HomeMy Public PortalAbout1980_04_23 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL AND PUBLIC
HEARING ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION, APRIL 23, 1980 . 2211
A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held
in the Council Chambers , 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Vir-
ginia on April 23, 1980 at 7 : 30 P.M. The meeting was called to
order by the Mayor, with the invocation given by Mr. Tolbert, and
followed with the Salute to the Flag led by Mr. Hill. Present
were: Mayor Kenneth B . Rollins , Councilmembers Glen P. Cole,
Stanley D. Herrell , Jr. , G. Dewey Hill , Jr. , Walter F. Murray and
John W. Tolbert, Jr. ; also Town Manager John Niccolls, Assistant
Manager Jeffrey H. Minor, Director of Engineering Andrew G. Shope
and Director of Finance Donald O. Taylor. Absent from the meeting
was Councilmember Marylou Hill .
PUBLIC HEARING ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION :
A public hearing was held on the Community Development Single
Purpose Grant Application, one grant for the development of storm
drainage facilities through Waverly Heights from Wirt Street to
Route 15 in the amount of $118, 800 ; and one for acquisition and
development of a park in the amount of $253, 600 a total grant
of $372 , 400 . This is a 100 percent grant from HUD for these two
projects , with no matching funds to be contributed by the town.
CO There was no-one present to speak concerning these projects, there-
fore, the public hearing was closed.
CO
(V Mayor Rollins asked if there is a prerequisite as to the lo-
W cation.of the park? Mr. Niccolls said it must serve low and mode-
ICX rate income families in that area. Mr. Hill asked if it is neces-
a sary to locate it in the Loudoun House vicinity? Mr. Niccolls
said Yes , in the Plaza area - that is the justification for the
grant. They anticipate having a proposal soon for a location
study done by qualified engineering and park design personnel,
with appraisers taking part, so that we secure the right land at
the right price. Mr. Hill asked if our share would be jeapor-
dized since it looks as though the County is probably going to
mini parks? Mr. Niccolls felt that, if the County makes a de-
cision to improve and expand on existing community center facili-
ties , they will do so on the site of the Douglass Community Cen-
ter. The fact that we have this neighborhood playground won ' t
jeopardize our share of the bond funds . It is hoped the County
will provide some programming - some playground services during
the summer - on this playground site, so it could enhance our
position.
PETITIONERS :
Mrs . Evalyne Reynolds, speaking as a citizen, a business per-
son, a member of the Downtown Business Association, the Loudoun
County Tourism Advisory Committee and one of the original committees
of Leesburg that saved the log cabin and museum from the bulldozer,
asked that Council vote "No "to both of the resolutions tonight con-
cerning the leasing of the Stephen Donaldson Silversmith Shop.
She asked that Council appoint a committee and ask them to hold
public hearings to seek suggestions and applications from all in-
terested people. The committee would then make recommendations
to the Council for the final decision. A great deal of time and
money terve gone into the restoration of the log cabin, both by
the Loudoun Restoration and Preservation Society and the town.
There have been some very generous donations to the Preservation
Society, some in memory of families who formerly lived here.
The best possible use of the cabin should be sought, not just the
first two applications, with no advertising. The business people
of the historic district formed a Committee for Leesburg and set
up a four months ' pilot project in 1967 , with each committee mem-
ber contributing $4 . 00 a week to hire Mrs. Moody to give out civic
and business information ,, set up a museum, establish a walking
tour of Leesburg and provide an office for the Chamber of Commerce
in the log cabin. The response was overwhelmingly favorable on
this - the Restoration Committee was formed and work was started
on the Museum. In light of the shortage of funds, Mrs . Carr offered
to furnish the labor on the Museum if the Restoration Committee
would furnish the material. The Museum was then moved and work
started on the cabin. They spent $28, 000 in donated funds - their
efforts still continue. They gave to the town $1, 600 in October
of 1979 for the current work on this project. She asked that
Council delay action for 30 , 60 or 90 days to be sure they have
MINUTES OF APRIL 23 , 1980 MEETING .
222 the most appropriate and beneficial use of the cabin. She felt
this is very fitting and reasonable.
