Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2010_tcmin0112COUNCIL MEETING January 12, 2010 ~--- Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:30 p.m. Mayor Umstattd presiding. Council Members Present: Thomas S. Dunn, II, Katie Sheldon Hammler, David Butler, Marty Martinez, Kenneth ~~Ken" Reid, Kevin Wright and Mayor Kristen Umstattd. Council Members Absent: None Staff Present: Town Manager John Wells, Deputy Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Town Attorney Jeanette Irby, Airport Director Tim Deike, Deputy Director of Public Works Charles Mumaw, Deputy Director of Planning and Zoning Brian Boucher, Zoning Administrator Chris Murphy, Assistant to the Town Manager Scott Parker, Senior Planner Mark Browning, Senior Management Analyst Bob Berkey, and Clerk of Council Lee Ann Green AGENDA ITEMS i. Call to Order 2. Invocation was lead by Council Member Butler 3. Salute to the Flag was lead by Wolf Den 1, Pack 958 4. Roll Call showing all members present. 5. Minutes a. Work Session Minutes of December 7, 2009 On a motion by Vice Mayor Hammler, seconded by Council Member Butler, the minutes were passed 7-0. b. Regular Session Minutes of December 8, 2009 On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Vice Mayor Hammler, the minutes were passed 7-0. 6. Adopting the Meeting Agenda (Amendments and Deletions) Council Member Wright made a motion to adopt the meeting agenda with the following changes: (a) Move Item 12b to the Consent Agenda; (b) Switch the order of public hearings to take Item 10b before Item 10a. The motion was seconded by Council Member Butler, The motion to adopt the meeting agenda passed by the following vote: Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor Umstattd Nay: None Vote: 7-0 7. PRESENTATIONS a. Certificates of Recognition - Loudoun county High School Lady Raiders Volley Ball Team -Virginia High School League AA State Champions - On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Vice Mayor Hammler, Certificates of Recognition were approved for members and coaches of the Town Council Meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 2 Loudoun County High School Girls Volley Ball team as winners of the 2009 Surebet Invitational, Dulles District Champions, and the Virginia High School League AA State Championship: Allie Cain Danielle Cullen Colleen Bowlds Erin Dancy Sammy Dormio Rachel Arigo Katrina Kirby Robin Marsala Jenica Matthias Laura Stevens Brandon Rabackoff Gabby Serafin Hannah Arnold Kathleen Horvath Emily Vandergrift Molly Baldwin Jenna Strange Juliane Hanna Jarod Brown Shannon Nicholson John Brown Anthony Vespoli b. Certificates of Appreciation - R.O.C.K. Program Holiday Party Donations - On the motion of Vice Mayor Hammier, seconded by Council Member Martinez, Certificates of Appreciation were given to donors of food and gifts for the Recreation Outreach to Community Kids (R.O.C.K.) program annual holiday party: Roy Rogers (King Street) Vintage 50 Ernie and Lisa Lightfoot Bob Evans Costco South Street Under Loudoun County Mental Health c. Environmental Advisory Commission Semi-Annual Update Neely Law, Chair of the Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC) presented an update to Council on the recent activities of the EAC. She stated they worked on their Strategic Plan that can be found on the EAC website. She stated there are four goal areas including (1) promoting and supporting environmentally friendly development practices that complement and promote economic development, (2) focusing on internal communications with the Council, staff and other commissions to understand needs and how environmental issues can fit into other projects in the Town, (3) promoting good stewardship practices in the Town - an external communication and outreach, (4) fundraising and how to encourage and increase the diversification of resources for projects. She stated they wanted to utilize the Strategic Plan as a management tool. She displayed the Google Docs tool the Commission has been using to work on documents. Council Member Martinez questioned whether Council Members can access this information. Ms. Irby noted there may be problems with public access using this forum and noted there are some alternatives the Commission can consider. Council Member Butler stated the Tech Commission, based on the request from the EAC, is trying out Sharepoint. He noted it is in a test mode at this time, but will be rolled out to the various Boards and Commissions Town Council Meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 3 soon. He stated this will be incredibly valuable as a communication tool for the Commissions. He stated in the meantime, he would discourage the Commission from adding anything into Google Docs. Ms. Law stated Commissioner Welsh-Chamblin has been spearheading efforts to interact with other commissions. She stated there has been good dialogue between the commissions and opportunities to suggest ways to inject environmental considerations into their projects. She stated they are actively looking for more resources to advance the Tuscarora Creek project work. She stated the Piedmont Environmental Council and Center for Watershed Protection have been key partners in the Commission's efforts. She noted the last workshop the Commission held on Better Site Design had over 65 participants for the five hour workshop that was partially funded by a grant from Fairfax Water. Ms. Law stated the Commission is very appreciative of the support it receives from Council, Council Member Butler and staff. 