HomeMy Public PortalAbout1981_08_26 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL, AUGUST 26 , l9$A .
A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in ((
the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia
on August 26, 1981 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. Bos . Present were: Mayor
Kenneth B. Rollins, Councilmembers Charles A. Bos, Stanley D. Her-
rell, Jr. , G. Dewey Hill , Jr. , Marylou Hill , John W. Tolbert, Jr.
and Howard M. Willis, Jr. ; also Town Manager John Niccolls, Di-
rector of Engineering Andrew G. Shope, Director of Finance Don-
ald O. Taylor and Town Attorney George M. Martin.
The minutes of the regular meeting of July 22 , 1981 were ap-
proved as written.
PUBLIC HEARING ON REVISED WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
FACILITY PLAN.
Mayor Rollins said the matter of expansion and upgrading of the
wastewater treatment facility has been before the State Water Control
Board and EPA for some time. EPA desires that some changes be made
in the design of the facility, mainly a reduction in redundancy re-
quirements at the plant. A proposed resolution will be considered
at the conclusion of the public hearing, so that representatives
Q of the State Water Control Board and EPA might take this back in
order to expedite the approval of these changes, in order to meet
the deadline of the State Water Control Board' s funding priority
Q for this fiscal year. He introduced Mr . Kern of EPA and Mr. Wilson
of the Northern Virginia Regional Office of the State Water Control
Q Board.
Mr. Robert Neeson, President of Betz-Converse-Murdoch, Potomac
Group, made a film presentation, along with appropriate remarks, con-
cerning the Wastewater Management Facilities Plan prepared by BCM
from its beginning in May of 1973 when Council decided it would be
• proper to increase the capacity of the plant. The plan presented
tonight is the result of the Town ' s effort in going to IYiVPDC and
' asking that the rules be outlined for a study in this area The
study presented the next year was satisfactory to EPA, however, it
was not satisfactory to the Water Control Board. A compromise plan
was ultimately developed and called for a single wastewater treat-
ment plant to be constructed by the town to satisfy the current
size and quality requirements. In 1975 Council authorized BCM to
develop a plan that would satisfy the STEP I planning requirements
of Public Law 92-500 and that would qualify the town for a grant
to fund up to 75 percent of the cost of this project. This plan
was finished in 1977 and presented to the Water Control Board who,
at the urging of NVPDC, required the town to make an analysis of
the possible use of land disposal for the effluent from the treat-
ment plant. An amended plan was completed and presented in May of
1979 . The Water Control Board ultimately directed the town to do
a study based on the then current permit under which the town was
operating. The plan presented tonight has to cover three major
items which they have called the scope of the project: (1) Infil-
tration and Inflow requirement; (2) Environmental assessment state-
ment and (3) Engineering feasibility study. This plan was devised
to cover a study area which he outlined on a map, and which was ap-
proved by the State and all interested parties. The effluent limi-
tations used up to 1977 were much more stringent than those called
for at the present time . The basic reason for this reduction was
that the town was willing to challenge the Dulles Watershed stand-
ards - the town was willing to say that something less difficult
to achieve would accomplish roughly the same requirements. It is
clear now that the 1981 limit is not the final limit:- the Water
Control Board will do a study on the Potomac River Basin and will
establish a new set of effluent limitations sometime in the future.
It is not likely that those requirements will be nearly as stringent
as the 1977 limits, which were basically derived from the old Occo-
quan policy providing that wastewater discharged into the Occoquan
Creek be as close to drinking water standards as possible to achieve
at that time. In a study of this type, the primary requirements are
that you meet the water quality standards and make a reasonable at-
tempt to provide enough capacity to serve the community for a 20-
year planning period (a requirement of EPA) . Population projections
MINUTES OF AUGUST 26 , 1981 MEETING.
174
have been presented to all the interested planning agencies (the
State planning people have approved them) - a growth rate has been
established that is somewhat higher for this study area than the
rest of Loudoun County. From this projection, they have developed
the projected wastewater flows for the 20-year period. The result
of the population projections and the infiltration studies, along
with the peak inflow and industrial allowances, comes to a figure
of 2 . 5mgd. These figures are the basis for the capacity part of
the design of the plant. They have also reviewed and refined the
recommendations of a 1976 report from another engineer and came
up with five proposed improvements to the interceptor system -
these will be a part of the project that is being proposed for
grant approval . At the present time, there are two treatment al-
ternatives before the Council - Alternative B, which included the
Dulles Watershed redundancy requirement, and Alternative F, which
is very similar except that there is no provision to go to an ad-
vanced waste treatment system in the future and the redundancy re-
quirement has been dropped. Since all other alternatives have been
previously rejected by Council , an amendment would have to be made
to replace Alternative B with Alternative F . As a part of this
study, they were required to look into key environmental impact
parameters - this was one of the last items that held up EPA ap-
proval. They are specifically recommending that Council adopt
Alternative F as its official selected plan. This calls for ex-
pansion of the existing 1 . 3 mgd secondary wastewater treatment
plant to a 2 . 5mgd advanced secondary treatment plant. The dif-
ference between a secondary and an advanced secondary treatment
plant, in this case, is that the advanced secondary will provide
for final filtration of the effluent - it is one single additional
step. The town would not be adopting an upper Occoquan-type fa-
cility. There is a world of difference - it' s much simpler and
the treatment steps are much more developed and proven - better
defined in every way. This is simply duplicating units that are
already there and upgrading some of the existing facilities at
the same time. It would include some additional equipment. •
Mayor Rollins asked the price of the emergency generator? Mr.
Neeson said it would cost an estimated $225, 000 . Mayor Rollins
asked if this could not be waived by the Water Control Board -
they have waived many of these in the past in the Occoquan Water-
shed. He would like to see them pursue this . Mr. Niccolls said
there is another possibility of bringing in another line from another
substation, which was discussed in 1976 . Mr. Neeson said they found
that VEPCO and other utilities have been asking that you pay for this
other line in your power costs, even if you don' t use it so that you
pay a minimum every year. It then becomes an operating cost. There
is the possibility of getting VEPCO to put in a second line and get
it approved as a capital cost. He said every part of this plan is
subject to review by the Water Control Board and EPA ultimately so
there is an opportunity to talk about it in the future. They are
proposing basically a mirror image of what is there within the lim-
its of what can be done.
