HomeMy Public PortalAbout1980_01_23 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL, JANUARY 23 , 1980 .
132
A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in
the Council Chambers , 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia,
on January 23, 1980 at 7 : 30 P .M. The meeting was called to order
by the Mayor Pro-Tem in the absence of the Mayor, with the invoca-
tion by Mr. Tolbert and followed with the Salute to the Flag led
by Mrs. Hill. Present were : Mayor Pro-Tem G. Dewey Hill , Jr. ,
Councilmembers Glen P. Cole , Stanley D. Herrell, Jr. , Marylou Hill,
Walter F. Murray and John W. Tolbert, Jr. ; also Town Manager John
Niccolls, Assistant Manager Jeffrey H . Minor, Director of Finance
Donald 0. Taylor, Chief of Police James M. Kidwell and Town Attor-
ney George M. Martin. Absent from the meeting was Mayor Kenneth B .
Rollins .
The minutes of the regular meeting of January 9 , 1980 were
approved as written.
MANAGER'S REPORT :
(1) Mr. Niccolls called attention to the written Activity Re-
port which was distributed on Monday evening.
(2) Mr. Minor has received official notification today of the
Community Development Pre-Application approval for the two projects
we are seeking in a total of $372 , 000 . One is for recreational fa-
cilities and the other for storm drainage facilities near Waverly
Heights . Very significant grants will be made to Leesburg. There
is, of course, more work to be done on these projects .
(3) The Potter ' s Field case has been settled. Perhaps it is
not a record in Virginia, but 19 years is certainly a record for
Leesburg. The town is now clear owner of 34 , 000 square feet and
will be deciding later as to the disposition of this property.
(4) Mr. William Dickey, one of the investors in Century Avia-
tion, called this afternoon and said he would personally bring a
check in the amount of $8 , 000 and some dollars to Leesburg to re-
solve the arrears problem with the rent and FBO payments and other
charges made by the town at the airport. A check in the amount of
$8 , 565 . 00 was delivered at this time - this puts them current with
all payments to the town. There have been some minor adjustments
made in the proposal for the buy-out and refinancing that will mean
some adjustments in the legislation before Council tonight. He has,
therefore, asked that Council defer action on this until its next
meeting. This deferral is recommended.
( 5) He called attention to material prepared by Mr. Taylor
recapping some important financial information and pointing out that
water and sewer service charges are running just slightly ahead of
the budget estimates . However, availability fees are significantly
below expectations . There is also a statistical report on billed
water, pumped water and sewer flows at the Plant, pointing out that
sewer flows ran rather high in the fourth quarter from infiltration/
inflow.
(6) He met with Mr. Don Wagner, Planning Engineer for VDH&T
in Richmond yesterday after requesting the previous week that the
Highway Department study the Rt. 7 West project to see what options
might be available to the town, and also to recap other projects
in Leesburg. The Highway Department is unwilling to redesign the
project for the two-way alternate unless they widen the traffic
lanes out to 12 feet and get away from the header curb. Eleven
foot traffic lanes are unsafe when there is opposed traffic. Also,
when there is two-way traffic , in order to be eligible for mileage
payments the curb to curb width must be 30 feet. Because of Coun-
cil ' s concern about the project, he discussed what options the town
might have to study this matter further and to get some rather inde-
pendent advice. One of the agencies of the State Government that is
funded by gasoline tax revenue but is independent of the Highway Com-
mission is the Virginia Highway Safety Commission. This is an in-
dependent agency dedicated to highway safety. They have a. traffic
engineering department which looks at structural problems and makes
suggestions to the Highway Department for correction. Unless Council
objects, he would like to ask this Commission to study the Route 7
West situation and come up with recommendations for structural im-
MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 1980 MEETING.
133
provements or changes in plans or whatever and give us some out-
side independent advice as to how to resolve the problems out there,
taking into consideration the opposition by those people concerned
about the one-way plan . This will take a while, but he saw no prob-
lem as far as the project is concerned. There is no charge for this
service . Mr. Hill asked what this would do to the funds already
earmarked for this project? Mr. Niccolls explained that, over the
years, the Highway Department has allocated a .total of $490 , 000 to
the improvement project on the west end of town . These funds are
from the urban fund for use only in the 60 some cities and towns -
they cannot be transferred to another project in Loudoun County un-
less it would happen to be one of the other incorporated towns .