8. PETITIONERS The Petitioners section was opened at 8 p.m. Kelly Burk, Leesburg representative to the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, stated the Leesburg Executive Airport is a significant economic driver for the Town of Leesburg. She noted some of the members of the Board of Supervisors have asked for the possibility of an increase in the tax on the aircraft housed both at Leesburg and Dulles Airport. She stated that last year when this was proposed, the __ Airport Commission, the Council, and herself were able to convince the Board of Supervisors that this increase would not have the desired effect by hurting the airport business. She stated they are considering an increase of 4000%. She urged Council to pass the draft resolution being considered as it is important for the Council, the Commission, and herself to speak as one. She thanked Council for all the time and effort they give to the Town. Vice Mayor Hammler moved to suspend the rules to allow Item 14a to be moved forward on the agenda for action. The motion was seconded by Council Member Reid. Motion to suspend the rules was approved by the following vote. Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor U mstattd Nay: None Vote: 7-0 Reid: Vice Mayor Hammler made the following motion, seconded by Council Member RESOLUTION 2010-009 Opposing an Increase in the Loudoun County Personal Property Tax for Aircraft Vice Mayor Hammler expressed her appreciation for Supervisor Burk's efforts and her gratitude for the actions of the Airport Commission and Mr. Deike, the Airport Director. She stated clearly there are serious implications from a Leesburg Town Council Meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 4 perspective, both in terms of losing revenue through lost hangar rentals at the airport. --- Council Member Reid reiterated the County's study does not address the situation of availability at other airports in Maryland, West Virginia and other areas of Virginia. He stated it is important to show that this will not help the County's budget problems. Council Member Butler stated there is too little gain and far too much potential loss for the Board of Supervisors to be considering this. Council Member Wright stated the larger airlines will house their planes elsewhere and it will most likely have an adverse effect on jobs at Dulles. He stated in Leesburg, aircraft owners will move their aircraft to another airport just as they moved to our airport after other counties have done the same thing. He noted other jurisdictions that have instituted this tax are now trying to undo it. He added that if the aircraft move from the airport and Leesburg loses the hangar revenue, the Airport may no longer be self-sufficient and would require taxpayer dollars to fund the Airport. Council Member Martinez stated Leesburg needs to work with the Board of Supervisors to find another solution. Council Member Dunn stated taxing customers out of using your services has been shown to be unproductive and neither the Winchester or Manassas airports are that far away. He encouraged the Board of Supervisors to continue in their efforts to look at cost cutting before taxing. Mayor Umstattd thanked Supervisor Burk for being on top of the issue and making sure the Airport Commission and Town staff was aware of the proposal. She stated she appreciates all the efforts being made on behalf of the Town in this difficult budget year. She reiterated Mr. Boykin's comments that aircraft are highly mobile and the loss would not be of small, recreational aircraft, but corporate aircraft which are revenue generators for the Town and the County. She noted the competition is not just airports within Virginia, but airports in neighboring states and Virginia's higher sales and use tax already puts Virginia airports at a disadvantage. Vice Mayor Hammler noted that raising prices would cause the revenue to simply fly away. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor Umstattd Nay: None Vote: 7-0 The Petitioner's section resumed at 8:11 p.m. Don Culkin, 38595 Purple Martin Lane, Hamilton, stated he is a member of the Board of the Downtown Improvement Association and is in favor of Resolutions under Items 12a and b. He stated 12b is the addition of some art work by William Hennessy to the Town Hall Art Gallery. He stated Mr. Hennessy's work is -- extraordinary and will be a good addition to the gallery. He stated he is in support of Town Council Meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 5 the award of the design contract for the downtown capital improvements project to AECOM. He stated this is a very well conceived project which is shown by the quality of the response received from the RFP. He stated all the finalists were very good. Peter Burnett, 105 Loudoun Street, S.E., agreed that Mr. Hennessy's work is extraordinary. He stated AECOM has a sterling reputation for their work all over Virginia and encouraged Council to support the proposed contract. The Petitioner's section was closed at 8:16 p.m. 9. ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA On a motion by Council Member Wright, seconded by Council Member Butler, the following consent agenda was proposed: a. Lowenbach Phase II Street Improvements Project Easements RESOLUTION 2010-001 Declaring that a Public Necessity and Use Exist and Authorizing Acquisition of Required Easements for the Lowenbach Phase II Street Improvements Project b. Requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation LVDOT~ Accept Certain Streets RESOLUTION 2010-002 Requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Accept Certain Streets c. Making a Reduction of the Performance Guarantee for Public Improvements Installed in Oaklawn at Stratford Landbay ~~D" RESOLUTION 2010-003 Making a Reduction of the Performance Guarantee for Public Improvements Installed in Oaklawn at Stratford Landbay "D" d. Land Use Permit for the Dry Mill/Wage/Anne Drainage Improvements Project RESOLUTION 2010-004 Authorizing a Land Use Permit Application for Construction of the Dry Mill/Wage/Anne Drainage Improvements Project e. 2010 Legislative Agenda -Property Maintenance Inspector Certification MOTION 2010-001 Authorization of Staff to work with the Virginia Building and Code Officials Association to address the Property Maintenance Inspector certification issue through a regulatory change rather than pursue legislative action f. Approving Additions to the Town Hall Art Gallerx Town Council Meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 6 RESOLUTION 2010-007 Town Hall Art Gallery -Approval of the Next Two Art Exhibits by the Countryside Quitters guild and William J. Hennessey, Jr., Courtroom Artist The Consent Agenda was approved by the following vote: Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor U mstattd Nay: None Vote: 7-0 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. TLSE 2009-0006 Leesburg Green -Church in the I-1 District The public hearing was opened at 8:20 p.m. Mark Browning summarized the application for a house of worship in the I-1 District in apre-existing building which formerly housed Shenandoah University. He stated the church would only be occupying half of one of the two buildings on the site. He noted the applicant is requesting a modification of parking standards to allow one less space than required by the zoning ordinance. He noted the church uses will be at different times than the office uses will be active, so there will be no parking deficiency for either use. He stated the use represents a reduction in traffic impact over the by-right office use. He stated the parking modification will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding land uses and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval. Council Member Dunn questioned why the Town requires a special exception for this use? Brian Boucher stated the I-1 district is an industrial district and the uses in all I-1 districts that are allowed by-right may not be compatible with a church. He stated the special exception allows the Council to take a look at the uses and see if any conditions need to be imposed to make the two uses compatible. He stated that while this is a very small church going into an existing building, another application might have a much larger church with a much greater impact. Council Member Dunn questioned how long the process has taken the applicant? Mr. Boucher stated this was submitted in late summer/early fall and is moving fairly quickly. Vice Mayor Hammler stated this application will have minimal impact and be of great benefit to the church. She requested afollow-up from the Economic Development Department as to efforts to seek regional office uses. Mr. Browning stated the church considers this an interim location, so the site may be able to revert to office/light industrial use at a later time. Council Member Reid stated the regulations need to be relaxed for -- submissions like this. He stated while this was not a long process, there have Town Council Meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 7 been cases where businesses have not been able to set up shop because of the use tables. He stated he hopes the Council will push for more by-right uses in the I-1 district. The applicant, Pete McCabe, stated he had not prepared a statement, but he wished to thank the staff and Planning Commission. He the process was fully explained and has been followed. There was no public comment associated with this public hearing. The public hearing was closed at 8:28 p.m. On the motion of Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council Member Wright, the following was proposed: RESOLUTION 2010-005 Approving Special Exception TLSE 2009-0006 Leesburg Green, A Place of Worship, at 908 Trailview Boulevard Council Member Wright stated he was glad to see the Town getting additional church seating capacity. Council Member Dunn questioned whether the ordinance could be adjusted to allow certain uses by-right when only using a percentage of an existing building. Mr. Boucher stated he believes that can be done as long as there is a rational basis for where the threshold is set. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammier, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor Umstattd Nay: None Vote: 7-0 b. TLOA 2009-0003 Amending Article 3 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance The public hearing was opened at 8:30 p.m. Chris Murphy presented the staff report for the proposed amendment. He stated in February of 2009, Council directed staff to bring procedural issues including timing of BAR review of rezoning and special exception applications, expansion of the validity of Certificates of Appropriateness (COA) beyond 24 months and the standard for BAR appeals to Town Council, before the Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review for comment and recommendation. He stated the two groups recommended a fuller integration of BAR review into rezoning and special exceptions during legislative application process and this has already been enacted by having the BAR serve as a referral agency during these types of applications. He stated they also recommended extensions of COAs under certain circumstances and recommended maintaining the existing BAR appeals standard versus a change to the de novo review standard. He noted Council initiated a zoning ordinance amendment to change to the de novo standard of review. Town Council Meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 8 Mr. Murphy stated that currently the zoning ordinance establishes the current time limit on COAs and states that they shall lapse and become void unless construction is commenced within 24 months from the date the permit was issued which was an extension over the prior duration of 12 months. He stated the conditions for extension over 24 months would be: 1. The applicant is diligently pursuing completion of the project but is unable to obtain final approval due to circumstances beyond the applicant's control. e.g. permits from outside agencies. 2. Zoning Administrator will include notification of intent of administrative extension to adjacent property owners and the extension shall be granted in six month increments with no limits on the number of extensions so long as all of the conditions remain. Mr. Murphy noted the Planning Commission recommended these conditions to dissuade speculation. He stated appeals to final BAR decisions may be made by any person within 30 days after final decision is rendered. He stated currently the Town Council may reverse or modify the decision of the BAR if it finds the decision of the BAR is contrary to the law or the decision is arbitrary and constitutes an abuse of discretion. He stated the current standard is a very difficult, narrow standard. He stated a de novo appeal would be a new hearing contemplating an entire trial in the same manner as the matter was originally heard and a review of the original hearing. He stated Town Council may consider all of the information presented in the application to the BAR and affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the BAR. He stated the de novo does permit new evidence that was not part of the BAR record. He stated the Planning Commission feared that with this standard, some may be inspired to go for denial of the BAR and then submit the appeal relying on the fact that Council may not be experts on design guidelines as the BAR. He stated the Planning Commission thus recommended the following: Standing remains unchanged. Any person within 30 days of finding may file an appeal. 2. A fee should be established for appeal. 3. Establish how the appeal is handled internally. 4. The record of the appeal will be clearly set forth. Council may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, may modify any order, requirement, decision, or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision, or determination as aught be made. He stated this keeps the authority of the BAR intact, but gives the Council the authority to review under appeal. 6. He stated while the Planning Commission recommended the ~~° Council be able to remand the issue back to the BAR, there is no Town Council Meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 9 authority under the State Code for remand despite the fact that two Virginia jurisdictions do allow remand. 7. Establishment of a 75 day time limit to render decision on the appeal. He stated that staff recommends approval of the amendment to establish administrative extensions to the COA validity with the conditions as expressed and approval of a standard for review of BAR appeals be revised in accordance with the recommendations of the Planning Commission except for the authority to remand a decision back to the BAR. Council Member Dunn requested clarification of Section 3.11.15b. He stated any person may file appeal. He questioned whether the Town has to allow anyone to file any appeal at any time. Ms. Irby stated the Planning Commission left that language as it stands now. She stated it could be narrowed to any "aggrieved person" which is still fairly loose, but would at least require the appellant to have some relationship to the issue. Council Member Dunn stated he would prefer to narrow the language because someone could tie Council down with a lot of appeals. He stated the appeal should be specific to certain aspects of the case, not the entire case because he does not feel the Council should be able to completely change a project. There was discussion regarding the limits of what could be considered during appeal. It was decided that items to be reconsidered on appeal would be specifically limited to those contained in the actual appeal. Council Member Dunn asked for clarification on new evidence. Council Member Wright noted the Planning Commission did consider allowing new evidence to be heard on appeal, but decided that would undermine the BAR. Council Member Dunn stated he hopes this will raise the level of fairness to applicants but his ultimate goal is to uphold the authority of the Board of Architectural Review in hopes that applicants and the Board can work together to solve the issues at the BAR level. Vice Mayor Hammier stated that given how important the function of