HomeMy Public PortalAbout1980_02_27 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL AND PUBLIC
148 HEARING ON BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES , FEBRUARY 27 , 1980 .
A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in
the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia,
on February 27 , 1980 at 7 : 30 P .M. The meeting was called to order
by the Mayor, with the invocation by Mr. Tolbert, and followed
with the Salute to the Flag led by Mr. Murray. Present were :
Mayor Kenneth B . Rollins, Councilmembers Stanley D. Herrell, Jr. ,
Marylou Hill, Walter F. Murray and John W. Tolbert, Jr. ; also
Town Manager John Niccolls, Director of Engineering Andrew G.
Shope and Director of Finance Donald 0. Taylor . Absent from the
meeting were Councilmembers Glen P . Cole and G. Dewey Hill , Jr.
The minutes of the regular meeting of February 13 , 1980 were
approved as written.
PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION :
Mayor Rollins presented to Commander Milo Rumfelt a Certificate
of Appreciation for his approximately eight years of service to the
town as a member of the Airport Advisory Committee and the Leesburg
Airport Commission, citing some interesting anecdotes concerning the
airport from its beginning. Although it has its ups and downs , each
succeeding year has shown improvement and that it is a benefit, not
only to Leesburg and Loudoun County, but to the metropolitan environs.
This success has shown, to a large extent, the dedication, effort
andtime expended by people like .him to see that the operations have
improved and to look ahead to see the benefits the airport can bring
to the people of Leesburg. On behalf of the council, he expressed
appreciation to Commander Rumfelt for the time and the leadership
he provided in this regard. Commander Rumfelt expressed his ap-
preciation for this certificate and said that, although it has been
a struggle, this airport has the greatest potential of any in the
area.
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES :
Mayor Rollins explained that Council amended this particular
ordinance sometime ago, with no-one being present for a public
hearing at that time . However, people have expressed concern
since that time and it was decided to hold another hearing con-
cerning these changed rates .
Mr. Jack Wallace, who has been working with a group of pro-
fessionals over the past several months with regard to this prob-
lem, commented on legislation adopted in 1979 by the General As-
sembly, said bill providing that flat rate charges on professionals
could not exceed $30 . 00 . The Leesburg rate was $100. 00 . As a
result of this legislation, it was very difficult for the town to
set a rate. Council looked at surrounding jurisdiction rates and
found that the County ' s rate was $ . 33 per $100 . 00 of gross re-
ceipts -this was adopted by the town. A survey was made and it
was found that a person grossing $30 , 000 would pay a $120 . 00 li-
cense fee - an increase of 20 percent; a $150 , 000 gross would be
a 420 percent increase and a $300 , 000 gross would be a 900 percent
increase. It was felt this increase was a pretty significant num-
ber. They asked the Finance and Administration Committee to give
this some consideration and the committee asked for a survey of
the professional community. With Mr. Taylor ' s help, it was de-
termined that additional revenue; would increase $39 , 300 with a
$. 33. rate; $25 , 000 with a $ . 25 rate and $17 , 500 with a $. 20 rate,
which was a little more than double the current revenues from pro-
fessional license taxes . It was agreed by the professionals that
this was not an unusual increase. They discussed rates in sur-
rounding jurisdictions and found that Fairfax City was the lowest
with a $ . 31 rate. However, they asked Council to look at what
happens to Leesburg ' s professional community in one year and asked
Council to consider reducing its rate from $ . 33 to $. 20 - doubling
the revenuhes fair . He expressed appreciation for listening to
them andfor ooperation of the committee and the staff in working
with them. Mayor Rollins asked their feeling concerning the County ' s
tax of $ . 33? Mr. Wallace said they do not feel it is excessive, but
it is hoped that, if Leesburg does something, the County will also.
He did not think the General Assembly will abolish the gross re-
ceipts tax even though it is unfair . Mr. Murray did not feel they
149
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27 , 1980 MEETING.
were too kind to the municipalities in setting a maximum of
$30. 00. Mr. Herrell said the ordinance before them is for $ . 20
and the committee has agreed on this .
Mr. Jim Chamblin, a resident of and a lawyer in Leesburg,
said the proposed rate of $ . 20 was presented early this month to
a meeting of the Loudoun County Bar Association. It was the unani-
mous vote of those present (about 40) to support the proposed rate.
Dr. James Gable, a surgeon in Leesburg, said this does not af-
fect him - it affects the taxpayers and their families - it is a
"pass through tax. " It has already been established that it is
unfair and unrealistic . The medical profession still treats people
for free and for what they can afford to pay. Many of the. physi-
cians in the County and the town are not increasing their prices
commensurate with inflation. He could almost gu r ntee that this
tax will be apparent on your next bill. He would/ S see this made
minimal and to see the doctors, as a community, be interested in
some cost-care containment insofar as medicine is concerned.
Physicians work by the hour - he is on call some 70 hours per
week, as are his associates. He asked that Council take this
into consideration when they consider the gross receipts tax.
Dr. Robert Johnston, President of the Loudoun County Medical
Society, said this matter was discussed at length in a meeting of
that group. He did not think it necessary for the medical com-
munity per se to protest this tax as a group independent of other
professionals in the community, but some consideration should be
given to this point. He sensed that this is a very real concern
among the physicians - it constitutes a significant increase in
the percentage of costs of providing care to the community and,
as a result, will increase fees . Another concern is that we are
living in an inflationary time and that we may face an 18 percent
increase in the cost of living. Such an increase in taxes may be
reasonable, but the trend in this country (both on State and local
levels) has been , over the past ten years, an increase in taxes
approximately double the cost of living increase. So while the
cost of living has doubled, the taxes have quadrupled. This would
maintain a similar trend. The statistics developed by the Chamber
of Commerce demonstrate that there is a relatively small percentage
of the professional community who gross $30, 000 or less, and that
is, by nature, the cost of operating a professional practice.