They cannot be used on primary highways outside the towns or cities
by State law. They are not interested in taking this away from
Leesburg ' s share. Actually, we are several hundred thousand dol-
lars ahead for this decade. The money would be available for other
improvements in Leesburg - specifically, those secticns of Catoctin
Circle that are eligible for State assistance. Recently, through
Council ' s request, we have learned that the Highway Department has
included the north leg of Catoctin Circle between Market Street and
Edwards Ferry Road in the primary aid system, which makes it eligible
CO for Federal aid . We are also applying for Federal aid designation
QOfor the Catoctin Circle leg from Dry Mill Road out. If the town de-
cides not to spend the money for Rt. 7 west, we should immediately
N
initiate a project somewhere else if we want to use the money .
W There is a lead time of five to seven years on projects, so there
Q will not be immediate improvement to deal with. He also asked about
a the Rt. 7 east project - they now have an estimated bid date of
April 15th, so construction will begin no earlier than June. Mr.
Tolbert asked if the $490 , 000 would include the drainage on• rthe
west end? Mr. Niccolls said No, the total project would cost
roughly $600 , 000 . Mr. Hill asked what happens if the project is
abandoned insofar as the money already spent on surveys, etc. ? Mr.
Niccolls said this is roughly $30, 000 to $35 , 000 . He .
said the town, under its agreement, would have to pay 100 percent
of the planning that has gone on to date. If the project is under-
taken, the town ' s share is 15 percent. Mrs . Hill thought the figure
was $720 , 000 . Mr. Niccolls said the scaling down of the lanes , etc .
has made that change - these are preliminary cost estimates .
(7) Mr. Shope, Mr. Neeson and he met today with members of
the State Water Control Board staff for the purpose of discussing
Leesburg ' s sewage treatment expansion project. He said they could
not have done better. The staff reviewed the status of the town ' s
Step I plan and land treatment study and pointed out certain de-
ficiencies as it is now. It was originally drawn in 1977 and there
are some catch-up problems on the population to be served and some
other technical things . Then the SWCB staff made a proposal which
fits exactly our Alternative 1 choice, which was to expand the treat-
ment facility at its present treatment capacity and add no new unit
processes on an interim basis, pending resolution of all the com-
plexities involved in the Dulles area watershed policy . That means
no advanced wastewater treatment, no $6 , 000 . 000 project. Our local
construction costs, assuming this to be a 75-25 percent project
which they fully confirm it will be, could be less than $1, 000 , 000 .
This was the best news of the day . The proposal is to expand the
plant to a range of 2 to 2 . 5 mgd, with the town providing justifi-
cation from being above 2 mgd. The effluent limitations for nitro-
gen and BOD would be the same now applicable at the plant. They
will ask us to revise our Step I plan and the land treatment addenda
to call for staged up-grading to the Dulles Area Watershed Policy.
However, this policy will be revised by 1985, so our policy will
be satisfactory until that time . If we don ' t meet the policy then,
which is likely, we can then upgrade the treatment to the required
levels . They also want the town to consider land treatment seri-
ously. The BCM plan assumed that we would be required to meet
basically zero discharge limits . Since they are telling us now
we have to meet only secondary standards , the whole economics of
land treatment changes again . You talk about much smaller land
areas and perhaps some very simple plant equipment. They know
we have serious problems in acquiring enough land and have indi-
cated that this alternative would not have to be undertaken.
MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 1980 MEETING.
134
He asked Mr. Neeson to prepare, by March 1, those revisions to
the Step I plan and the land treatment study that are necessary
to meet the request of the SWCB staff. In order to remain eli-
gible for 1981 funding to design these improvements , it must be
acted on by the SWCB in March, so we want to document that we are
indeed ready to move. We will be receiving a proposal to do some
of this work from BCM. We need to stay on the 1981 priority list
for Step II money.