Mr. Hill asked Mr. Neeson if the "press" is similar to the
centrifuge on the present plant? Mr. Neeson said it is a substi-
tute for it - it is a different more modern proven type of sludge
dewatering device. Mr. Hill asked if EPA would not then approve
of the way they are doing it now? Mr. Neeson said this would be
all right if they could show they could use this method year-round.
They have found that land disposal is not effective during certain
parts of the year - especially when the ground is frozen and during
extremely wet weather . They have, therefore, been required to have
some type of stand-by operation, so they have proposed the filter
• press . Mr. Hill said the centrifuge has caused a lot of other
problems at the plant and they have not used it in a long time.
Mr. Groschan of BCM said the solids will go up considerably as
this flow goes up. They are not proposing in any way that the
method of disposal of solids be changed - they are providing
that when more solids come into the plant there is a way to dis-
pose of them in bad and frozen weather times. Inno way are they
proposing that this is the standard way of disposing of solids
during the times the town can use its Big Wheels. Mr. Neeson said
it was their judgment that they would have a problem getting ap-
proval from the State and the EPA. There has to be some way to
accommodate the bad weather disposal problem.
MINUTES OF AUGUST 26 , 1981 MEETING .
175
Mr. Neeson said they have now arrived at estimates for the
cost of this project as follows : (1) The conveyance system im-
provement cost (the interceptor sewers) , divided into two parts -
STEP II - $82 , 000 represents the estimated cost for the design,
and STEP III , which is the cost of construction, estimated at
about $1 , 000, 000. The break-down of the treatment plant expansion
and upgrading cost, including the $4 , 887 , 000 for all the changes
that are covered by Alternative F, wastewater treatment plant por-
tion, plus the total cost of STEP II design at $424 , 000, gives a
total cost of the construction of the interceptors and the waste-
water treatment plant improvements of $6 , 815, 000 , for a total
project cost of $7 , 216 , 600 . It was shown that the anticipated EPA
grant would cover 75 percent of the $7 . 2 million dollars. This
would leave the town ' s share at $2 , 100, 000 . They have estimated
the annual operating and maintenance budget for the plant, with
a breakdown to show how these costs would be generated. By far the
largest cost is labor for the total operating staff - the present
staff would be used and probably two new employees. The substantial
costs are in power (utilities) and chemicals. Mayor Rollins asked
if the completion of this project wouldn ' t reduce the chemicals we
are using now? Mr . Neeson said it would - this is one of the argu-
ments they have been using with EPA - that the town is being sub-
N jected to very substantial chemical costs . Mr . Niccolls said they
0 are approaching $100 , 000 . Mr. Neeson said the chemicals here would
T be about $19 , 000. They are required at this hearing to present a
breakdown and estimate of the local cost to show that the consumer,
CX the property owner, the person who actually pays the bill would
have to pay for a certain portion of the annual debt service and
Q they would continue to pay the debt service on the existing waste-
water treatment facilities. They have plugged in the State annual
operation and maintenance costs for treatment, showing a total an-
nual cost for treatment of $285, 000 , with connections being esti-
mated at 6 , 280 , for an annual cost per connection of $84 . 00. They
have done a similar analysis covering the interceptors, showing
that the increased cost would be $3 . 50. These costs are the same
as they were for the previous amendment of the grant if they were
for comparable years - 3rd quarter of 1981 . They have suggested
that an implementation schedule would lead to a start-upof this
plant in October 1985. The step they are taking tonighis the
presentation of the final draft of the Facility Plan and the se-
lected plan. The next step is for the Council to determine whether
they wish to continue with Alternative B or make a change to Alter-
native F . There are very tight constraints on time so the schedul-
ing of this meeting just meets the deadline of September 1, when it
is necessary to advertise the EPA finding of no significant impact.
Mr. Bos asked if the cost estimates are based on today' s dollar?
Mr. Neeson said they are all third quarter 1981 estimates. The
Water Control Board has asked for current prices.
Mr . Summerfield Tillett, Jr. asked if the $84 . 00 per connection
is for each homeowner? Mr. Neeson said this is the annual cost per
connection. It would not be in addition to what they are paying
now - it would be the full cost of the treatment facilities - capi-
tal costs are not bringing in maintenance costs . You would cease to
pay for the operation and maintenance cost for the treatment - you
would continue to pay the debt service on the existing facilities
and you would be paying for the new debt service.
An interested citizen asked if there were more hook-ups, would
this make the costs go down? Mr. Neeson said it would - there is
some provision in this design to accommodate future growth of the
area - in fact, the sooner this growth occurs, the less the cost
will be. Every connection that is made will cause a net reduction.
Mayor Rollins declared this public hearing at an end.
Mr. Wilson of the Water Control Board said they are a little
concerned about the interceptors being a part of the project - the
question is whether they are eligible for federal funding. Mr.
Neeson said there was discussion of this and it was definitely a
part of the application. Mr. Wilson said they would have to take
a look at this. Mayor Rollins understood the Board has a policy
that they do not fund interceptor lines . He asked what line he
was referring to? Mr. Neeson said there are five or six of them.
MINUTES OF AUGUST 26 , 1981 MEETING.
178
Mr. Niccolls said one major one runs from the intersection of
Route 15 South by the By-Pass and swings through the southern
part of Leesburg and upgrades the 12-inch line there now to a
27-inch line. This has been designed and it is needed in the
future and will have to be installed sometime as development
occurs to the south. It is basically to pick up large flows from
the south and bring them on around. Mr . Neeson said the five in-
cluded would be : (1) 2 , 000 feet of 12-inch sewer between Edwards
Ferry Road and Market Street; (2) 1400 feet of 12-inch sewer along
Market Street in the vicinity of Plaza Street and Fort Evans Road;
(3) 8500 feet of 27-inch sewer to replace the 12-inch line along
the southern part of Leesburg; (4) 800 feet of 12-inch sewer along
Dry Mill Road at Rock Spring Drive and (5) 1, 000 feet of 12-inch
sewer to replace an existing 10-inch line that runs parallel to
Loudoun Street between Loudoun and Rock Spring Drive. Mayor Rol-
lins asked where the linen() the south of Leesburg? Mr. Niccolls
said it basically follows Tuscarora Creek - it serves Country Club.
