Leesburg commissioners set August vote after hours of testimony on shuffleboard site and proposed youth housing

Commissioner Shelley Burry directed the city manager and city attorney to draft a warranty deed for the parcel under discussion that would be nontransferable in perpetuity and include a five‑year substantial‑commencement reversion clause; the deed is to return to the commission for a public agenda and vote on Aug. 25.

Why it matters: dozens of residents, tournament organizers and state‑level shuffleboard leaders urged the commission to preserve the Leesburg Shuffleboard Club’s courts, saying the courts draw tournaments, visitors and spending to local hotels and businesses. Supporters said moving or demolishing the courts would hurt seniors, volunteers and sports tourism. Advocates for Forward Paths, the nonprofit proposing a small residential project for young adults aging out of foster care, said the city property is a needed downtown site for affordable transitional housing and that Forward Paths can build quickly and operate transparently.

Public comment filled the meeting. Charles Wood read a letter from Gail Howell, president of the Leesburg Shuffleboard Club, describing long‑running tournaments and the club’s regional reputation. Joe Enga, president of the Northern District Shuffleboard Association, told commissioners the sport brings participants and overnight visitors and that clubs work to maintain courts and host events. Multiple speakers said the courts support exercise, social contact and local businesses during the October–March tournament season. Several speakers also proposed alternative locations or asked that any replacement courts be completed before closing the existing facility.

Forward Paths board president Jacob Bonning told commissioners the organization needs a centrally located, walkable site for its model and said, “we plan to remain honest and transparent about our plans.” Lauren Ritchie, a Forward Paths board member, said Forward Paths has funding in the bank and could begin construction rapidly, and she asked commissioners not to rely on membership lists when assessing club usage.

Some speakers accused a commissioner of a conflict of interest and urged the commission to postpone action. Steven Clark told the commission the proposal had been compromised by a commissioner’s failure to recuse and urged the commission to “permanently table the current proposal” and adopt conflict‑of‑interest protections. City Attorney Grant Watson responded in public comment that the city had reviewed the facts and “determined that there’s not an actual conflict of interest at this point,” saying the ethics analysis focused on whether a relative received a direct economic benefit and that, in this case, the city’s review found no paid salary tied to the relative that would create a disqualifying economic interest.

Commission discussion and next steps focused on process. Commissioner Shelley Burry said she wanted the deed drafted with the nontransferable language and five‑year reversion and said the deed would come back as an agenda item for the full commission. City staff said drafting could be completed in time for a later August meeting and, after discussion of schedules, commissioners set the item to be advertised and heard on Aug. 25.

Ending: The commission did not take a final vote on transfer or sale at the July 14 meeting. Staff were directed to prepare deed language and related documents for formal consideration on Aug. 25, when the public will have another opportunity to testify and the commission may take final action.