questions, and I'm just gonna jump right in. So this first one is for our folks from the private consulting side. So that's Pete and Don. What are some of your biggest challenges in getting a project approved? Let me start with Pete. Oh, you gotta hold the button and look for a green light, so why don't you use mine for? Alright. Um, so you know, obviously everyone here because they've done work in the town and can understand how the process you know can be either easy or challenging. Um some of the stuff I've seen was is making sure there's predictability in the process. So when something's written a certain way, you want to make sure that all right, I'm following it the way it's written, and it's interpreted the same way on the last project projects before. And so that's that's where when sometimes we run into a hurdle. It's like, well, maybe if you go into all right, I did it this way on this one, but it doesn't work that way on that one for what reason? And so it's a discussion that has to be had, and you know, I think that the town understands that you know every situation is unique, and I think you have to go in to understand that as well. But kind of making sure there's predictability on when you start the process that you can make expectations. You don't have to make the caveat that well, if it goes well, this is what we expect, you know, where we can kind of consistently say this is the expectation, and if there's those oddballs out there, hey, that's that's the oddball, and it's that's not the oddball's not the norm. So that's kind of where I've seen as kind of the the challenge and work, and I'll say that it's being a change, you know, kind of more recently based on a lot of the things that James said, but you know, that's something we need to strive for and maintain moving forward. Thanks, Pete. Go ahead, Don. Yeah, so when you said serve on this panel, is that supposed to be a joke? Is it you know we're serving ascends here? I'm the only non-engineer up here, I'm pretty sure. I'm a developer, build projects in town, so I need sales trailer permits, I need uh site plan, um grading plans approved, so take all my comments in good stead as I come forward. Here's the deal. I mean, I think that that six-point plan, we all know what the problems were, right? They things took too long, complexity, we didn't have consistency. It's pretty clear from that plan, and I I applaud everybody. I was one of the folks who gave comments back that were moving in the right direction. And so I think you know, the real litmus test will be is there a second annual engineering summit? Are we gonna measure some of those things that you had up there? I mean, everybody would love point number two is super important, working together to have the right approach to try to make this happen. And so I think if you're a metrics guy, uh James, it'll be great. How long should a site plan take to do? Are we hitting that goal?
openpublica.com