It is a gravity line. He said the town is holding off-site sewer
fees that have been paid by various developers to pay for some of
these up-sizings. There are some major projects that will be needed
in order to complete our collection system. Mr. Taylor said there
is better than $50, 000 in these funds. Mayor Rollins asked if these
are included in the cash balances? Mr. Taylor said they are not -
they are in the Utility Fund but the money is restricted and set
aside. Mr. Wilson said this is something to be discussed in the
next couple of days - it appears to him that the Water Control
Board ' s action dealt only with the treatment plant itself. The
original Facilities Plan clearly states that it does not include
the cost for interceptor projects.
81-111 - RESOLUTION - AMENDING THE REVISED PLAN FOR WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT FACILITIES FOR THE TOWN OF LEES-
BURG IN VIRGINIA.
There being no objection to consideration tonight, on motion
of Mrs . Hill, seconded by Mr. Willis, the following resolution was
proposed:
WHEREAS, the Town of Leesburg is required to adopt a Step I
Wastewater Management Facilities Plan under the terms of
Section 201 of the United States Public Law 92-500; and
WHEREAS, following required public notice, a public hearing
was held by this Council on December 7 , 1976 to afford inter-
ested persons opportunities to comment on the draft waste-
water management facilities plan and a general summary of
the plan was prepared and made available to interested per-
sons prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the town in 1977 submitted a wastewater management
facilities plan to the Virginia Water Control Board for up-
grading and enlarging the Leesburg sewage treatment plant
and construction of certain trunk sewers; and
WHEREAS, an addendum to the plan reviewing land application
alternatives was submitted to the State Water Control Board
in May, 1979 ; and
WHEREAS, as a result of State Water Control Board review of
the 1977 plan and 1979 land treatment addendum and contro •
-
versies over the Dulles area watershed policy, the town was
requested by the State Water Control Board and the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency to revise the facilities
plan to expand the existing sewage treatment capacity under
its current NPDES affluent limitations and upgrade treatment
capacity to meet Dulles area watershed policy sometime in
the future; and
WHEREAS, on March 12 , 1980 this Council adopted Alternative
B of the revised plan which calls for expansion of the exist-
ing trickling filter plant to 2 . 5 MGD capacity and addition
of tertiary facilities to meet advanced sewage treatment re-
quirements of the existing NPDES permit and future upgrading
of the plant to meet advanced waste treatment standards of
the Dulles Area Watershed Policy; and
MINUTES OF AUGUST 26 , 1981 MEETING.
177
WHEREAS, after review by the State Water Control Board and
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, the town' s con-
sulting engineers prepared additional revisions to the re-
vised facilities plan describing Alternative F which would
expand the existing trickling filter plant to 2 . 5 MGD under
the requirements of the existing NPDES permit, EPA Class I
Reliability Requirements and the Virginia Sewage Regulations,
an alternative similar to the alternative approved by this
Council on March 12 , 1980 except that the redundancy re-
quirements have been excluded and the proposed future up-
grading to advanced treatment has been eliminated; and
WHEREAS, following required public notice, a public hearing
was held by this Council on August 26 , 1981 to afford inter-
ested persons opportunity to comment on revisions of the re-
vised plan for wastewater management facilities for the town;
and
WHEREAS, Alternative F is the most efficient, economic and
practical plan for wastewater management for the town taking
economic , social, environmental and implementation criteria
into account.
OTHEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in
Virginia as follows :
NT
SECTION I . The March, 1980 revised plan for Wastewater Man-
- agement Facilities for the Town of Leesburg in Virginia by
a Betz-Converse-Murdoch, Inc. is amended by the addition of
Alternative F dated August, 1981 and Alternative F as de-
scribed in the revised plan is selected as the official plan
for enlarging and upgrading wastewater management facilities
for the Town of Leesburg in Virginia.
SECTION II . All prior resolutions approving plans in con-
flict with Alternative F are rescinded.
' SECTION III . The Town of Leesburg in Virginia is willing
to carry out the project to completion provided grant funds
are made available under Public Law 92-500 , as amended.
SECTION IV. The manager, John Niccolls, is authorized and
directed to sign applications and agreements on behalf of
the town which are necessary and appropriate for further-
ance of the project and federal grants-in-aid.
Mrs. Hill asked what type of agreements this authorizes the manager
to sign? Mr. Niccolls replied that this authorizes him to sign
documents calling for the town to comply with various EPA and/or
State rules and regulations - principally those. This would not
include any contractual agreements for services - there is no
spending authority here. Mr. Hill was surprised that the Water
Control Board representative is not aware of the part of this reso-
lution having to do with certain trunk sewers - this was submitted
in 1977 . Mr. Wilson said they were aware that certain trunk sewers
would be needed, but the Facilities Plan only discusses them without
being eligible for federal participation. The town' s engineers
wrote the Facilities Plan that contains that language. Mr. Neeson
said the language in the plan called for the local share to come
from developers ' costs. This addendum covers the same information -
II the same estimates and the same work that were covered in the appli-
cation previously submitted. Mr. Hill said he "has been down this
pike" too many times - all they need is a hang-up and they can tie
this up an indefinite period of time. If this is a hang-up, let' s
get it out of there and we ' ll do what we have to with the lines,
but don ' t hang up the entirei. project on this one particular item.
He didn ' t want to see this project tied up for another 5 , 10 or
15 years . Mr. Wilson said he hopes to resolve this in the next
couple of days. Mr . Neeson said if there is language in their re-
port to this effect, please talk to him about it. They specifically
wrote this with the hope that there would be no problem. Mayor Rol-
lins believe that, if this is a problem, the funding would be re-
duced by the amount of the interceptors and not hold up the funding
1 78 MINUTES OF AUGUST 26 , 1981 MEETING.
for the expansion. Mr. Wilson said they are aware of the need for
the interceptor sewers - it is just a question of whether they are
eligible for federal funding. Mr. Neeson said they will go over
this together - he saw no reason that this should have any bearing
on this resolution. The resolution was unanimously adopted:
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Herrell, D. Hill, M. Hill , Tolbert,
Willis and Mayor Rollins.
