Loudoun County Communications Commission Meeting - June 18, 2025

The Loudoun County Communications Commission met on June 18, 2025, at 7:00 PM in the Lovettsville Room of the Loudoun County Government Center. The meeting focused on the introduction of a new commissioner, approval of the virtual meeting policy, and a substantive discussion regarding the commission's future role and value, particularly regarding potential expansion into wireless and mobility technologies. No public comments were received, and both Comcast and Verizon were absent.

Consent Calendar

• Approved the agenda as presented.
• Approved the minutes of the March 24, 2025, meeting.

Public Comments & Testimony

• No members of the public signed up to speak or provided comments.

Discussion Items

• Introduction of New Commissioner: Marion Shannon (who goes by Jamel) was introduced as the Ashburn District Commissioner. She shared her background in computer engineering, telecommunications, and diplomatic work, expressing interest in leveraging her expertise for the community.
• Approval of Virtual Meeting Policy: The commission unanimously adopted Article VII-C of its Bylaws for all-virtual meetings and remote participation for calendar year 2025, per state requirements. The policy limits remote participation to 25% of meetings (or two per year) and requires written requests to the chair before noon on the meeting day.
• Awareness of Future Virtual Meeting Policy Change: Staff noted that Virginia Code § 2.2-3708.3 has been updated to allow up to 50% of meetings to be all-virtual, but the county must first update its own policies and bylaws before the commission can take advantage of the new limit. The timeline is to be determined.
• Franchisee Discussion – Comcast and Verizon: Neither Comcast nor Verizon attended. Staff reported that Comcast did not attend due to a scheduling conflict (meeting was on a different Monday than usual) but remains in regular communication. Verizon has a policy of not regularly attending; staff noted decreased responsiveness from Verizon compared to prior years, particularly regarding infrastructure tickets. Commissioners expressed concern that the agenda listing of specific attendees created a false expectation for the public. It was agreed that staff will reach out to franchisees ahead of future meetings to confirm attendance, and the agenda will be revised to a general item ("Franchisee Discussion") rather than naming specific individuals.
• Staff Response & Recommendation for Commission Focus – Potential Expansion to Mobility Technologies: This was the main agenda item. Staff presented findings from county administration and the county attorney’s office. Key points:
  • The annual commission update did not constitute a refocus on mobility/wireless technologies, and the current bylaws do not support such a shift.
  • To change the commission’s focus, the board of supervisors must approve a formal resolution or motion, and the commission would need to develop a presentation with proposed bylaw changes (without staff assistance).
  • The county attorney’s office stated that the commission cannot become regulatory; it will always remain advisory.
  • The recommendation from the county attorney is for Chair DeSilva to reach out to Supervisor Latorno to gauge appetite for a change in focus before the commission invests further effort.
• Commissioner Deliberation on Purpose and Value: Commissioners extensively debated the commission’s relevance and demand signal from the board. Several commissioners noted that the board rarely seeks their input directly, and that staff and outside experts already provide the needed technical advice. Commissioner Bridge questioned whether the board still needs the commission. Commissioner Kennedy argued that the commission has been involved in franchise renewals and BEAD buildout, but others countered that the board did not rely on the commission for those decisions. Chair DeSilva suggested that each commissioner should individually engage with their supervisor to ask: (1) Do you see value in the commission? (2) Would you want an expanded role (e.g., wireless/mobility)? (3) How should communication be structured? The commission agreed to develop a standardized set of questions to ensure consistent feedback. A timeline was set: questions to be drafted by the end of the week, discussions with supervisors within two weeks, and feedback compiled a week before the next meeting.
• Review of Action Items: Action items 262 (what it would take to update bylaws and scope) and 263 (read the commission bylaws) were closed. New action item 264 was created to capture the agreed-upon outreach to supervisors and development of standardized questions.

Key Outcomes

• Adopted the all-virtual/remote participation policy for 2025 (unanimous).
• Closed action items 262 and 263.
• Created action item 264: Commission chair to engage Supervisor Latorno; all commissioners to engage their respective supervisors with standardized questions about the commission’s value and potential expanded focus, with feedback due before the July 28, 2025, meeting.
• Staff will contact Comcast and Verizon ahead of future meetings to confirm attendance.
• Agenda language for franchisee discussion will be revised to avoid naming specific attendees.
• Next meeting scheduled for July 28, 2025, in the Lovettsville Room.