Therefore: the average professional will encounter a substantially
higher tax cost and, in the case of some, as much as 500 to 1, 000
Percent, which seems excessive in a one-year interval . They recog-
nize the need of the community to increase revenues and feel an
obligation to provide services. They want to cooperate fully with
the council , but an increase of taxes in hundreds of percentage
points is excessive. The $ . 20 tax would, of necessity, be toler-
able if this is adopted. They ask that Council give this serious
consideration in its deliberations on this matter.
Mr. Thomas Horne, Commonwealth ' s Attorney, said the Bar Associ-
ation wholeheartedly supports this .
Mayor Rollins declared the public hearing closed and asked that
the Finance and Administration Committee report this back to the
next session of Council for final action. Mr. Herrell said the
Committee discussed this in detail , with a lot of the people here
tonight present at that meeting.
MANAGER' S REPORT:
(1) The Activity Report went out on Tuesday without an expla-
nation concerning availability fees for the Long-Term Care Facility .
They gave us a description of the program for construction and reno-
vation at the hospital - the availability fee was based on this and
was $94 , 000 to $95 , 000 . They came back and said there would be only
88 new beds - only 12 would remain in the old facility. After this
was worked out, the correct fee was established as $51 , 765 . This
was based on the projection of estimated new water and sewer flows.
150
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27 , 1980 MEETING.
(2) Item 4 on Page 3 of the Activity Report is a repeat of
Item 3 . It should have mentioned that the transmission line is
in, has been tested and is ready for acceptance. The project is
92% complete and it is coming in under Budget . We had good pre-
bid information out to the bidders on this projec t so there were
no surprises such as rock . Mr. Shope has worked7a $10 , 000 savings
by deleting from the work the final restoration rock course on Ed-
wards Ferry Road. The contract called for 2 inches of stone. at
$25, 000 . By doing this with our own forces, we can save $10 , 000 ,
so this was deleted from the contract. He was very pleased that
Mr. Shope took the initiative to do this .
( 3) The matter of Century Aviation is taking longer than an-
ticipated, but they are staying current with the rent. We believe
there will be satisfactory resolution of this soon with the financ-
ing and the new investors .
(4) The Cable Television Information Center report should be
back shortly. This matter can then be put back on the Council Agenda .
for bid.
(5) A memo has been prepared by Don Taylor concerning the
Loudoun Baptist Temple ' s suit for relief from county and town real
estate taxes. This very clearly points out the winners and the losers .
and it has been recorded. Mayor Rollins asked if they have purchased
the license stickers for their vehicles? Mr. Niccolls said they have
not and more tickets have been issued.
(6) A letter has been delivered to councilmembers from Charles
S . Russell , Circuit Court for Arlington County, announcing tothe.
attorneys and parties in the annexation case that the three judges
have denied the County ' s Motion for Continuance, so the trial is
set for April 23rd.
(7) A Cash Balance report from Don Taylor is at their places
showing balances as of February 1st.
(8) At last meeting Mrs . Newton of Old Waterford Road gave
Council some information concerning the fence, the road shoulder
and the culvert in front of her home. The Engineering Department
has made a report on this . The fence she refers to borders her
property on Old Waterford Road. During installation of the water
line, a small section of fence about two feet square was damaged
by a backhoe operator and a few post top ornaments were broken off .
The contractor repaired the fence with a section from their stock-
pile - this was not new fence but it more accurately matched the
existing fence which was rusty . The post top ornaments were im-
possible to obtain and they were not repaired. Mrs . Newton was not
satisfied with the fence repair and she demanded that the entire
length of fence be replaced. This was denied by the insurance
contractor for Corman, our contractor . Somewhere about this time
an automobile crashed into another portion of her fence. She then
contracted to have the entire fence replaced at her cost. From
his observation and from the report from the Engineering Depart-
ment, he feels the town ' s obligation has been fulfilled, with the
exception of the top ornaments . Perhaps she should be paid $25. 00
for those. The driveway culvert was replaced with a larger size pipe,
but not a longer size than what existed. We supplied the pipe and
the contractor made the installation. We can have four or five feet
added onto this with town forces. As to the shoulder regrading, we
think it is in satisfactory condition. He proposed that the town
add to the driveway culvert, but that the other matters we let lay.
Mr. Murray suggested she be sent a letter stating the town ' s po-
sition and offering reimbursement for the missing ornaments. Mrs .
Hill thought the insurance company should be responsible for re-
placing the ornaments . Mr. Herrell thought she should be reimbursed
for these, but the town should write the insurance company. Mr.
Murray said it would cost $25 . 00 in administrative costs to take this
up with the insurance company . Perhaps she will be satisfied with
the $25 . 00 . Mr. Niccolls said he will work on this premise.
(9) The ceiling in this building has been repaired. He explained
what was done when the building was remodeled. It should be com-
pletely replaced, but it will help to roll white ceiling paint on it.
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27 , 1980 MEETING.
(10) The newspaper today had an article on relationships 151
and cooperation between the town and the county governments.
This evening he gave a list of cooperative ventures and endeavors
that are current, ongoing or just recently completed between the
town and the county. His article should reflect the actual situa-
tion. This data has been prepared for presentation in the annexa-
tion case, so it was handy to give it to him. These are cooperative
efforts such as the tennis court project, plumbing inspections, etc.
(11) He passed around color photographs of the work in progress
on the Water Treatment Plant.