Nay : None.
PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING APPLICATION #ZM-33 (ALBERTS) :
Mrs. Hill reported that Sycolin Partnership appeared before
the Planning Commission and objected to the M-1 zoning next to their
property, so Mr. Alberts has proffered the B uses in the end section.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve this rezoning
with the proffer.
Mr. Royce Givens, attorney representing the applicant, said
the proffer is before Council, outlining the restricted uses for the
area generally south of the Tuscarora Creek - the entire parcel to
be zoned M-1. Mr. Bos asked if there are any current development
projects slated for this? Mr. Givens said there are some hopes and
wishes, but nothing much further than that. They have been in dis-
cussion with two groups of people regarding developments on this
property and have had some preliminary discussion with Mr. Chapman' s
clients to the west about some possible joint ventures with the town,
if they can be successful, to improve the road and do some other things,
but they are still very much in "dream" stages. Mr. Hill asked what
steps they plan, if any, since some of this property is in the flood
plain? As soon as this rezoning is completed, they want to enter
into some agreements with the adjoining property owners to do a
study on the flood plain and some engineering studies to see (1) if
the current flood plain layout is correct, given all the changes in
the creek-bed since the flood plain study was done, and (2) see if
there is any feasibility to fill some of that in to reclaim it to
expand the usable area of this particular parcel .
Mayor Rollins asked Mr. Givens to explain the proffer? Mr.
Givens said the proffer was in direct response to the complaints
of Mr . Chapman ' s clients as the adjoining landowners. The idea was
to limit the area that fronts directly on the road to the more com-
mercial as opposed to heavy industrial uses. They have no objection
to this. Economics dictates that on that road frontage you would
have businesses that rely on traffic and visibility - as opposed to
manufacturing plants or warehousing, which do not need road frontage
and visibility. Mayor Rollins asked if this section is not in the
flood plain now? Mr. Givens said part of it is and part is not -
the flood plain runs basically through the center of the parcel,
leaving usable land on either side of the Tuscarora Creek. Mayor
Rollins asked how the proffer affects the land to the west of Syco-
lin Road? Mr. Givens said they don ' t own any property there - they
are on the east side. Mayor Rollins asked who owns that property to
the west of Sycolin Road that borders Tuscarora Creek? Mr. Alberts
said that is the one Mr. Givens was just talking about. Mr. Givens
drew a sketch of this property on the board, explaining this to Coun-
cil. The proffer speaks to the use of this area, with the exception
of the flood plain, which will be zoned M-1 , but the uses on the road
will be those of the B-1 and B-2 - commercial as opposed to heavy in-
dustrial uses. Economics dictates that you don ' t put an assembly
factory at a busy corner of the Route 15 By-Pass - you would put in
retail businesses. There are 16 . 7 acres in the total tract, with
5. 3 acres on both sides that are outside the flood plain. Mr. Bos
said we have M-1, except it ' s going to be B-2 - are we playing this
game again? Mrs. Hill said it will be this way until we change the
ordinance - Mr. Forbes is amending the ordinance to take care of
such situations . Mayor Rollins asked why he didn ' t just apply for
B-2? Mr. Givens said they initially applied for M-1 for the entire
tract to maintain their flexibility as to how the tract might be
used either as a whole or as a part. Mr . Chapman' s clients ap-
peared and objected - in discussion they learned that what they
were planning across the street would not be in conflict with some
general broad plans Mr. Alberts has for this property. Mrs. Hill
said this is a case where they would have to withdraw without
•
MINUTES OF AUGUST 26 , 1981 MEETING.
179
n
prejudice and go through the whole process again. Mr. Bos said I '7
"this is insane" and Mayor Rollins called it "absolutely absurd. "
Mrs . Hill said Mr. Martin is of the opinion that it could be done
anyway - they could go by his opinion and do it or wait for Mr.
Forbes to come back.
Mr. Summerfield Tillett asked how much traffic this will gene-
rate at the intersection of the By-Pass - will the State upgrade it?
Mr. Givens was not sure what kind of traffic pattern will develop
since he doesn ' t know exactly what will go in there. Another
McDonald ' s might require a light, which would be unfortunate, but
something in the nature of light industrial warehouses would not
be too much of a traffic problem. Mayor Rollins said Council will
take this into consideration. particularly when they come in with
plans for the west side of the road. Mrs. Hill said this will come
up when they bring in site plans. Mr. Givens said one solution
might be to extend Fort Evans Road down to provide .an access up
to a controlled intersection. Mrs. Hill said the Planning Commis-
sion received an update on the Comprehensive Plan and one of their
plans was Fort Evans Road coming down that way. Mr. Hill asked
Mr. Givens if Mr. Alberts would consider assisting the town in de-
veloping that road? Mr. Givens said Council might make such a
request, but it is a hard question to answer at this time. The
O Planning Commission and the Council have some wide authority over
Ct the site plan. Sycolin Road is bordered by two separate property
owners - perhaps their mutual work together might speed this along,
Q both in terms of cost and of time. If the Master Plan would pro-
vide for Fort Evans Road, there could be some cooperation between
Q all three parties. The current status of that road is certainly
less than desirable and anything that would help :upgrade it would
benefit everybody. The only thing the town can do is upgrade a
road and then get maintenance costs from the State. Mr. Hill
didn 't think the burden should be completely on the town to handle
traffic for a new development - we should all work together to up-
grade a road in any area. He hoped future councils will strive
for this as a joint venture. Mr. Givens reminded Council that
' the owners of property to the west of Sycolin Road are much larger
landowners than this one.
Mayor Rollins declared this public hearing at an end and re-
ferred this matter to the Finance and Administration Committee for
consideration and decision at the next session of Council .
MANAGER' S REPORT:
Mr . Niccolls said a written Activity Report was distributed
Monday night and Mr. Taylor has prepared the cash balance report.
