The finance committee instructed staff to advance analysis and seek partnerships to locate a future Loudoun County government center east of Leesburg, near the Washington Metro corridor, and to assume a facility program in the 300,000–400,000 square-foot range.

Staff presented two primary options considered in a JLL-feasibility review: (1) keep or relocate core government functions to the existing Government Support Center campus in Leesburg (constructing additional General Government Office buildings there) and convert the current 1 Harrison Street government center into a court annex, or (2) acquire or partner to develop a new single government center east of Leesburg near transit (the Metro corridor), converting the current Leesburg government center into a court annex. JLL’s scoring matrix rated the Eastern-Loudoun/transit-aligned option higher on eight weighted criteria (Eastern Loudoun 52/55 vs. Central Loudoun 31/55), citing greater scalability, faster delivery via developer partnerships, stronger transit alignment and proximity to population growth. Staff’s preliminary program estimate said the county will need ~300,000–400,000 usable square feet to consolidate core administrative functions, expand board/committee room capacity and include a conference center and public amenities.

Board discussion and direction: Supervisors asked questions about cost differences, ownership/lease options, and potential impacts to the already-planned General Government Office (GOB) buildings on the support-center campus. Staff noted that constructing three new campus buildings would likely take longer and be more disruptive to an active campus, while the eastern site could be delivered faster using a developer partnership though it would require identifying an appropriate site and balancing private-sector efficiencies with county control. The committee passed a motion directing staff to pursue Option 2 (East of Leesburg), seek potential partnerships, and include projected costs and timing in the county administrator’s future CIP budget materials; motion approved 4–0–1.

Why it matters: The direction signals a strategic shift toward locating county governance and public-facing services near transit and population growth corridors, and it sets a planning footprint that will affect future CIP requests, land negotiations and potential developer partnerships.

Quoted: “Option 2 aligns with population centers and economic trends. It's faster and possibly less expensive and positions the county with the alignment of the county's comprehensive goals,” staff said in the presentation. A supervisor added: “I am willing to let them go take a second shot at it…we're not approving it tonight. We're just saying…we'll give them a second shot.” (chair comment on an unrelated loan resubmission vote for Clear Springs; included here as committee tone on iterative planning.)

What’s next: Staff will seek sites and partnership options, refine a program and cost estimate and return with recommended delivery schedules and CIP funding strategies for board prioritization.