COUNCILMEMBER INQUIRIES AND COMMENTS :
Mrs. Hill said several months ago she had received a request
for a street light at the eastern end of North Street. Mr. Nic-
cols said he will look into this. The Power Company has recently
completed a changeover from the old incandescent lights to the
new mercury vapor lights - it may be that the problem has been
solved from more intensive light. Mr. Murray said Mr. Muse felt
that the changeover made it darker in front of his house at the
corner of Harrison and North Streets .
COMr. Tolbert said people in his neighborhood are concerned
about a Day Care sign recently put on one of the homes . He thinks
N this is in violation of the sign ordinance . Mrs . Hill said Mr.
W Forbes is aware of this and has sent a letter to them today. Mr.
Q Tolbert did not think they have met any of the requirements for
Q this .
MAYOR'S REPORT:
Mayor Rollins asked what the status is on Market Street from
Loudoun Street to Catoctin Circle? Mr. Niccolls said this request
went to the Department of Transportation Safety (a group funded by
the General Assembly to do special studies concerning safety mat-
' ters that can be addressed without a lot of construction activity) .
They have professional traffic engineers on a consulting basis
available to them who will come into localities and make recom-
mendations for minor changes, traffic line painting, signing, ;
small patches of asphalt, etc. that will improve existing roads .
They were very helpful in that section of Market east of Catoctin
Circle several years ago. He felt they made it passable until the
current project gets underway. They have been asked to do the same
thing for this section of Market Street - we are having a lot of
accidents related to turning movements into the various places along
there.
Mayor Rollins asked what the situation is on the West Market
Street project? Mr. Niccolls said they are doing the same thing
there. The latest word is that they have agreed to do this and
they have asked the Commissioner of the Highway Department if they
have any objections . The project is on "hold" until they get the
report on traffic safety problems that exist between Ayr Street
and the Morven Park intersection and see if the structural sugges-
tions from the Highway Department are acceptable or if there are
some other alternatives . Mayor Rollins asked if these alternatives
arerelated to the design of the road? Mr. Niccolls said they are -
they will address the question of whether we can find a design that
will work without going to the one-way plan.
Mayor Rollins also asked if the pumps that serve the Country
Club section have any kind of warranty? Or what was the problem
that damaged the pump? Mr. Shope and Mr. Niccolls said they would
have to check on any warranty, but they will advise. Mrs . Hill
asked what kind of damage these people had? Mr. Niccolls said
their hot water tanks would rupture and cause water damage on
the lower level - a very minor type of damage. He explained that
the headline should have read "high" pressure .
152 MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27 , 1980 MEETING.
Mayor Rollins read a letter from Mr. Fredrick R. Howard,
President of Union Cemetery, requesting help in upgrading of
the cemetery. He asked for help in setting up or strengthening
leaning stones, or for monetary help. He would also like for the
Mayor or a member of council to be a member of their Board. Mayor
Rollins said this has been of concern to him over the years, par-
ticularly the old part of the cemetery. This is a vital part of
the history of Leesburg. He would like some discussion on this
and would like to see it brought up at budget time to see if there
are some funds that can be used for assistance . Mrs . Hill said
this is something else we could talk to the County about. Mr.
Herrell would be in favor of making a gift of some money to help
with this - we gave a donation to the hospital. He felt they need
the right kind of equipment to move tombstones . Mayor Rollins
said the cemetery now has standards for these. Mrs. Hill said the
are repairing some of them by putting metal in them.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LEESBURG ZONING ORDINANCE .
On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mrs. Hill , an ordinance
amending, repealing and adding certain sections of . the Leesburg
Zoning Ordinance was proposed. Mr. Herrell was satisfied with
the "screening" part of the ordinance - "residential" construction
was eliminated. Mrs. Hill said the builders were happy with this
deletion. Concerning the section on "proffering" , she felt this
is needed in the town . Mr. Herrell felt this would cause more
problems than it will solve - even an attorney involved in such
a case was concerned about its effect on marketability of title.
Mrs . Hill said a letter from the Highway Department suggests that
a developer might proffer the improvements to the road. She said
Mr. Chapman and his group were in attendance at last week ' s meet-
ing and were satisfied with it. Mr. Herrell said a Zoning Admin-
istrator of another town felt that one of the things wrong with
it is "It is a good way to reward your friends. " Mrs. Hill was
not in agreement with this - it could be done in zoning as well .
On motion of Mr. Herrell, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, it was
moved to amend the ordinance by deleting Section III, which has
to do with "proffering. " Mrs . Hill said this can be an advan-
tage - it can save us from undesirable development within a zone.
We don ' t have to accept a proffer - this is where the Council has
the freedom of not accepting it. Mr. Herrell would rather not
see it in the Zoning Ordinance.
On motion of Mayor Rollins , seconded by Mr. Murray, Council
voted unanimously to table this ordinance until the next session
in order that the full Council might vote on it :
Aye : Councilmembers Herrell , M. Hill, ;Murray ,
Tolbert and Mayor Rollins .
Nay: None.
80-0-2 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING SECTION 17-1 . 1 OF THE TOWN CODE
REGARDING TAX RELIEF FOR THE ELDERLY.
On motion of Mrs . Hill, seconded by Mr. Herrell , the follow-
ing ordinance was proposed:
ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Leesburg,
Virginia, as follows :
SECTION I . Sec . 17-1 . 1 of the Town Code is hereby amended
to read as follows :
Sec. 17-1 . 1 . Tax relief for the elderly.
(a) As used herein :
(1) "Total combined income" means gross income
from all sources of the owners of the dwell-
ing residing therein and of any relatives
of the owner who reside in the dwelling,
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27 , 1980 MEETING.
providing that the first $4 , 000 of 153
income of each relative, other than
the spouse of the owner or owners, who
is living in the dwelling shall not be
included in such total .