COUNCILMEMBER INQUIRIES AND COMMENTS :
Mr. Bos commented that the East Market Street improvements
are helping traffic there. He also thanked the town staff for
their cooperation and help in many ways during August Court Days.
Mrs . Hill asked if the town had a termite inspection on the
Museum building at the time it was acquired? Mr. Niccolls said
probably not - there was a special appropriation for this building.
He thought the Museum paid for their own. Mrs. Hill said one of
the window sills in the old kitchen is rotted out and they suspect
termites. Perhaps we should consider this since it ' s our real es-
I/ tate.
Also, when the Odd Fellows left their building, they left seve-
ral rows of chairs (like movie seats) that are all hooked together.
If these are the town ' s property, perhaps we might want to use them
here in the Council Chambers or, if we don ' t want them, perhaps we
might give them to the Museum and allow them to sell them. They are
metal chairs and there are quite a few of them. Mr. Hill suggested
that any proceeds derived from the property should go to the termite
control .
Mr. Bos asked Mrs. Hill if Council will be presented with some
idea of the plans for the Museum? Mrs. Hill did not think so, al-
though she has told them at most every meeting that they can make no
MINUTES OF AUGUST 26 , 1981 MEETING.
180
plans until they are approved by the Council and by the Board of
Architectural Review. To date, they have not come before the Coun-
cil . In the lease, the Council is cancelling the old lease and
giving them a new one, with 100 percent increase in rent. This
new lease states that there will be no alterations of any kind
without prior approval of the Council, so this should bring them
before the Council . Mr. Bos felt it would be common courtesy for
them to show the plans to Council, particularly in view of the
fund raiser they are holding. Mrs. Hill felt Council should have
had a presentation a long time ago. They plan to spend $225, 000
in both buildings. She felt this lease gives Council. the vehicle
to force them to present the plans .
Mr. Tolbert said the work on the south end of town looks very
good. However, the shoulders on Second Street need some work. Mr.
Niccolls said there is shoulder work throughout town that will have
to catch up with the paving.
MAYOR' S REPORT:
Mayor Rollins said he was very pleased to see that we have
found an obvious source of infiltration into the sewer system on
Loudoun Street - this 70, 000 gpd. He asked Mr. Shope to detail the
problem and how it was corrected. Mr. Shope said it was a water
connection break at the main and it was leaking into the sanitary
sewer line. One of the houses on the north side of the street had
a water lateral that broke between the meter and the main and it
was saturating the ground - this was a 3/4-inch line leaking into
an old sewer lateral . After it was repaired by the town, they ran
a TV through it again and were getting very little, if any, infil-
tration. These are old clay laterals that may be collapsed - you
may want to look at it again when the water level is up. This has
probably been going on for about . three years - there was a new
water line installed about three years ago and they think the work
done there damaged the water lateral. The people living there may
have been receiving low pressure and didn ' t know it. The leak was
at the corporation cock. Mr. Hill said it was a dual find - we
saved water and, if that sanitary sewer is accepting that kind of
seepage, we haven ' t corrected that and it needs correction. Mr.
Shope said it has not been corrected, but the Public Works Depart-
ment has it on a list to check out later on - the major problem has
been solved. They have had a lot of these laterals to look at. We
will probably look at this again next spring. Mayor Rollins asked
if that sewer line was running full? Mr. Niccolls said 50 gpm wouldn ' t
fill up a sewer line. Mr. Shope said it is nice to see that program
is working.
Mr . Hill asked how the wells are doing? He understands we are
still using Andover - do we really need that well? Mr. Niccolls
said we have been using it at about 70, 000 gpd . He felt we are
still feeling the effect of the long drought in the spring, but
there is no immediate danger with the number of wells we have.
We can diversify our demands on these wells - if one starts to
fall off a little, we can lighten up on it. There was a long, steady
downward trend in the pumping level of the water in Evergreen #3 ,
which is a very good well, but it has consistently fallen a centi-
meter or so per month. They cut back the pumping from around 12
hours a day to 8 hours a day. We also increased the pumping at
the Paxton Well - we try to avoid using it more than 150, 000 per
day because then we start paying for it again. We are balanced
now and he doesn ' t anticipate any further problems between now and
the time the plant opens. We have located a number of long-stand-
ing leaks. The leak program performed by Pitometer Associates
last winter saved us some water . We are better able to manage any
kind of shortage now. Mr. Hill asked how we are comparing between
water pumped and water billed. Mr. Niccolls said he suspects it
is creeping up from its normal 65 percent. When he compared the
previous two quarters , there was a significant improvement in the
ratio of pumped water to billed water and that reflected the cor-
rection of that major leak on Route 654 . We are still below 70
percent. If we maintain this 70 percent, we are probably in the
range of about the maximum we are going to accomplish with the age
of the water system. We make allowances for water used (for in-
stance, what is used in our own plants) , there is some water .used
MINUTES OF AUGUST 26 , 1981 MEETING.
here and there - the Fire Company uses some water. On a brand 181
new system, you should bill at least 85 percent of what you pump.
Mayor Rollins asked if anyone has been contracted to
renovate the upstairs of this building? Yes, he has contracted
with Leon Chatelain for a schematic design, who did the work out-
side, for $465. 00 : He is starting this week and it appears that
we may be able to develop a nice-sized committee facility on this
side and leave the other side for future facilities of another sort.
The steps can go up from the rear of this floor. He will have the
drawings in a matter of a few weeks .
81-0-22 - ORDINANCE - AMENDING THE LEESBURG ZONING MAP .
Mayor Rollins directed that the corrected Proffer be made a
part of the record and that the correction from "Paragraphs"to
"Parcels A, B & C" be made a corrected portion of the Proffer.