Mayor Rollins said he noticed there is a"For Sale"sign on
the former "Ordinary" on Route 7 - he asked what the history is
on this? Mrs. Reynolds said it is not zoned for an Ordinary.
The Restoration Society owns it. The Board of Trustees voted
to sell it as it is so that whoever buys it can finish it to
suit themselves . There will be restrictions on any exterior
changes. Mayor Rollins was in favor of having an Ordinary there,
even though he felt there would be a lot of. opposition to it.
Mrs. Reynolds said there are 5 , 116 square feet - perhaps there
might be that much more - the whole corner is for sale. Mr. Hill
asked what the Society proposes to do with the money if they sell
it? Mrs. Reynolds said they would put it into other restoration
projects in the County. There were no covenants when it was sold
to the Society, but there will be when they sell it to someone
else. Mayor Rollins asked if there has ever been any desire by
the Society to make it an Ordinary if it could be accomplished?
Mrs. Reynolds said she would find out.
Mr. Ray Baine, President of the Restoration and Preservation
Society, called attention to a letter from him (copy of which is
attached to the Agenda) and said this letter was written at the
direction of the Board of Directors , who voted without dissent
to express their sentiments . The Society would like to see a
silversmith in the log cabin but, if one cannot be found, then
the craftspeople would be preferred. Concerning the Ordinary,
after many seasons of debate, the Society felt this would be
against the sentiment of the neighborhood. The Society is in
favor of restoration, but not commercialization. They have not
been able to establish definitely that this was an Ordinary, so
it was felt that the best thing would be to re-establish this
as residences . They felt the best use of the building would be
to use it as a financing mechanism and put the money into other
projects in the County.
Mr. Harvey Burger, President of the Downtown Business Associ-
ation,
called attention to a letter from the DBA expressing their
position on the log cabin. They would like Council to vote "No"
on the two resolutions proposed on the Agenda. They do not be-
lieve Council has enough information to ' truly evaluate what the
cabin should be and its effect on the whole downtown area. They
would like to see a committee formed to look into the history
of the cabin and make a recommendation for its use.
Mr. John Sleeter, President of the Chamber of Commerce, re-
spectfully requested that Council decide on this matter tonight.
Since the Finance Committee discussed only the two matters at its
meeting last week, the Chamber has talked with its landlord and
they are in a rather precarious position at this time. They,
therefore, ask that a decision be made tonight.
MANAGER' S REPORT •
(1) Mr. Niccolls called attention to the written Activity Re-
port distributed last. night , giving some details about town opera-
tions over the last two weeks.
(2) The special three-judge panel called to decide the
McKimmey annexation case rendered a decision tonight in favor
of the petitioners . This annexes into the town 379 acres . It
took only 10 to 15 minutes deliberation on the part of the
judges , but the evidence presented by the town and the time
for County cross-examination took most of the day. This annexa-
tion will be effective after December 31 of this year - then
there will be a number of planning and development decisions to
be made by the town as to this property. The case was not op-
posed by the County , but its attorney took a rather vigorous
position in non-opposition. Mr. Jones, who represented the
town ably in Mr:- Martin 's absence, did a fine job. He expressed
his appreciation for his good legal advice and services rendered.
He recognized Mr. Jones at this time.
Mr. Jones said Mr. Niccolls performed "yeoman service" today -
he went through a rather rigorous period of examination and cross-
MINUTES OF APRIL 23 , 1980 MEETING.
examination. He did an excellent job, as did his staff. The 223
town has increased its territory by some twenty percent. The
only thing the town opposed at all was to reserve the right to
come back within five years, should the town desire to pursue
city status, to see if the County at that time would be entitled
to any sort of recompense for prospective loss of net tax reve-
nues and, if so, how much. If this should happen, the court may
come back and look at that issue. If the town should desire to
pursue city status, there is a new Commission on Local Government
which would take up this same issue. For a non-opposition case,
it went rather long, but the result was successful . It was a
real pleasure for him to serve the town on this matter. Mr.
Hill asked if there was any indication that this might be a
natural boundary for the town? Mr. Jones said there was none,
the Council 's resolution indicated that this would not be so.