(2) "Net combined financial worth" means all
assets of the owners of the dwelling and
of the spouse of any owner who resides
therein, including equitable interests,
excluding the value of the dwelling and
the land in an amount not to exceed one
acre upon which it is situated.
(b) Any person not less than 65 years of age by
December thirty-first of the year preceding the date of
application, who owns or partially owns a dwelling as
the sole dwelling of that person, shall be eligible
for and may apply for an exemption or deferral of real
estate taxes on such dwelling and the land in an amount
not to exceed one acre on which it is situated, provided
that :
CO
CO (1) The total combined income, as hereinabove de-
fined, during the immediately preceding year
W cannot exceed $10 , 000 .
Q (2) The net combined financial worth, as herein-
Q above defined, as of December 31st of the
immediately preceding year cannot exceed
$35 , 000 .
(c) Applicants who satisfy the requirements of
this article may choose to have the taxes on the eli-
gible property fully exempted or deferred. If an ap-
plicant chooses to defer his or her taxes , payment is
' not required until the applicant sells his or her in-
terest in the property or one year after his or her
death. Deferred taxes will not accrue penalty and
interest, however, at such time these taxes become
due again, because of failure to meet the require-
ments of the article, selling of one' s interest or
death of the applicant, the taxes shall accrue in-
terest at 8% per annum.
If an applicant chooses exemption the taxes
• are fully abated and are not recoverable by the town.
(d) Application for exemption or deferral provided
for herein shall be made not later than May 1st of each
year for which exemption or deferral is sought to the
director of finance on forms to be provided by him. The
application shall be accompanied by an affidavit setting
forth the names of all persons occupying such dwelling
and stating that the total combined income and the net
combined financial worth do not exceed the limitations
set forth in (b) above. The director of finance may re-
quire an applicant to answer questions under oath as to
his requirements under this article, and/or to produce
for inspection certified federal income tax returns for
the preceding three years to establish the total combined
income or net combined financial worth as hereinbefore
defined.
(e) Any change in respect to total combined in-
come, net combined financial worth, ownership of the
dwelling, or other factors which occur during the tax-
able year for which the affidavit is filed, and which
has the effect of exceeding or violating the limitations
and conditions of this article, shall nullify any exemption
or deferral for the then current taxable year and the tax-
able year immediately following.
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27 , 1980 MEETING.
154 (f) Real estate described in (b) above shall be
exempt from real estate taxes or such taxes shall be
deferred under the provision of this article for any
year in which proper application is made, provided
that, if the ownership of the property for which ap-
plication for exemption or deferral is made is not
held solely by the applicant or jointly with the ap-
plicant ' s spouse, then the amount of the tax exemption
or deferral hereunder shall be in proportion to the ap- •
plicant ' s ownership interest in the subject real prop-
erty as that ownership interest may appear.
(g) Any person or persons falsely claiming exemp-
tion or deferral shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and,
upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than
fifty dollars nor more than $300 for each offense.
SECTION II . This ordinance shall be effective January 1,
1981 .
Mrs . Hill explained that this gives an elderly person a choice
of total abatement or deferral. Mayor Rollins asked how this is
administered? Mr. Niccolls explained that they have to apply on
an annual basis, so they would make :_.a decision at that time.
There are 38 persons who are currently abated. The ordinance was
unanimously adopted :
Aye : Councilmembers Herrell, M. Hill, Murray ,
Tolbert and Mayor Rollins .
Nay : None.
80-21 - RESOLUTION - ADOPTING A SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION
POLICY .
On motion of Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Herrell , the following
resolution was proposed :
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
SECTION I . The following sidewalk maintenance and con-
struction policy is adopted :
I . Introduction : The Town Charter and State law authorize
construction and repair of sidewalks . This policy establishes
the method for carrying out this responsibility.
II . Construction Standards :
A. Concrete Sidewalk : New concrete sidewalk will be
constructed in line with the current editions of the "Road
and Bridge Specifications" and "Road Designs and Standards"
of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.
B. Brick-face sidewalk : New brick-face sidewalk will
be constructed . _ in line with "Brickface Sidewalk
Standard Design" published by the Director of Engineering,
January 1980 .
C. Repairs : Repairs of existing concrete and brick
or brick-face sidewalk shall be accomplished using suit-
able materials and practical techniques to render defective
sidewalk safe and durable.
D. Brick-faced Walk Required: Brick-faced sidewalk
is required on both sides of the following streets :
(1) King Street between North Street and W&OD
right-of-way
(2) Wirt Street between North Street and Royal
Street
( 3) Church Street between Cornwall and Loudoun
Streets
(4) Cornwall Street between Wirt and Church Streets
155
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27 , 1980 MEETING.
(5) Market Street between Liberty and East
Loudoun Streets
(6) Loudoun Street between Liberty and East
Market Streets
(7) Edwards Ferry Road from Church to Harrison
Street
III . New Sidewalk:
A. New sidewalk is required in and adjacent to new sub-
divisions and developments in line with the subdivision and
land development regulations of the town.
B. The construction of sidewalks in established areas
of the town without sidewalk shall be carried out as deter-
mined necessary by the Council after considering the follow-
ing:
(1) Percent of improvements missing in the area
(2) Pedestrian and vehicular volumes
( 3) Accident history and potential for accidents
(4) Location of high traffic generators such as
schools , churches, medical facilities , parks ,
swimming pools, public buildings , shopping cen-
ters, business and other facilities which tend
to increase traffic volumes
(5) Existence of proper storm drainage facilities
(6) Proposed. street; improvements ,.