On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the following
ordinance was proposed:
WHEREAS, Rezoning Application #ZM-32 by International
Pavilion Company was referred to the Planning Commission
O on January 14 , 1981; and
WHEREAS , the Planning Commission on February 19 , 1981 held
a public hearing on the application for rezoning; and
Q
Q WHEREAS, on February 25, 1981 the Council extended the
time period for the Planning Commission referral to July 4 ,
1981; and
WHEREAS, on April 16 , 1981 the Planning Commission recom-
mended to the Council that this rezoning be approved by
zoning approximately 33 acres from R-1 to R-4 and approxi-
mately 30 acres from R-1 to B-2 ; and
WHEREAS, the Council on May 27 , 1981 held a public hearing
on the proposed rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the Council on August 12 , 1981 held a second pub-
lic hearing on the proposed rezoning, on which date imme-
diately prior to the public hearing a proffer was received
setting forth certain conditions for the rezoning for con-
sideration with the rezoning request; and
WHEREAS, the proffer document contains references to "Para-
graphs A, B and C" of Exhibit I which should more properly
read "Parcels A, B or C" as the case may be and therefore
the Council has allowed the applicant to correct these refer-
ences in the proffer document without altering its meaning:
THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg
in Virginia as follows :
SECTION I . The Leesburg Zoning Ordinance is amended to re-
vise the Zoning District Map to change from R-1 to B-2 63-
acres of land located to the east of the Carrvale Subdivi-
sion, bounded by the property of International Pavilion on
the north, Route 15 by-pass on the east, Fort Evans Road
I/ and Edwards Ferry Road on the south, the properties of
Dowdy, Ryan Homes , Inc . , McGonegal, Huey, Weems, Sevieri,
Board of Missions of the Potomac Baptist Associations, In-
ternational Pavilion Company, Layman, Fewell , Cross, Wal-
lace, Fisher, BCL Inc . , and Shor Leesburg Associates on
the west in accordance with two plats prepared by J. Horace
Jarrett dated August 10 , 1981. This amendment to the Zoning
District Map is subject to the proffer dated August 11, 1981
and submitted to the Town Council immediately preceding its
public hearing August 12 , 1981 .
SECTION II . This ordinance shall be in effect upon its pas-
sage.
1 82 MINUTES OF AUGUST 26 , 1981 MEETING.
1 Mr. Bos said this is a difficult vote for him. The cooperation
existing for the last couple of months between the Council Fi-
nance Committee, the applicant and the various citizens involved
really shows the process works. However, he doesn ' t feel the re-
sults are "red hot" . He was prepared to vote "Yes" on this be-
cause of this and the length of the process, but the proffering
situation has turned him against it again. There is B-2 land that
will not be B-2 land and, because of the inadequacies of the Zon-
ing Ordinance and the misinterpretation of the State proffering
ordinance, we are ending up with a rezoning process that has come
the full circle - it is a mockery of the process . We are, there-
fore, ending up with R-2 , R-3 , B-1 and B-2 zoning, in effect, even
though the application says B-2 . We have another application, on
which we had, a hearing tonight, _that is going the same direction.
The whole thing is premature - the applicant deserves a reasonable
processing of his application. It is not his fault that he has to
deal with the present ordinances. He cannot see passing a rezoning
of a major portion of land with this process - it just doesn' t make
any sense. The Zoning Ordinance obviously has to be updated, but
he thinks the changing of uses is a misinterpretation of the proffer-
ing ordinance. He can ' t vote for it for this reason.
Mr. Hill felt Mr. Bos has a valid concern with regard to the
procedure. It would appear that, if we get the Zoning Ordinance
cleaned up to accept proffering, perhaps Council should adopt some
procedural rules to deal with proposed rezonings before they are
formally presented to the Planning Commission and the Council -
in this way the applicant would present his application with the
proper zoning category for what he proposes to do. Mr. Bos ap-
preciated his thoughts, but he did not feel we can ask an applicant
to come in this manner - if it met with approval before the appli-
cation and then was voted down after the formal process, we would
be in court every time we turned down a rezoning. Mrs. Hill said
the Planning Commission was laboring under the misapprehension that
they could do this and came up with specific zones. This was struck
down later. This proffering such as was done tonight would not be
necessary according to the State Code - you can downzone without
another hearing. Our Code is the only thing that is precluding
that. We would be voting tonight on various zones, rather than thi
proffer. Mayor Rollins did not think the State Code says you can
downzone - you can create a lesser zone . Mr. Herrell felt this will
still not change the "hassle" of the process. There followed dis-
cussion between Mrs. Hill and Mr. Herrell concerning this. Mr.
Bos asked why the Planning Commission can' t get the Zoning Ordi-
nance done and get all of this confusion over with? It was felt
that if zoning categories can be narrowed down to specific uses,
there would not be as much occasion for proffers. Mayor Rollins
felt they are taking advantage of the proffer situation. There
was further discussion concerning proffers, with Council voting
6 to 1 to adopt the proposed ordinance :
Aye: Councilmembers Herrell , D. Hill , M. Hill , Tolbert, Willis
and Mayor Rollins.
Nay: Councilmember Bos.
81-112 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING LEASE OF THE LOUDOUN MUSEUM, INC.
AT 20 SOUTH WIRT STREET.
On motion of Mr . Herrell , seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the follow-
ing resolution was proposed:
WHEREAS, the town previously leased its building at 16 West
Loudoun to the Loudoun Museum, Inc . , and
WHEREAS, the town recently purchased a building located at
20 South Wirt Street with the intention of also leasing
this property to the Loudoun Museum, Inc. :
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg
in Virginia as follows :
The manager shall enter into an agreement on behalf of the
town in a form approved by the Town Attorney with the Loudoun
MINUTES OF AUGUST 26 , 1981 MEETING.
183
Museum, Inc. , 16 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia
22075 for lease of the buildings located at 16 West Loud-
oun and 20 South Wirt Street under the following terms :
1. The previous agreement dated July 1, 1979 for lease
of 16 West Loudoun Street is cancelled effective Sep-
tember 1, 1981.
2 . The term of the lease shall be for a period of five
years beginning on September 1 , 1981 and ending Aug-
ust 31, 1986 .
3 . During the term of the lease, the tenant will pay
yearly rent in the amount of $2 . 00.
4 . The premises shall be used as a museum and tourist
center and related activities.
5 . The tenant will at its own expense keep the premises
in good repair and in sanitary conditions at all times
during the term of the lease. The tenant shall make no
structural alteration to the premises without prior ap-
N proval of the town. The tenant shall make no exterior
O modifications of any sort whatsoever without prior ap-
proval of the town.