The court took no position at all on this. In fact, one of the
judges said they were here today to try this case only. Mr.
Hill also asked if anything was mentioned about future annexa-
tions? Mr. Jones said "no" - there were some oblique refer-
ences by the County on cross-examination. There was some direct
testimony by Mr. Niccolls that the town has not instituted any
studies , nor has it spent any money concerning this, so this
CD was rather clear to the court. There was no testimony as to
CD future annexation, however, it is in the back of everyone ' s
N mind.
LiJ COUNCILMEMBER INQUIRIES AND COMMENTS
a
Q Mr. Tolbert said that the Times-Mirror, in its editorial
last week, said the Council ducked the issue of the log cabin.
He said he has never ducked an issue in 50-some years that he
has been a public servant - he resented this accusation.
MAYOR 'S REPORT
Mayor Rollins acknowledged a letter from Admiral Dietz
S
expressing a desire that the Council lease the log cabin to the
artisans, rather than for an office complex.
80-0-10. - ORDINANCE - AMENDING THE ZONING MAP .
On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Cole, the follow-
ing ordinance was proposed :
WHEREAS , Rezoning Application #ZM-28 by Sycolin Partner-
ship was referred by this Council to the Planning Commis-
sion on November 28 , 1979 ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on January 3, 1980, held
a public hearing on the application for rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on February 22 , 1980
recommended to this Council that the proposed rezoning
be favorably considered contingent upon certain prof-
fered conditions ; and
WHEREAS, this Council on April 9 , 1980 held a public
hearing on the proposed rezoning and received a proffer,
in writing, from E. William Chapman, Attorney for the
applicant , setting forth certain conditions which would
become a part of the rezoning request :
THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg,
Virginia, as follows :
SECTION I. The Leesburg Zoning Ordinance is amended to
revise the Zoning District Map to change from R-3 to
B-2, 68 . 81578 acres of land, located on the south side
of Sycolin Road, according to the amended application
of Sycolin Partnership, and bounded by other lands of
Sycolin Partnership on the north, Sycolin Road and
the Leesburg By-Pass on the east, the Estate of Roy
Stowers on the South and Kaplan and Meyrowitz, Trustees,
MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 1980 MEETING.
224 and other land of Sycolin Partnership on the .west, in ac-
cordance with a plat prepared by DeLashmutt Associates ,
dated November, 1979 , subject however to the following
proffered conditions submitted in accordance with the pro-
visions of Section 11-8-4 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance :
(a) All land hereby rezoned within 300 feet of the
existing adjacent residentially zoned land lying
northwest of the land hereby rezoned, owned by
applicants and others, shall be used only for
offices and/or housing for the elderly and per-
mitted accessory uses associated with those uses.
(b) Not less than 50 percent of the balance of the
land, after excluding that land described in (a)
above, shall be devoted to non-residential uses.
(c) The development plan for the entire site will be
prepared and designed so that existing under-
ground downstream storm pipe capacities in
place in Virginia Knolls , Sections 1, 2 and
3 will not be exceeded.
(d) Where the land owned by applicant borders an
existing street and additional land is required
for realignment or widening to the width pre-
scribed by the Thoroughfare Plan adopted June 25,
1974 , the additional right-of-way shall be dedi-
cated to the town prior to development plan ap-
proval .
SECTION II. This ordinance shall be in effect upon its
passage.
Mr. Hill said he has talked with Mr. Chapman concerning the access
road off of Route 15 into this property . They are willing to dedi-
cate the land but not develop the road. This roadwill have to be
improved. He understood that it must be done as the State wants it
in order to receive maintenance payments . Mr. Niccolls said this
is correct. In the past, we have required that the developer put
in the access roads , but now it is not legally required. He felt
the proffer should include the road up to the bridge - the bridge
is the town 's project and an expensive one. He felt the access
road from Route 15 into the property should have been part of this
proffer. Item (c) indicates that thedevelopment plan shall be
prepared and designed so that existing underground downstream storm
pipe capacities in place in Virginia Knolls , Sec. 1 , 2 and 3 will
not be exceeded. Is there anything to indicate what recourse we
have if they are exceeded? Could we come back against the appli-
cants? Normally there is some type of relief for the town written
in. He asked if this could be amended to include some relief for
the town? Mr. Niccolls felt this protects the town adequately -
the Director of Engineering and the Planning Commission will be
under a specific mandate by Council to approve only a development
plan for this area that conforms to this. Item (c) . It would be
exceeded only through error on the part of the Director of Engi-
neering. We will have drainage calculations from the developer ' s
engineer showing flows from the development and how they will im-
pact on that area. Mr. Hill then asked if there is any require-
ment as to when the road would have to be improved? Mr. Niccolls
said the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations speak to
this issue of road construction and, in fact, require the improve-
ment of adjacent roads to developments of this sort. It must be
guaranteed or bonded at the time the development plan is approved.