(7) Extent of development present or imminent in
the immediate area
(8) Limitations on construction feasibilities such
as unreasonable construction costs, undesirable
finished grades, obstacles in the right-of-way
or difficulty in obtaining right-of-way and
building encroachments
(9) Limits of the work load which can be effectively
U
and efficiently administered.
The Director of Engineering shall investigate and submit
reports and recommendations to the manager on an annual basis
for presentation to the Council as to the area where construc-
tion of new sidewalks is in accordance with these policies.
Proposals for new sidewalk construction shall be considered
as part of the annual budgeting process .
IV. Replacement Sidewalk :
A. As used in this policy, defective concrete sidewalk
is sidewalk with :
(1) Cracks more than 0 . 25 inch wide
(2) Adjoining blocks with edges differing.-; verti-
cally by more than 0 . 5 inch
( 3) Holes of 0 . 75 inch or more in diameter or
cracked and broken so that the pieces are
missing or loose
(4) Depressions, reverse cross-slope (sloping
away from the street) or below curb grade so
as to impound water
(5) Cross-slope in excess of 0 . 75 inch vertical
per one foot horizontal
(6) Abrupt change in the longitudinal grade of
the sidewalk
(7) Spelled or reveled surface leaving it very
' rough with the course aggregate protruding
B. As used in this policy, defective brick or brick-faced
sidewalk is sidewalk with:
(1) Cracks more than 0 . 50 inch wide
(2) Adjoining bricks with edges differing verti-
cally by more than 0 . 5 inch
156 MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27 , 1980 MEETING.
( 3) Missing or loose bricks
(4) Depressions, reverse cross-slope (sloping
away from the street) or below curb grade
so as to impound water
(5) Cross-slope in excess of 0 . 75 inch vertical per
one foot horizontal
(6) Abrupt changes in the longitudinal grade of the
sidewalk
(7) Mortar loose, crumbling or missing
C. The town is responsible for repair or replacement
of defective sidewalk and will do so with funds available
in the following priority order :
(1) Repairs for safety
(2) Repairs for durability
( 3) Replacement of concrete walk without adjacent
curb and gutter or where curb and gutter is
sound
(4) Replacement of concrete sidewalk where existing -
curb and gutter must be replaced or, if not
existing, must be installed
(5) Replacement of brick or brick-faced sidewalk
without adjacent curb and gutter or where
curb and gutter is sound
(6) Replacement of brick or brick-face sidewalk where
the existing curb and gutter must be replaced
or, if none exists, installed
(7) Replacement of sound or repairable concrete
sidewalk with brick-faced walk upon agreement
of adjoining property owners to pay the full
cost (including repair or replacement of curb
and gutter made necessary by the sidewalk work)
Mayor Rollins asked how this differs from the present policy? Mr.
Niccolls said they couldn ' t clearly define the present policy,
particularly regarding the cost-sharing arrangements previously
used. This policy requires the owner to pay the full cost, in-
cluding the repair or replacement of curb and gutter made neces-
sary by the sidewalk work. The difference is if the town finds
that a piece of sidewalk needs repair or replacement, it will do
so at town expense with either concrete or brick, depending on
whether it is in the brick zone , regardless of whether the owner
contributes or not . If it does not need to7replaced, the town
will not replace it at town cost until we have an infinite supply
of money. If an owner wants it replaced, he will do it at his own
expense. Section D means that the streets listed will be all
brick . Those requesting brick sidewalks (F&M Bank, Armfield,
Harrison and Thomas and Plaster ' s) will be notified. Under this
policy, it would be at their total expense since the sidewalk
does not need replacement . Mr. Tolbert said the sidewalk in
front of Mr. Bodmer ' s house on Wage Drive is beginning to de-
teriorate . The resolution was unanimously adopted :
Aye : Councilmembers Herrell, M. Hill , Murray,
Tolbert and Mayor Rollins .
Nay : None.
80-22 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS TO A CONTRACT WITH
GRAYSON ' S REFUSE SERVICE, INC .
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 :
The manager is authorized and directed to enter into a
contract on behalf of the town amending the May 31 , 1978
contract between Grayson' s Refuse Service , Inc. and the
Town of Leesburg in Virginia for collection and disposal
of refuse as follows :
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27 , 1980 MEETING.
15'7
A. Paragraph 1 shall read : The contractor will furnish
labor, equipment and all other things necessary for col-
lection and disposal of garbage and refuse in the Town
of Leesburg, Virginia for a six-month period beginning
July 1, 1980 and ending December 31, 1980 , in accordance
with the documents "General Specifications for Collection
and Disposal of Garbage and Refuse in the Town of Leesburg,
Virginia" , "Proposal" and "Instructions to Bidders" , which
are attached to this contract and made a part hereof.
B. Paragraph 4 (a) shall read : The contract sum of
$66 , 981 . 56 is based on service to 2019 residential prop-
erties at $4 . 186 per month each and 234 commercial at
$11. 59 per month each and shall be paid for services per-
formed for the term of this contract in six equal monthly
installments made as provided herein.
C. Paragraph 4 (b) shall read : The town will pay the sum
of $4 . 186 per month as the unit charge for each additional
residential property served and the sum of $11 . 59 per month
as the unit charge for each additional commercial property
served with an accounting of additional residential and
CO commercial properties made as of July 1 , 1980 .
CO D. Paragraph 4 (d) shall read: The retainage deducted from
W monies due the contractor during the first two years of this
contract, plus interest earned thereon, shall be paid over
Q to the contractor following the final month of the initial
Q term less $2 , 000 . 00 which shall be retained by the town for
the purpose of guaranteeing the contractor ' s performance
of its obligations under the contract and to reimburse the
town for expenses it may incur in the event the contractor
breaches the contract. Monies held by the town under this
contract shall be invested in accordance with Section 2-84 (b)
of the town code and will be paid to the contractor follow-
ing the final month of this contract extension only upon
successful completion of all the terms of the contract.