7 6. The tenant shall make arrangements and pay promptly all
Q bills for electricity, gas, telephone, refuse collection,
Q water and sewer service and any other utilities services
furnished or supplied to the premises .
7 . The tenant shall save, hold harmless and indemnify the
town and its officers, agents - and employees for any loss:
costs, damage, claims, accidents or causes of action that
may arise out of or in connection with the operation,
maintenance or use of the premises by the tenant, its
employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, conces-
sionaires or any other person or persons . The tenant
agrees to carry and maintain, with a responsible insurance
company approved by the town, in amounts as follows:
(a) Workmen ' s compensation insurance as required by the
appropriate laws of the State of Virginia.
(b) Public liability and property damage insurance with
minimum limits of $500, 000 and $1 , 000 , 000 on account
of bodily injuries to or death of more than one per-
son and $50 , 000 on account of damage to property.
(c) Fire and extended coverage, vandalism, boiler and ma-
chinery and malicious mischief insurance at 100 per-
cent of the current replacement value of all improve-
ments . The tenant shall name the town as loss-payee.
8 . No portion of the premises or any interest in the lease
may be sublet or assigned without the written consent
of the town.
9 . In the event of any breach of any covenant of the lease,
in addition to other remedies provided by law, the town
may deliver written notice to the tenant and the lease
shall terminate 30 days after receipt of such notice -
by the tenant if the breach is not remedied within 21
days after receipt. Upon termination the town shall be
entitled to the possession of the premises and damages
and injunction and also for attorney ' s fees as may be
recoverable by law.
10 . The lease subject to restrictive provisions with respect
to assignment and subletting, shall inure to the benefit
of, and be binding upon, the executors, administrators,
heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
1 8� MINUTES OF AUGUST 26 , 1981 MEETING .
1 O Mr. Herrell said we actually doubled our gift to them, but it is
a good investment for the town - it is a nice asset to have the
Museum there. The resolution was unanimously adopted :
Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Herrell, D. Hill , M. Hill, Tolbert,
Willis and Mayor Rollins.
Nay: None.
81-113 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING AN EXTENSION OF THE OPERATING
AGREEMENT BETWEEN PROFESSIONAL PILOTS SER-
VICES AND THE TOWN.
On motion of Mr. Willis, seconded by Mrs. Hill , the following
resolution was proposed :
WHEREAS, the Leesburg Airport Commission has recommended a
two-year extension of the operating agreement by and be-
tween the Town of Leesburg and Professional Pilots Ser-
vices :
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg
in Virginia as follows :
The manager is authorized and directed to execute a two-
year extension of the June 22 , 1979 Operating Agreement
between the Town and Professional Pilots Services for
continued Fixed Base Operations at Leesburg Municipal
Airport under the same terms and conditions as set out
in the original agreement.
Mr. Hill understood that this is a "sublet" under Blue Ridge - he
asked how long their lease has to run yet? Mr . Niccolls said five
or six years. The new FBO has no objection to it - .Blue Ridge and
Professional Pilots Services were operating there when he bought
the lease. This is an important way that we show the FAA that we
are in compliance with the non-exclusivity doctrine. He thought
the prior FBO' s objected to parasitic operations that contributed
no funds to the airport to be put back into the airport. These
problems have been resolved by having these operators licensed -
it is on an equitable basis now - they are required to make major
contributions under the FBO license fee ordinance. Mr. Herrell
said the sign pointing to "professional pilot training" is located
so as to point up the road, rather than into Janelle ' s operations -
this should be changed. Mr. Niccolls said Blue Ridge and Profes-
sional Pilots kept the airport going during the times when the
main operations have been shut down and he thought this sign was
approved by the Airport Commission. It may be more appropriate
for us to put up some non-commercial signs indicating the location
of other services at the end of the field. He suggested that the
Airport Commission consider this matter and come up with a plan -
they would probably want to treat Steve Leckey as well as possible -
he ' s operated the UNICOM and performed other services when we had
problems . The resolution was unanimously adopted:
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Herrell , D. Hill, M. Hill, Tolbert,
Willis and Mayor Rollins.
Nay: None.
Mayor Rollins said he had many complaints about the overhanging
signs during August Court Days. Mr. Niccolls said this was a mis-
take on his part - he didn ' t realize it would go over the traffic
light. He apologized and said it will not happen again. Mayor
Rollins was referring to the signs at either end of town - they
were put out on Friday morning. Mr. Pumphrey objected and they
were bagged later in the day. Mr. Bos said they are public streets
and certain uses have to be allowed, whether there is a fair going
on or not. Politicking, as an example - you certainly can' t stop
a man from shaking hands with other people - perhaps not allow the
passing out of leaflets, etc. Mayor Rollins felt you can ' t stop
such things and this should be called to attention of those in-
volved with August Court Days. Another thing that should be called
to their attention is that they can ' t block the sidewalks - there
was one in front of the Post Office. Mr. Bos said it is getting so
big now that it may start squeezing itself to death. This must be
kept under control .
MINUTES OF AUGUST 26 , 1981 MEETING. 185
81-114 - RESOLUTION - MAKING AN APPROPRIATION FOR INSULATION AND
HEAT FOR THE MAINTENANCE HANGAR AT LEESBURG
AIRPORT.
On motion of Mrs . Hill, seconded by Mr. Bos, the following
resolution was proposed:
WHEREAS, the Leesburg Airport Commission has recommended
the Airport Fund participate in the cost of adding insula-
tion and heat to the maintenance hangar at Leesburg air-
port; and
WHEREAS, the complete weatherization of the maintenance
hangar will be animportant permanent improvement which
will permit year-round aircraft maintenance services at
the airport from which the town receives a percentage of
the gross receipts :
THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg,
in Virginia, as follows :
SECTION I . The Airport Fund of the Town of Leesburg will
reimburse Janelle Aviation 65% of the total cost for add-
ing a heating system to the maintenance hangar at Lees-
burg Airport in an amount not to exceed $5, 000 . The heat-
ing system selected will be approved in advance by the
Director of Engineering.
SECTION II . The Airport Fund of the Town of Leesburg shall
reimburse Janelle Aviation in an amount not to exceed
$1, 190 for the materials required to insulate the mainte-
nance hangar at Leesburg Airport.