the BAR is on behalf of the Town, they should constantly be looking for ways to increase the level of training. Council Member Wright stated the Planning Commission took this assignment very seriously and spent several meetings working on this recommendation. He stated his agreement with adding the language regarding what can be considered on appeal and who can appeal. He verified that changing this language would be allowable considering the advertisement of the amendment. Town Council Meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 10 Council Member Butler also agreed with the language change regarding what can be considered on appeal. He questioned the definition of an aggrieved person. Ms. Irby stated an aggrieved person generally has some nexus to the issue or some pecuniary interest in the issue. Council Member Butler stated he does not agree with this language change. He stated whether someone has standing as aggrieved might be complex and open to determination. He requested language that is more concrete such as ~~property owner or business owner in the Town" as it is easier to understand. There was Council consensus to use the term °resident" in addition to "property owner" and "business owner". Council Member Reid questioned the language dealing with cost of transcripts of the original BAR meeting. He questioned how the appeal would be handled. Additionally, he questioned whether existing COAs would also have the ability to be administratively extended. Ms. Irby pointed out that BAR meetings are taped and the minutes are summaries of the proceedings. She stated if the appellant would like verbatim transcripts of the original meeting to be considered as part of the record, then it would be incumbent upon the appellant to bear the cost of verbatim transcription. She also stated that staff would bring forth standard operating procedures to be approved by Council after review by the BAR. Ms. Irby stated it is her understanding that all existing COAs would have the ability to be administratively extended. Council Member Reid stated he feels the staff and Planning Commission worked very hard on these regulations. He stated the six month extension will obviate a lot of the problems that arose in the past. He noted there have been no appeals in the past two years which he feels is due to the BAR being limited to a 75 day review, having good guidelines and having instituted internal procedures that have made the process much more transparent and much more fair. Mayor Umstattd noted no fees would be set at this time. She stated when fees are set, it needs to be recognized that some appellants may not have the resources to pay a lot. There were no citizens to address this public hearing. Council Member Dunn questioned whether there is a limit to how many appeals can be placed. Ms. Irby stated per State Code, only one appeal can be filed for one BAR decision. She stated someone cannot continually appeal the same decision. She stated if the appellant is not happy with the decision of the Town Council on appeal, their next course of action would be with the Circuit Court or accept the ruling of the Council. Town Council Meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 11 The public hearing was closed at 9:07 p.m. On the motion of Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council Member Butler, the following was proposed: ORDINANCE 2010-0-001 Amending Article 3 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance to Revise the Duration of Permits Issued by the Board of Architectural Review and to Revise the Appellate Standard for Town Council Review of Board of Architectural Review Decisions Council Member Wright asked for clarification of the edits that were made during the course of discussion. Mayor Umstattd clarified the motion would revise the duration of permits issued by the BAR and to revise the appellate standard for Town Council review of BAR review decisions based on the Planning Commission recommendation with the amendments that appellants should be limited to residents of the Town of Leesburg, property owners in the Town of Leesburg, business owners in the Town of Leesburg, or the applicant. She stated the Council review will be limited to issues raised on appeal. Council Member Martinez stated he had initially feared this would add a lot of work for the Council, but after the Planning Commission endorsed it, he is willing to approve it. Ms. Irby clarified there can be multiple appeals related to one BAR decision, but each party could only appeal once. Council Member Butler stated the Planning Commission did a very good job of taking a difficult issue and coming up with language on which they could agree. He stated their work added a tremendous amount of value to the process. He stated he did share Council Member Martinez' concerns that this would increase the number of appeals to Council. He stated the primary driver for this amendment was to preserve the historic district but he is concerned that this will have the opposite effect since Council's primary concern is not for the historic district, but for economic concerns and the tax base. Council Member Wright stated his concern with the de novo review was there would be an entirely new hearing, but he is a little more comfortable with the proposed language. He stated while the Council will "have all the powers of the BAR", they will not have all the experience with the guidelines so this will place