If all the terms herein are not completed successfully,
such retained monies will be used to complete all terms
of this contract or used by the town for collection and
disposal during the time of negotiation for a new contract
for such collection and disposal .
E. Paragraph 5 shall read: This contract may be extended
at the sole option of the town for a six months period be-
ginning January 1 , 1981 and ending June 30 , 1981 by giving
notice to the contractor by August 1 , 1980 . If extended,
an accounting of additional residential and commercial prop-
erties served shall be made as of January 1 , 1981 and the
contractor shall be paid at the unit prices set out above
for service to residential and commercial properties added
between July 1 and December 31, 1980 .
F. All other terms and conditions of the original contract
remain unchanged.
Mr. Niccolls explained that this authorizes the extension of the
present contract with Grayson at a price increase of 15 percent
for six months . In addition, it provides for the town the op-
tion of extending the contract for another six months if it
elects to do so. MICA is studying refuse collection practices
in Leesburg and may have some redommendation to save us money.
These options give the town the flexibility of accepting such
recommendations. The resolution was unanimously adopted :
Aye: Councilmembers Herrell , I. Hill, Murray,
Tolbert and Mayor Rollins.
Nay : None.
158
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27 , 1980 MEETING.
80-23 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT AND APPROVING A
PERFORMANCE BOND TO GUARANTEE INSTALLATION
OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING WATER
AND SEWER EXTENSIONS FOR HERITAGE SQUARE,
SECTION 3 .
On motion of Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the follow-
ing resolution was proposed :
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
SECTION I . The Town Manager is authorized and directed to
execute the contract for public improvements for Section 3
of Heritage Square Subdivision.
SECTION II . The Performance Bond of Hartford Accident and
Indemnity Company of Hartford, Connecticut in the amount
of $120, 157 . 00 to guarantee installation of public improve-
ments for Section 3 of Heritage Square Subdivision in ac-
cordance with plans approved by the Director of Engineering,
is approved.
SECTION III . An extension of municipal water and sewer
works for Section 3 of Heritage Square Subdivision is ap-
proved.
Mayor Rollins asked what they are going to construct on this land?
Mr. Niccolls said there will be town houses - the single-family
plan reverted to the original plan for town houses . They have
started construction. Mr. Shope said they are grading with a
permit from the County. Mrs . Hill asked if they have finished
the first section? Mr. Shope said "not entirely - there are a few
outstanding items before the performance bond is released. " Mr.
Niccolls said there will be a substantial amount of land remain-
ing - this is about one-half ofr!Wienan@. It is planned for more
town houses just like the ones already out there. Mr. Shope said
there will be a street cut on Edwards Ferry Road (a large commer-
cial driveway entrance) . The Planning Commission approved a new
cross-over in the preliminary plan. This is to eliminate the need
for people coming out and having to go east and then make a U-turn.
There is more than adequate distance between the cross-overs -
this meets with VDH&T standards . It will be a private road for
ingress and egress to this new section. The resolution was unani-
mously adopted:
Aye : Councilmembers Herrell, M. Hill , Murray ,
Tolbert and Mayor Rollins .
Nay : None.
80-24 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING PAYMENT FOR OVERSIZING WATERMAINS
IN COUNTRY CLUB, SECTION 4 , AND MAKING AN
APPROPRIATION.
On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the follow-
ing resolution was proposed :
WHEREAS , the developers of Section 4 of Leesburg Country
Club were required to install an oversize watermain in
certain areas of their development to conform with Lees-
burg ' s master plan to meet the requirements for a future
ground storage tank on Hogback Mountain; and
WHEREAS, Paragraph 15 of the Waterworks Extension Permit
required by council allows the town to reimburse develop-
ers for oversizing of watermains from availability charges
for that development; and
WHEREAS, the developer has paid over $44 , 000 . 00 in avail-
ability fees for water services in that development as of
February 27 , 1980 ; and
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27, 1980 MEETING.
WHEREAS , the cost difference to the developer for instal-
159
lation of a 16-inch watermain in lieu of an 8-inch water-
main is $22 , 057 . 82 :
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesb-
burg, Virginia, as follows :
SECTION I . The Town Manager is authorized and directed to
reimburse the developer of Section 4 of Leesburg Country
Club for the cost of oversizing approximately 1300 feet
of watermain in the amount of $22 , 057 . 82 .
SECTION II . An appropriation in the amount of $22 , 057 . 82
is made from the Utility Fund to Account No. 20400 . 801,
watermain oversize reimbursement.
Mayor Rollins asked if it is the town ' s- policy to pay these funds
back before we get the availability from hook-ons? Mr. Niccolls
said it is our policy to credit availability fees for the de-
veloper so that he doesn ' t give us any money at all until he has
paid up these sums . We totally overlooked this - the main is in
and he is being reimbursed. We have actually collected some
CO $35, 000 in availability fees in that subdivision, so we have the
CO money to pay him. We have also sold a number of permits out there
N (some $24 , 000 worth) . Mayor Rollins asked the status of the water
W tank that is to be built out there? Mr. Niccolls said the town has
no immediate plans for construction and no immediate need for it.
Q If the Hoffman tract is developed, there will be a need for another
Q storage tank. Mayor Rollins asked if we still have the bond for
the tank. Mr. Niccolls said it is not carried separately on our
books, but the money is accounted for in the Utility Fund, with a
balance of some $60, 000 . Mayor Rollins asked if there will be a
need for this tank in the future since the erection of the new
tank? Mr. Niccolls said the town should have a high-level system
and this construction would start this . The resolution was unani-
mously adopted:
' Aye : Councilmembers Herrell, M. Hill , Murray,
Tolbert and Mayor Rollins.