COUNCILMEMBER INQUIRIES AND COMMENTS :
Mrs. Hill asked why the Town is the only one directed to re-
move and reinter the bodies from Potters Field? Mr. Niccolls ex-
plained the town probed the area several years ago and determined
there were a certain number of graves and they are all located
in this area. The other areas have been used for commercial pur-
poses over the years and it is assumed that any such graves would
have been obliterated. There are some 30 potential grave sites
and it will be difficult to locate them - this will be more of an
archeological matter .
80-4 - RESOLUTION - CONCERNING McKIMMEY, ET AL v. TOWN OF LEESBURG,
ET AL.
On motion of Mrs . Hill, seconded by Mr. Cole, the following
resolution was proposed:
WHEREAS , the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors has re-
quested the town join with it in seeking delay in the an-
nexation trial in the case of McKimmey, et al v. Town of
Leesburg, et al; and
WHEREAS, this Council ' s approval of the annexation is re-
corded in its resolution #79-138; and
WHEREAS, the proper forum for decisions on extension of
municipal boundaries is the special annexation court pur-
suant
to state law:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the . Town of Lees-
burg, Virginia, as follows :
Any delay in the trial in the case of McKimmey, et al v.
Town of Leesburg, et al is opposed.
A letter from the Chairman of the Loudoun County Board of Super-
visors requesting a three month ' s delay in the annexation hear-
ing and a continued spirit of cooperation in annexation meetings
was read by the Clerk. Mr. Murray said he had attended the Board ' s
meeting and asked some pertinent questions concerning the reasons
for such a delay. Their staff pointed out that the opposition
raised by some of the citizens at the public hearing was, not ger-
mane to the question. He received no answer to his request for
reasons for delay. He could not see why it should take three
months longer when they have had this for several years . Instead
of doing the Leesburg plan, they did all the other areas. He
understood they wanted to wait for new members on their Board,
but three months more could mean new members on this Council as
well . Some of the items he felt would be taken into considera-
tion by the annexation court were : (1) Sewer and water - the
prime consideration, which the town can provide (the Leesburg
taxpayers have spent money for this) and the county cannot pro-
vide; (2) Taxes - the only taxes the county would lose would be
ABC proceeds and automobile tags - they would gain on personal
property and real estate taxes ; ( 3) Schools - a new elementary
school is being built out there and these children could walk to
school; (4) Police protection - there are constant complaints that
there isn'.t. enough protection, in Sterling Park and Sugarland Run -
the town would provide this service to this area. He felt the
county should be happy to have this growth - they say the county
should grow around the town and this is an ideal spot for it to
grow and the town has the facilities available for it. He did
not feel the town should add its blessings to a request for delay.
Both Mrs. Hill and Mr. Cole agreed with Mr. Murray ' s statements .
Mr. Herrell agreed also and added that we are cooperating with the
county - they want the town to grow around the edges and this
MINUTES OF JANUARY 23 , 1980 MEETING.
is an ideal spot for it to grow. It would be ridiculous for 135
the Sanitation Authority to spend the money to serve this area
with utilities when the town is already prepared for this . It
should be a part of the town. Mr. Tolbert was in favor of the
proposed resolution, stating that there is always delayed action
by the county.
Mr. Hill agreed, however, he was going to vote against the
resolution. He said when he appeared on behalf of the Mayor at
the public hearing, it was like being in an arena of lions and
Indians . Then a committee was appointed to meet with the Board
I/ of Supervisors. He thought this was a good meeting and that the
town ' s representatives were there in a spirit of cooperation.