a fair burden on Council to bring themselves up to speed on the guidelines. He stated the pros of this amendment are that it gives a clearer outline of the appeal standard and the process. He commended the Planning Commission on their efforts to come up with language that preserves the BAR authority, yet gives the applicant fair recourse. Vice Mayor Hammier stated she appreciates all the hard work done by the Planning Commission. She stated the Council has to balance preserving the historic nature of the downtown with the economic concerns of the business owners. Town Council Meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 12 Council Member Reid also praised the Planning Commission for devising an excellent compromise on the de novo review and specifically singled out Commissioner Kidder for her stewardship. He also stated staff devised an excellent COA extension rule, which he said all applicants should appreciate. Council Member Dunn also commended the Planning Commission and BAR for their efforts with regards to this amendment. He stated the BAR should not look at this as something that weakens their position, but strengthens it. He stated applicants who are looking to skirt the BAR process will be sniffed out. He stated he does not feel that this will increase the number of BAR appeals but gives the opportunity for Council to show it supports the BAR and their decisions. He stated the purpose of the BAR is not to stymie development, but to support historic preservation. Mayor Umstattd stated she is pleased with this amendment and impressed with the Planning Commission's effort. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor Umstattd Nay: None Vote: 7-0 11. ORDINANCES a. None 12. RESOLUTIONS ~_ a. Downtown Improvements Design CIP Contract On the motion of Council Member Wright, seconded by Council Member Butler, the following was proposed: RESOLUTION 2010-006 Awarding the Planning and Design Services Contract for the Downtown Improvements Project to AECOM Council Member Wright stated he was glad to see this project moving forward . Council Member Reid questioned whether the utilities would be undergrounded as the power poles are a hindrance. He suggested rerouting/rewiring a few blocks as a lesser expensive alternative. Mr. Wells stated that nothing is specifically included or excluded. He stated funding for undergrounding was not included in the preliminary estimates for the project. He stated if stakeholders express an interest in this, the design consultants will definitely look at it, but will also be mindful of the overall capital project budget cost. Vice Mayor Hammler stated she would be supporting this resolution. She stated she appreciated Mr. Burnett's comments, particularly seeking national recognition as this will really set us apart from any other main street around the country. Town Council Meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 13 Council Member Dunn questioned the timeframe for the design to be completed. He encouraged moving this forward as quickly as possible. ~--- Mr. Parker stated there will be a kick off meeting with the consultant next week. He stated nothing is in stone at this point, but there will be a check in with the Council this summer. He stated they still need to schedule stakeholder meetings to identify priorities. levels. Council Member Dunn requested timelines based on various funding Mayor Umstattd stated she has doubts about the expenditure of these funds. She stated she has to respect the majority of Council's support for this project. She stated this will be a major beautification of the downtown; however, she does not feel it is the same level of priority as pressing issues elsewhere in the Town. She expressed concern with the loss of on-street parking. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammier, Martinez, Reid, and Wright Nay: Mayor Umstattd Vote : 6-1 b. Boards and Commissions Project Initiatives On the motion of Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council Member Butler, the following was proposed: RESOLUTION 2010-008 __._. Approving the Transfer of Funds Budgeted in the Town Council's FY 2010 Adopted Operating Budget for Project Initiatives Submitted by Town Boards and Commissions Council Member Martinez questioned whether all the Boards and Commissions were made aware that they would need to requests funding of special projects. Bob Berkey stated an application packet was distributed to all the Boards and Commissions with ample time to receive requests. Council Member Butler stated he fully supports the requests. Council Member Wright questioned the BAR project expense. Annie MacDonald stated she put the BAR application together. She stated the $4,000 was based on the best estimate at the time the application was submitted in November. She stated she attended a Traditional Building Conference and saw an extraordinary presentation that is similar in nature to the one they are proposing. She stated this is a hands on presentation with large materials so the travel expenses for the speaker will be high. She stated the variable is they do not know who the speaker will be. She stated they anticipate a facility rental because they would like to have this in the Old and Historic District but this will be dependent on funding. She stated a similar workshop held in Roanoke charged attendees $125 each to attend but the Town Council Meeting of January 122010 Page 14 BAR's intent is to make