Nay : None.
80-25 - RESOLUTION - ADOPTING A NEW ALIGNMENT OF THE EXTENSION OF
CATOCTIN CIRCLE .
On motion of Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the follow-
ing resolution was proposed:
WHEREAS, John A. Wallace, Sr. and Aaron A. Paulson re-
quested that the alignment of Catoctin Circle between
East Market Street and Edwards Ferry Road adopted by
Council on May 8 , 1968 be revised to allow certain de-
velopment of land adjacent to the proposed roadway ex-
tension; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Wallace and Mr. Paulson agreed to dedicate
a 70-foot wide right-of-way for road construction through
the Plaza Shopping Center; and
WHEREAS , Peter Lueders , APA, submitted a drawing showing
the proposed location of the extension of Catoctin Circle
between Market Street and Edwards Ferry Road which fixes
' the location for that extension :
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg,
Virginia, as follows :
SECTION I . The May 8 , 1968 resolution adopting a plan
for alignment of Catoctin Circle between Market Street
and Edwards Ferry Road is repealed.
e MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27 , 1980 MEETING.
160 SECTION II . The alignment of the extension of Catoctin
Circle between Market Street and Edwards Ferry Road as
shown on the drawing entitled, "Plat Showing Extension
of Catoctin Circle between Market Street and Edwards
Ferry Road" , February 26 , 1980, by Peter Lueders , RA,
is approved on the condition John A. Wallace, Sr. and
Aaron A. Paulson dedicate a 70 foot wide right-of-way
for the roadway through the Plaza Shopping Center prop-
erty.
SECTION III . An interim plan for construction of the
center two lanes of this roadway, at least 30 feet in
width, and sidewalk on one side is approved.
Mr. Niccolls exhibited the proposed plan and explained it in de-
tail . It is proposed that the owners will dedicate the right-
of-way on the shopping center parcel, however , he does not pro-
pose to dedicate the lot on Edwards Ferry Road at this time .
A two-lane road is proposed - this will be adequate in the fore-
seeable future . It tells the Planning Commission that a two-
lane road is all right when they are looking at site plans, etc .
Mr. Murray said the committee also feels that this is all right
for the Curry property on Dry Mill Road as well. Mr. Niccolls
said this road has been on the town ' s transportation plan for
many years and it may be time to start serious construction of
the road. There will be proposals for portions of it in the
Budget for next year. Mr. Murray said this could be an impor-
tant access road for the people on the north end of town. Mr.
Niccolls said we need to establish how this road will connect
to Market Street and Edwards Ferry Road, establish the width,
pavement thickness , sidewalk location, etc. The important
thing is to build it to 30 feet so it will be eligible for
mileage payments an0 perhaps put curb and gutter in because
you may not widen/1h the foreseeable future. Mr. Murray sug-
gested that a deceleration lane might be needed and perhaps
a developer might build this . Mr . Niccolls said- this is almost
required with a two-lane road. Only one side is proposed for
sidewalk at this time - it would probably be needed when the
other side is developed. Mrs . Hill said she was told it is not
necessary for this to go through the Planning Commission since
there is no change in the road. Mayor Rollins asked if this re-
quires a public hearing to adjust the Thoroughfare Plan? Mr.
Niccolls said this does not have to be changed - this is de-
fined as "an official location plan. " In 1968 Council approved
a specific plan, and in 1974 a Master Plan was adopted which
shows a general location of this road. Mayor Rollins asked if
there will be commercial establishments fronting on this road?
Mr. Niccolls thought they would be on an interior private roadway.
The designers have been asked to be sure the side and rear eleva-
tions of these structures are suitably decorated so that all the
traffic coming from the north will not face the rear of the build-
ings . There will be no median strip. The resolution was unani-
mously adopted :
Aye: Councilmembers Herrell , M. Hill, Murray,
Tolbert and Mayor Rollins.
Nay: None.
80-26 - RESOLUTION - ACCEPTING DEED OF DEDICATION BY JOSEPH D. LEE.
On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr . Murray, the follow-
ing
resolution was proposed:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
The Deed of Dedication made the day of
1980 , by and between Joseph D. Lee and the Town of Leesburg
in Virginia, for street and sidewalk purposes on the west
side of Sycolin Road for a parcel of land 10 feet wide by
approximately 200 feet long, as shown on a plat dated May
1978 , prepared by DeLashmutt Associates , Certified Engi-
neers and Land Surveyors, is accepted, and the Mayor is
authorized to acknowledge the same on behalf of the Town.
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27 , 1980 MEETING.
161
Mr. Niccolls said the Thoroughfare Plan calls for Sycolin
Road to be 50 feet wide at this point, so he is dedicating this
land. He is putting in another electrical supply building right
beside the bridge. Mr. Herrell said Mr. Lee is interested in hav-
ing this road paved - there is a lot of traffic on that road.
The resolution was unanimously adopted :
Aye : Councilmembers Herrell, M. Hill, Murray ,
Tolbert and Mayor Rollins.
Nay : None .
80-27 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING CONTRACTS FOR FENCE INSTALLATION
AND PURCHASE OF A TRAFFIC LINE PAINTING
MACHINE.
On motion of Mrs . Hill , seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following
resolution was proposed:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
SECTION I . The manager shall enter into a contract with
CO Long Fence Company, 8627 Lee Highway, Fairfax, Virginia
CO 22030 , for installation of fencing around the town shop
Nproperty, in accordance with quotations received Decem-
ber 28, 1979 and January 10, 1980, at a cost not to ex-
ceed $4 , 270 . 00 .