He did not believe the two bodies can continue to fight, as has
been done over the years, and still progress . He felt there
should be a spirit of compromise. The town acted on this matter
last August and he voted for it - he is for the plan. However,
the County deferred it for reasons they thought they should and
he agreed with this . There are three or four new members on the
Board and they need time to acquaint themselves with a lot of
the details . This is a small issue involving just the town and
the county, and they will have many greater and larger issues to
CO be faced in the future. He did not feel a three-month deferral
CD would hurt - if asked for now, the matter could still be set for
NJune or July, but if you wait until April to ask for the deferral
W it could be a lot later. It cannot be implemented until December
31st regardless of when the decision is made. He said he will
Q accept the vote of the Council and work for its implementation
Q in spite of disagreeing. Mr. Murray said he would feel the same
way but, when he asked them to define the items they could not
make a decision on, he received no answer - he felt they have
no reasons for asking for this delay. If they want the data
we have correlated, then we should supply them with this if it
is what they need. He appreciated Mr. Hill ' s point and his
active participation in this matter. The resolution was adopted
by a roll call vote of 5 to 1 :
Aye : Councilmembers Cole, Herrell, M. Hill, Murray and
Tolbert.
Nay : Mayor Pro-Tem D. Hill .
Mr. Hill did not want the county to think the town is acting not
to work with them in future matters. Mr. Murray felt the Mayor
or the Manager should respond to this - this is only about this
particular annexation. It was the consensus of Council that they
are willing to work with the county on all matters, but they are
against the delay on this particular thing. Mr. Herrell felt
the county should compromise as well .
80-5 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING NOTICE OF PUBLICATION OF PUBLIC
HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION
17-71 OF THE TOWN CODE RE LICENSE TAXES ON
PROFESSIONAL, SPECIALIZED OCCUPATIONS AND
BUSINESSES .
On motion of Mr. Herrell, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the
following resolution was proposed:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Vir-
ginia, as follows :
A notice of public hearing to consider proposed amend-
ments to Sec. 17-71 of the Town Code regarding license
taxes on professional, specialized occupations and busi-
nesses shall be published in the Loudoun Times-Mirror
on February 21, 1980 for a public hearing on February 27 ,
1980 at 7 : 30 P .M. in the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun
Street, Leesburg, Virginia .
Mrs . Hill explained that 4k is a change in the professional
tax from 0 . 33 to 0 . 20/ �e committee met with Mr. Wallace and
members of the business community and this is the proposal . The
resolution was unanimously adopted:
MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 1980 MEETING.
136
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell, M. Hill, Murray,
Tolbert and Mayor Pro-Tem D. Hill .
Nay: None.
80-6 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT FOR MISDEMEANOR
PROSECUTION.
On motion of Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Cole , the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted :
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in
Virginia as follows :
The manager is authorized and directed to enter into an
agreement with the County of Loudoun for misdemeanor
prosecution from January 1 through June 30 , 1980 at a
cost not to exceed $120 per month.
Aye : Councilmembers Cole , Herrell, M. Hill, Murray, Tolbert
and Mayor Pro-Tem D. Hill.
Nay: None.
80-7 - RESOLUTION - MAKING APPOINTMENT TO THE LEESBURG AIRPORT
COMMISSION.
On motion of Mrs. Hill , seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the fol-
lowing resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted :
WHEREAS, the Leesburg Airport Commission has endorsed
the following appointment:
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg,
Virginia, as follows :
The following appointment is made to the Leesburg Airport
Commission for the term indicated herein :
Claude C. Arthur to fill the unexpired term of Milo Rum-
felt, said term expiring June 30 , 1980 .
Aye : Councilmembers Cole, Herrell, M. Hill , Murray, Tolbert
and Mayor Pro-Tem D. Hill .
Nay : None.
There were comments of appreciation for the time given to the
Airport Commission by Commander Rumfelt.
80-8 - RESOLUTION - ENDORSING A VIRGINIA SENATE BILL TO PROHIBIT
THE POSSESSION OR DISTRIBUTION OF DRUG PARA-
PHERNALIA.
On motion of Mrs . Hill, seconded by Mr. Cole, the following
resolution was proposed:
WHEREAS, this Council is alarmed by the growing pro-
liferation of the drug paraphernalia industry which
glamorizes and facilitates the illegal use of drugs,
especially by our young people; and
WHEREAS, Senate bill 85 which has been introduced in
the Virginia Senate will prohibit the possession or
distribution of drug paraphernalia as well as provide
more severe penalties for the distribution of drug
paraphernalia to persons under 18 .
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Lees-
burg, Virginia, as follows :
SECTION I. Senate bill 85 which will prohibit the pos-
session or distribution of drug paraphernalia through-
out the Commonwealth is endorsed.
MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 1980 MEETING.
137
SECTION II . The Manager is authorized and directed to
transmit a copy of this resolution to Loudoun ' s Gene-
ral Assembly delegation and the Virginia Municipal League.
Mr. Murray felt this is the proper way to go about this - he did
not like to see each little body generating their own prohibitive
legislation, such as the bottle bill . This should be done State-
wide . The resolution was unanimously adopted:
Aye : Councilmembers Cole, Herrell , M. Hill , Murray, Tolbert
and Mayor Pro-Tem D. Hill .
I/ Nay: None .
80-9 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF ELECTRIC
SERVICE FROM VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY .
On motion of Mr. Cole, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Vir-
ginia as follows :
Q) The manager is authorized and directed to execute on be-
Q) half of the town an agreement for the purchase of electric
(v service from Virginia Electric and Power Company for the
W period of July 1, 1979 to June 30 , 1982 in a form nego-
a tiated for the town by the steering committee of the Vir-
Q ginia Municipal League and Virginia Association of Counties .
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell , M. Hill , Murray, Tolbert
and Mayor Pro-Tem D. Hill.
Nay: None.
80-10 - RESOLUTION - ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS FOR RETENTION OF
COUNCIL MEETING TAPE RECORDINGS .
On motion of Mr. Herrell , seconded by Mrs . Hill, the following
resolution was proposed :
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia,
as follows :
The Clerk of Council shall retain magnetic recording tapes
of Council meetings for three years from each meeting and
is authorized thereafter to erase the recordings and de-
stroy or reuse the tapes as the Clerk determines is neces-
sary.
It was felt that there are some tapes concerning major issues that
should be saved. This was left to the manager ' s and clerk ' s dis-
cretion. The resolution was unanimously adopted :
Aye : Councilmembers Cole, Herrell , M. Hill, Murray, Tolbert
and Mayor Pro-Tem D. Hill .
Nay : None.
80-11 - RESOLUTION - MAKING A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION TO THE
POTOMAC PLANT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND.
On motion of Mr. Herrell, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the fol-
lowing resolution was proposed:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
A supplemental appropriation is made from the Potomac Plant
Capital Improvement Fund to Account No. 70000 . 246 , Legal
Financial and Administration, in the amount of $17 , 000 . 00
for the fiscal year ending June 30 , 1980 .
Mrs. Hill explained that $13, 000 was for legal counsel and finan-
cial advisors and the remainder for printing of advertisement and
bonds on the $1, 500 , 000 bond issue. The resolution was unanimously
adopted:
MINUTES OF JANUARY 23 , 1980 MEETING .
138
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell , M. Hill , Murray, Tolbert
and Mayor Pro-Tem D. Hill .
Nay : None.
80-12 - RESOLUTION - MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR END-
. ING JUNE 30 , 1980 .
On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mrs. Hill, the follow-
ing resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted after explana-
tion by Mrs . Hill :
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
SECTION I . Appropriations are made from the General Fund
to the accounts shown below for the fiscal year ending
June 30 , 1980 .
Account No. Name Appropriation
10210 . 801 Council Chambers Remodeling $1, 700 . 00
9010 . 250 Expert Services - Police Depart-
ment 300 . 00
1011 . 202 Office Supplies - Clerk of Council 200 . 00
SECTION II . An appropriation is made from the Potomac
Plant Capital Improvement Fund to Account No. 70000 . 251,
Preliminary Engineering, in the amount of $23, 010 . 00 ,
for the fiscal year ending June 30 , 1980 .
Aye : Councilmembers Cole, Herrell, M. Hill , Murray, Tolbert
and Mayor P.rb+Tem D. Hill .
Nay : None.
On motion of Mayor Pro-Tem Hill, seconded by Mr. Murray,
Council voted unanimously to go into executive session at 8 : 30 I/
P .M. to discuss legal matters .
Council reconvened with no action taken. On motion duly
seconded, the meeting was adjourned.
/-1111e.:�
May Pro-T
Clerk of Coflncil