The debate is whether or not we need to put a special provision
in this ordinance. He again said he feels the ordinance speaks
to this adequately. The developer is responsible for one-half of
the road - on his side. They have told him individually that they
question the town 's authority to require the improvement of these
roads . He pointed out that this would be done routinely and that
we have an attorney on staff who is prepared to litigate it. Mr.
Chapman said Paragraph (c) is plugged in to supplement the exist-
ing site plan ordinance/ . which does compel a potential developer
to make certain off-site improvements or contributions authorized
by State statute. There is one small area that may drain in a
MINUTES OF APRIL 23 , 1980 MEETING.
225
westerly direction. The manager was concerned about this, but
Mr. Chapman felt the language of the proffer, coupled with the
site plan ordinance, will give the town engineering staff plenty
of control. The Mayor also asked about this and he told him that
the thrust of what they are saying is that if they propose to do
something that the existing facility is not capable of handling,
it would be incumbent on them to come back and ask the town ' s
permission, at their expense, to improve it. He has addressed
the question of proffering road improvements before the Council ,
as well as the Planning Commission .- the proffer ordinance does
not permit it. He did not feel they are setting or breaking any
precedents with the proposed proffer insofar as road improvements ,
either on-site or off-site, are concerned. Their plan calls for
substantial on-site street improvements. . If the law says they
have to do something in the way of off-site improvements, they
will abide by the law. At this point, without knowing how much
road frontage is involved and the requirements of VDH&T and over
what period of time the upgrading of Sycolin Road would be neces-
sary, coupled with the fact that the proffer ordinance does not
allow it, they can ' t do it. Mayor Rollins asked if he didn 't feel
the Hilton case says that the off-site road improvements must be
taken up at the time of rezoning and not at any subdivision stage?
CD Mr. Chapman said he reads this case that to any extent control
CO is vested in a governing body with respect to off-site improve-
ments , that control remains . Further, a public road owned by
VDH&T is the responsibility of VDH&T, in terms of maintenance,
W
repair and upgrading. Assuming this property is favorably .acted
Q on tonight, the next assessment will be on the basis of commer-
a cial property. It may be 15 years before it is used entirely -
in the meantime, they would be paying taxes on it. Enough ques-
tions will be raised concerning this and he feels the Supreme
Court will have made a decision. Mr. Hill said the road can ' t
be built unless we have the funds to do it. He thought the re-
zoning aspect is good - this is a precedent. The ordinance was
unanimously adopted thy a roll call vote :
Aye : Councilmembers Cole , Herrell , D. Hill , Murray, Tolbert
and Mayor Rollins .
Nay : None.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS CONCERNING THE LEASE OF THE STEPHEN DONALDSON
SILVERSMITH SHOP AT 14 WEST LOUDOUN STREET.