Q
Q SECTION II . The manager shall enter into a contract with
Capital Equipment Company, 9002 Mountain Road, P . O. Box
9794 , Richmond, Virginia 23228 , for the purchase of one
Unimasco Model 8000 line marker with trailer, in accord-
ance with specifications issued by the Director of Public
Works, at a cost not to exceed $3 , 860 . 00 .
SECTION III . Appropriations are made from the General
Fund to the accounts shown below for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30 , 1980 :
Acct. No. & Name: Appropriation :
10200 . 802 Shop Improvements (fencing) $4 , 270 . 00
10110 . 870 Traffic Line Marker 3 , 860 . 00
Mrs. Hill said $5, 000 was budgeted for each of these items . Also,
line painting has already cost $2 , 500 and it is expected that it
will cost another $2, 500 this year. Mr. Niccolls said the objec-
tive is to paint these lines twice a year - someone will have to
be trained to use this machine. The entire shop property will be
fenced. The resolution was unanimously adopted:
Aye: Councilmembers Herrell, M. Hill, Murray,
Tolbert and Mayor Rollins.
Nay: None
80-28 - RESOLUTION - MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE
GENERAL FUND.
On motion of Mr. Herrell, seconded by Mrs. Hill , the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted after explanation by
Mrs . Hill :
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
Appropriations are made from the General Fund to the ac-
counts shown below:
Account No. Name Appropriation
4020 . 231 Finance - Printing $1 , 500 . 00
4020 . 253 Finance - Audit 500 . 00
Aye : Councilmembers Herrell, M. Hill , Murray ,
Tolbert and Mayor Rollins .
Nay : None .
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27 , 1980 .MEETING.
162 80-29 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING NOTICE OF PUBLICATION OF PUBLIC
HEARING ON APPLICATION NUMBER ZM-28 BY SYCOLIN
PARTNERSHIP .
On motion of Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Herrell, the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
A Notice of Public Hearing to consider Application Number
ZM-28 by Sycolin Partnership to have rezoned from R-3 to
B-2 a tract of land containing 68 . 8 acres located on the
south side of Sycolin Road shall be published in the
Loudoun Times-Mirror on March 27 , 1980 and April 3 , 1980
for Public Hearing on April 9 , 1980 at 7 : 30 P.M. in the
Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Vir-
ginia.
Aye : Councilmembers Herrell ,. M. Hill , Murray,
Tolbert and Mayor Rollins.
Nay: None.
80-30 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING NOTICE OF PUBLICATION OF PUBLIC
HEARING ON APPLICATION NUMBER ZM-27 BY
COOK, ET AL.
On motion of Mr. Murray, seconded by Mrs . Hill, the follow-
ing resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
A Notice of Public Hearing to consider Application Number
ZM-27 by Cook, et al to have rezoned from R-1 to MC a
tract of land containing 27 , 175 square feet located south
of Loudoun Street shall be published in the Loudoun Times-
Mirror on March 13, 1980 and March 20 , 1980 for Public
Hearing on March 26 , 1980 at 7 : 30 P .M. in the Council Cham-.
bers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia.
Aye: Councilmembers Herrell , M. Hill , Murray ,
Tolbert and Mayor Rollins .
Nay: None .
80-31 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING CHANGE ORDERS #2 AND #3 IN THE
CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE POTOMAC
RIVER WATER FILTRATION PLANT.
On motion of Mr. Herrell, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the follow-
ing resolution was proposed :
RESOLVED by the Council for the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
SECTION I. The manager shall execute Change Orders #2 and
#3 on behalf of the town revising a contract with Mechanical
Constructors , Incorporated, 205 South Whiting Street, Suite
606 , Alexandria, Virginia 22034 , for construction of the
Potomac River water filtration plant at a net addition to
the contract sum of $22 , 500 . 00
SECTION II . An appropriation is made to the Potomac River
Water Supply Capital Project Fund, Account 7.0000 . 805, Water
Treatment Plant, in the amountof $22 , 500 . 00 .
Mr. Niccolls explained that Change Order #2 proposes to furnish and
install the freight elevator, which was deleted at the time Change
Order #1 was negotiated. The engineers recommend putting this in.
Change Order #3 saves $7 , 500 by using "mild" steel form tie in-
stead of "stainless" form tie as specified, and other savings.
Mayor Rollins asked about the collectors? Mr . Niccolls said we
have a little longer to make a decision on this and would like to
defer this decision until we know what other large over-runs
there might -be . There should be more savings coming up - we are
pretty even on the job now. Mr. Herrell said the committee dis-
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27 , 1980 MEETING.
cussed the freight elevator and felt this would be a good idea 163
for safety reasons if no other. The resolution was unanimously
adopted :
Aye : Councilmembers Herrell, M. Hill, Murray,
Tolbert and Mayor Rollins.
Nay: None .
Mayor Rollins asked if the entire $5 , 000 , 000 for the Potomac
River project was appropriated? Mr. Niccolls replied that it was .
Mrs. Hill said it is time to make the annual awards for the
Architectural Preservation program. A member is needed from the
Council. Councilmember John W. Tolbert, Jr. was appointed to serve
on this committee.
On motion of Mrs . Hill, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, Council voted
unanimously to go into executive session to discuss personnel matters :
Aye : Councilmembers Herrell, M. Hill, Murray .
Tolbert and Mayor Rollins.
Nay : None.
CO Council reconvened, with no action taken.
CO
(U On motion, duly seconded, the meeting was adjourned.
W
a
a
Mayor
Clerk of t Council