SECTION III . An appropriation is made from the Airport
Fund to Account No. 6000. 300, Contractual Services, in
the amount of $6 , 190 . 00 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1982 .
Mr. Niccolls said they will do the labor themselves - some of it
is already insulated. The resolution was unanimously adopted:
Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Herrell, D. Hill, M. Hill, Tolbert,
Willis and Mayor Rollins.
Nay: None.
81-115 - RESOLUTION - MAKING AN APPROPRIATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING JUNE 30 , 1982 .
On motion of Mr. Herrell, seconded by Mr. Bos, the following
resolution was proposed:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows :
An appropriation is made from the Utility Fund to Account
No. 5100 . 716 , Rehabilitation Inflow Abatement, in the a-
mount of $36, 000 for the fiscal year ending June 30 , 1982 .
Mr. Niccolls explained that Council authorized the award of an I/I
contract to Penetryn in late fiscal year 1981 and part of the funds
were paid out in that fiscal year. In the Utility Fund, unlike the
General Fund, appropriations for contracts that are carried forward
must be remade. This is a continuation of the work authorized last
year. He will secure a map showing where that work is and what we
have done in the previous years and Council can keep track of where
we are. This is the second year of intensive I/I work. Mr. Hill
would liked to have seen this come before the public works committee
so he would have known what they are talking about: The resolution
was unanimously adopted :
Aye: Councilmembers, Bos, Herrell , D. Hill, M. Hill, Tolbert,
Willis and Mayor Rollins.
Nay: None.
186 MINUTES OF AUGUST 26 , 1981 MEETING.
81-116 - RESOLUTION - APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF A RADIO.
On motion of Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mr. Willis, the following
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
WHEREAS, the FY 82 Budget allows for the purchase ab;:a.1.
portable radio unit for the water supply division,
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia
as follows :
An appropriation is made from the Utility Fund to Account
No. 5200 . 710 , Equipment, in the amount of $1, 155 . 00 for
the fiscal year ending June 30 , 1982 .
Aye : Councilmembers Bos , Herrell , D. Hill, M. Hill, Tolbert,
Willis and Mayor Rollins.
Nay: None.
81-117 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF A PUBLIC FACILITIES
INSPECTORS VEHICLE.
There being no objection to consideration tonight, on motion of
Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr . Herrell, the following new business
resolution was proposed and unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, in Virginia,
as follows :
SECTION I . The manager is authorized and directed to purchase
a 1981 Chevrolet pickup truck equipped in accordance with
specifications issued by the Director of Engineering at a
cost not to exceed $6 , 690.
SECTION II . An appropriation is made from the General Fund
to Account No. 3401 . 702 - Automotive Equipment in the amount
of $6 , 890 for purchase of the vehicle and undercoating treat-
ment.
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Herrell, D. Hill, M. Hill , Tolbert,
Willis and Mayor Rollins.
Nay: None.
81-118 - RESOLUTION - AUTHORIZING A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LEESBURG ZONING
ORDINANCE .
On motion of Mr. Hill, seconded by Mrs. Hill, the following
resolution was proposed :
RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg, Virginia,
as follows :
A Notice of Public Hearing to consider certain proposed
amendments to the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance shall be pub-
lished in the Loudoun Times-Mirror on September 3 , 1981
and September 10 , 1981 , for public hearing on September 23,
1981 at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 10 West Loudoun
Street, Leesburg, Virginia.
Mrs. Hill explained that the Planning Commission has finally re-
leased the "R" zones out of the proposed recodification of the
Zoning Ordinance. One of the changes provides that anyone want-
ing to build in the Old and Historic District (it is all in the
R-2 area) may build right up to the street. Another major change
is that, in the R-2 through the R-4 districts, side yards can be
a total of 20 feet on the sides , with no less than 5 feet on one
side. Other changes clarify the meaning of a duplex and a town
house. The R-5 district is new and is the mobile home district.
Nothing has been done to the non-conforming uses as of this time.
This is the material to be considered in this public hearing. Mr.
Hill wondered how Council can do much with this until we get the
Comprehensive Plan back. Mrs. Hill didn ' t feel the Comprehensive
Plan goes hand in hand with this . Mr. Niccolls felt he has a good
MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 1981 MEETING.
point as to commercial zoned districts - if they were reporting 187
changes in these dtricts, it would be very prudent to wait to see
what KDA' s recommendations are. He didn ' t feel they will be mak-
ing any changes in the "R" districts. Basically, what the Plan-
ning Commission is recommending is 98 percent exactly of what you
have now - it is more clearly organized. Mayor Rollins asked if
this will create just one new district? Mr. Niccolls said this
isn ' t really changing anything - it is just to put the presently
existing mobile home park in a district. Mayor Rollins said this
is creating a category that others could come in and ask for. Mr.
Niccolls agreed with this . Mrs . Hill said it would be very diffi-
cult to have a mobile home area when you read this portion of the
amendments. The resolution was unanimously adopted :
Aye: Councilmembers Bos, Herrell, D. Hill, M. Hill, Tolbert,
Willis and Mayor Rollins.
Nay: None.
Mr. Willis recalled there was an item on the committee agenda
concerning a post hole digger. Mr. Niccolls said this money was to
be used for the purchase of a bush hog, which is needed worse. The
money was already appropriated for it.
O Mr. Bos felt it might be nice to institute a summer concert
series and there seems to bea fair amount of enthusiasm for it
T from those with whom he has talked. If Council is interested in
7 this, he knows of one group who would be interested in making a
a proposal. This could be done in a number of ways - it could be
Q partially supported by the legislative body - it could be a fully
independent thing, It depends on where it is held, what type of
entertainment it is . There was definite interest in this by coun-
cilmembers.
Mrs. Hill said the Museum would like Mayor Rollins to come
and accept the old street sweeper. Mayor Rollins designated Mrs.
Hill to accept in his behalf .
On motion of Mr. Willis, seconded by Mr. Tolbert, the meet-
ing was adjourned at 10 : 15 P .M.
-Mayor
/KCAL/Clerk of t, e Council