Mayor Rollins said the above matter was referred back to the
Finance and Administration Committee and they have decided to put
two resolutions on the Agenda, one to lease the log cabin to the ,
Chamber of Commerce and the other to lease it to a group of arti-
sans. Mr. Herrell , Chairman of the Finance and Administration Com-
mittee said the Times-Mirror editorial on this matter was quite
blunt - they made the decision for the town. He felt a newspaper
should report the news and the facts and let the Council run the
town. The Committee listened to seven interested parties on this
matter and decided they were not ready to make a decision. There-
fore, it was decided that these two resolutions would be considered
and let the entire Council make a decision as to how the cabin should
be used. On motion of Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Hill, a resolu-
tion proposing leasing of the log cabin to the Chamber of Commerce
was offered. On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Cole, a
substitute •: motion was offered to delay this matter for 60 days,
at which time the Council would conduct a public hearing on the
use of the log cabin. Mayor Rollins could support the delay, but
did not feel there should be a public hearing. He felt the Down-
town Business Association and others involved should form their
own committees and make recommendations to the Council as to the
uses to be made of the log cabin. The decision :should licit be given
to any other group, it should be made by the Council - this is an
obligation of the Council . There should be input from organizations
to the appropriate committee, with the committee then making recom-
mendations to the full Council. Perhaps we should advertise it for
bids - this would be the fairest way. However, the question is
should it be advertised for everybody or should it be restricted to
a specific activity? He felt nothing would be accomplished by.l.a
public hearing. Mr. Murray said, if the DBA wants a place for
a tourist attraction, there is a place for rent right across the
MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 1980 MEETING.
226 street from the museum. He also suggested that the Vinegar Hill
parking lot would be a good spot to exhibit quilting, pottery, etc.
If the DBA is looking out for the business community, they should
start looking at some of these items , rather than telling Council
what they can do with the log cabin. He could think of no cleaner
operation to go in there than the Chamber of Commerce. He did not
feel seven people could get along all the time. Mayor Rollins
said Council needs to make up its mind what type of operation
they want in the log cabin - either they want to open it up to
anybody, to the hi%hest bidder or they want to restrict it to some
historic, artisan? craftsman activity. He did. not think a public
hearing would accomplish this purpose. Mr. Cole felt Council
should ask for input from organizations if a committee is not go-
ing to be set up. Mr. Herrell felt the cabin really belongs to
the town so, if we are going to delay it, then we should find out
the wishes of the town, organizations , etc . Certainly $150 . 00 a
month will not pay for what the town has put into it. Mr. Murray
agreed with this , but a decision should be made as to what they
want in there. Mr. Herrell said he could support either of these
groups in there - one of the main. things is that it be open for the
public to go in and look around. The cabin is probably the best
tourist attraction in the downtown area, besides Cornwall Street.
On motion of Mayor Rollins , seconded by Mr. Cole,
amended
was proposed to continue this matter until July 8, 1980 . However,
Mr. Hill reminded Council that there would be three new members
of Council taking office on July 1st who would not be familiar with
the situation. This proposed resolution was , therefore, withdrawn.
80-48 - RESOLUTION - DEFERRING LEASE OF THE LOG CABIN AND AUTHOR-
IZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR PROPOSALS.
On motion of Mayor Rollins, seconded by Mr. Cole, the follow-
ing resolution was proposed:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
The decision on the prospective lessee of the Leesburg
log cabin shall be deferred until the regular meeting of
the Council on June 25, 1980 . In the meantime, the mana-
ger is hereby directed and authorized to advertise for
two weeks in the local newspaper an invitation to all
prospective organizations, individuals and groups who
would be interested in leasing the log cabin to submit
proposals to the office of the Town Manager, to be re-
ceived no later than June 11 , 1980 . The manager is fur-
ther directed and authorized to include in this adver-
tisement for proposals a format which the prospective
proposal should include concerning terms and uses of the
log cabin consistent with the area and the previous ac-
tions of this body.
Mr. Murray felt the hours to keep the cabin open should be spelled
out. Mayor Rollins felt the manager could specify this in the
advertisement for bids . Mrs . Reynolds suggested that it might
be kept open the same hours the Museum is open - this is 10 to 5
Monday through Saturday and 1 to 5 on Sunday. Mayor Rollins felt
this is something that could be a factor in Council ' s decision.
The advertisement should be fair and allow anyone to bid. It
should be for a certain amount of money for a certain number of
years for certain hours of operation on a certain time. It
should be sealed bids.
Dr. Callahan, a physician in Leesburg, felt Council is making
a big mistake by possibly losing the Chamber of Commerce - they
are the best tenant you could have.
Mr. Revis Sproull, a visitor from Richmond, said he has served
in functions of this kind for about 40 years as a servant to govern-
ing agencies. He thought the Chamber of Commerce would be the most
attractive tenant.
MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 1980 MEETING.
Ms. Jan Myers, of the White Parlour on Loudoun Street, 227
did not think people would come to Leesburg to see the Chamber
of Commerce. There are a lot more tourists over the week-ends
and they can get pamphlets from the museum. They will come to
see craft demonstrations and artisans - they go to other towns
for this purpose. This is our uniqueness and is what we should
capitalize on.
Ms. Shirley Kimball, employee of the Chamber of Commerce,
asked if Council is aware that they answer hundreds of inquiries
every week - their postage runs $50 . 00 or more a month. There
are people that shop here and the business people should be glad
I/ they are promoting their businesses and shops.
Ms . Sally Packard commented that it is a shame we don 't have
two buildings to put them both in. The Chamber really does pub-
licize every business in town - this is their job and everybody
should be pleased about it.
Mr. Harvey Burger of the DBA said all the downtown mer-
chants are happy with what the Chamber does - they support the
growth for the County and the Town, whether it is inside or
0D outside. The DBA was given an honor from the Piedmont Environ-
CD mental Council this week for the work they have done downtown.
This progresses over a period of 15 to 20 years for everyone
(V involved in the DBA. They feel the cabin represents what has
W been going on for 15 or 20 years by groups or individuals as
Q to what the downtown should represent, which is a historical place.
Q This is what this honor was given for.
Mayor Rollins said it was bought to tear out and to put in
a parking lot, then someone found the logs .
The resolution was adopted by a vote of 5 to 1 :
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell, Murray, Tolbert and
Mayor Rollins .
Nay : Councilmember D. Hill.
80-49 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A STATEMENT TO THE STATE WATER
CONTROL BOARD CONCERNING LEESBURG'S POSITION
ON THE EXTENDED PRIORITY LIST FOR SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT CONSTRUCTION GRANTS .
On motion of Mr. Cole , seconded by Mr. Murray, the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
An official statement shall be prepared and delivered to
the State Water Control Board at its May 14 , 1980 hearing
as to Leesburg ' s position on the extended priority list
for sewage treatment plant construction grants as follows :
1. Leesburg requests prompt State Water Control
Board approval of its revised Waste Water Man-
agement Facility Plan dated March, 1980 and the
selected alternative for expansion and upgrading
of the sewage treatment plant in line with Council
Resolution 80-32 .
2 . Leesburg requests approval of its "Step II" appli-
cation for FY 1981 grant funds for preparation of
plans and specifications for the project.
3. Leesburg requests approval of FY 1982 grant funds
for construction of the selected alternative.
Aye : Councilmembers Cole, Herrell, D. Hill, Murray, Tolbert
and Mayor Rollins .
Nay : None.
MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 1980 MEETING.
228 80-50 - RESOLUTION - PARTIAL RELEASE OF PERFORMANCE BOND FOR
SECTION II OF LOUDOUN HILLS SUBDIVISION.
On motion of Mr. Hill, seconded by Mr. Cole, the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
WHEREAS, Green Acres Associates, a limited partnership,
developers of Section II of Loudoun Hills Subdivision
have requested a partial release of the $165 ,000 Per-
formance Bond for public improvements for that subdi-
vision; and
11 WHEREAS, Bond #910519 in the amount of $165 ,000 from
Republic Insurance Company had been approved to guaran-
tee the installation of those public improvements ; and
WHEREAS , the public improvements have been completed in
accordance with town standards except for items approxi-
mating $30 , 000 in value; and
WHEREAS , Green Acres Associates understands that this
partial release is not an indication that the public fa-
cilities are accepted for maintenance and that they are
solely responsible for the condition of those improve-
ments until such time as they are accepted.
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg,
Virginia, as follows :
Performance Bond #910519 in the amount of $165, 000 is re-
duced to $30 ,000 conditioned upon review and approval by
the Town Attorney of the consent form from Republic In-
surance Company.
Aye : Councilmembers Cole, Herrell, D. Hill, Murray, Tolbert
and Mayor Rollins .
Nay : None .
80-51 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING NOTICE OF PUBLICATION OF PUBLIC
HEARING ON TAX REVENUE INCREASE.
On motion of Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Murray, the fol-
lowing 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 a tax revenue in-
crease, as described in a memorandum dated April 11, 1980 ,
shall be published in the Loudoun Times-Mirror on May 8,
1980 and May 15, 1980 for public hearing on June 11 , 1980
at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Council Chambers , 10 West Loudoun
Street, Leesburg, Virginia.
Aye: Councilmembers Cole, Herrell, D. Hill, Murray, Tolbert
and Mayor Rollins .
Nay : None.
80-52 - RESOLUTION - MAKING AN APPROPRIATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING JUNE 30 , 1980 .
On motion of Mr. Herrell, seconded by Mr. Cole, the follow-
ing resolution was proposed :
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
An appropriation is made from the General Fund to Account
No. 10110 . 200 , Litter Control Grant, in the amount of
$1, 495. 00 for the fiscal year ending June 30 , 1980 .
Mr. Hill explained that this money has been received from the State
and does not come out of General Fund revenues. Mr. Niccolls fur-
ther explained that application must be made each year for these
MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 1980 MEETING.
funds and they must say for what purpose it will be used. It 229
will be used to replace some of the litter receptacles and to
purchase more. The resolution was unanimously adopted:
Aye : Councilmembers Cole, Herrell, D. Hill, Murray, Tolbert
and Mayor Rollins.
Nay : None.
•
80-53 - RESOLUTION - MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30 , 1980 .
On motion of Mr. Herrell , seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the follow-
ing resolution was proposed : S
II
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
SECTION I. The following appropriations are made from the
General Fund to accounts below for the fiscal year ending
June 30 , 1980 :
Acct. #10110 . 221 , Traffic Light Maintenance $ 500 . 00
CD Acct. #10110 . 801 , Route 15 South 3 , 311 .00 '
Acct. #10110 . 802 , Route 7 East 9 , 505. 00
SECTION II. Supplemental appropriations are made from the
W Utility Fund to accounts below for the fiscal year ending
Q June 30 , 1980 :
Q Acct. #20100 . 201 , Materials & supplies $5, 000 . 00
Acct. #20600 . 801, Facility Planning, Step I 7 , 950 . 00
Acct. #20600 ,806B, I/I Rehabilitation 1 ,600 . 00
Mayor Rollins thought the Route 15 South project had been paid for.
Mr. Tolbert said there was an extra cut in front of his house.
Mr. Niccolls said there will be substantial additional charges on
II
Route 7 East. These funds were anticipated in the budget. The
resolution was unanimously adopted :
Aye : Councilmembers Cole, Herrell , D. Hill , Murray, Tolbert
and Mayor Rollins .
Nay : None.
After discussion, Council decided to hold a budget workshop a
meeting on Monday, May 5 at 6 : 30 p.m. , the place to be decided at
a later time .
Mr. Murray suggested that, if we are going to continue having
"clowns" painting our water tank , we take the ladder down or put up
an electric cattle guard. Mr. Niccolls said taking the ladder down
would make it impossible to service the tank. Mayor Rollins agreed
with this or else put some security along that road. He was also
concerned about the elimination of lights along the road to the water
treatment plant. He thought this would be a mistake. Mr. Murray
asked if they could sabotage the tank? Mr. Niccolls said No.
There is a gate at the bottom of the ladder assembly that should
keep all but the most irrational or intoxicated climbers off the
tank. Mr. Hill asked if our insurance is covering this? Mr.
Niccolls believed we have a deductible. He said they will look ,
at it again insofar as raising the access point to the ladder is
' concerned. Mayor Rollins asked if the police are actively pursuing
investigation on this? Mr. Niccolls said they looked at it, etc. ,
but did not know if they found any physical evidence. Mr. Hill
asked if there is some way a camera could be installed? Mr. Nic-
colls said it would be quite possible to install an alarm that would
sense when an intruder is in the area. It may be worth the cost
and the capital investment to do this . He liked this idea and will
look into the cost.
On motion of Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, Council voted
unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9 : 30 P .M.
kited / ✓• /1 oma.✓ Mayor
Clerk of }me Council