this free of charge for property owners to gain knowledge. Vice Mayor Hammler stated this is a detailed discussion and made a friendly amendment to table the BAR request. The amendment was not accepted by Council Member Martinez. Vice Mayor Hammler made a motion to amend the resolution to eliminate the BAR request and defer discussion. The motion was seconded by Council Member Wright with the understanding that this will be followed up at the next meeting. The motion delete the BAR request and defer discussion on this request to the next meeting was approved by the following vote: Aye: Hammler, Reid, Wright and Mayor Umstattd Nay: Butler, Dunn, and Martinez Vote: 4-3 Council Member Wright stated for the record, it has been explained to him the EAC's rain barrel program is fundamentally the same program they have had in the past. Vice Mayor Hammler questioned why the EAC would need to fund recycling containers. She stated she looks forward to materials from the forum the Thomas Balch commissioner will be attending. She noted she would like to keep track of the tree seedlings with respect to the goal of 3,700 trees being planted annually. Council Member Dunn agreed with the question about why the EAC had to fund a recycling container at a park. He questioned how the EAC could extend the rain barrel incentive program if they run out of funds. Ms. Law stated it would be excellent if they ran out of funds but she hoped to see this program become more institutionalized as a line item in the Council's budget rather than having the EAC make annual funding requests. Council Member Dunn questioned why the Town, as hosts of the Flower and Garden Festival, could not give space to the Boards and Commissions. Mr. Wells stated there is a cost to having a space at the Festival, but he will work with the Parks Department and the various Boards and Commissions to come up with a possible way to provide a Town services area. Mayor Umstattd clarified the motion before the Council would remove the BAR request and amend the amount to be transferred to reflect deletion of the BAR request. Council Member Wright questioned whether it is Council's intent to fully fund the Boards and Commissions requests, as amended this would leave $480 less than what the BAR is requesting. Council Member Martinez expressed his disagreement with arguing over funding for the requests by Boards and Commission that were appointed by Town Council Meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 15 Council. He stated it is an insult to the Boards and Commissions to second guess them. It was the consensus of Council to fully fund the requests tonight and deal with the shortage at the next meeting when dealing with the BAR request. The amended motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammier, Martinez, Reid, Wright, and Mayor Umstattd Nay: None Vote: 7-0 13. OLD BUSINESS a. Discussion of Utility Department Auditor/Selection Process Council Member Dunn stated he had brought up the subject of this audit because he wanted more information on the selection process with regards to this audit. Norm Butts stated that last July, an RFP was issued which was advertised in the Loudoun Times Mirror, posted on the Town's website, and the state bid board - EVA. He stated they received 6,545 emails of interest which resulted in 18 written proposals received on August 10, 2009. He stated an evaluation team comprised of the Town Manager, the Directors of Finance and Public Works, and Scott Parker reviewed the 18 proposals. He stated four companies were called for interviews which were held in August. He stated they entered into negotiations at the end of August and a contract was signed on September 3 with MAI for the performance audit. He stated the evaluation team had five criteria which they considered: 1. Past experience of the firm. 2. Qualifications of the firm with particular emphasis on the individuals that would be involved with the audit. 3. Reputation of the firm. 4. Completeness and quality of the submission. 5. Cost. He stated each member of the evaluation team ranked the firms and the four top scorers were invited for interviews. He stated the RFP was put together with the understanding that Council wanted a performance audit. He stated that staff used the Yellow Book (Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States) standards with respect to performance audits. He stated no one from the Utility Department was on the selection team to avoid any perceived bias in the evaluation. Council Member Dunn stated analysis of the cost was not a part of the consideration for the audit despite the fact that several Council Members were stressing costs with regards to rates. Mr. Butts stated his disagreement with this statement as the RFP discussed efficiency, effectiveness, cost and comparative issues. Council Member Dunn questioned why no cost or risk analysis was involved in the presentation by the auditors. He expressed a desire for a Town Council Meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 16 greater emphasis on that point. He questioned whether any of the 18 firms that answered the RFP had experience with utility audits. --- Mr. Butts stated the RFP asked for a performance audit in accordance with Yellow Book standards. He stated he does not recall whether any of the other candidates had experience with utility departments, but he did audits for 14 years as part of the State Auditor's Office in New Hampshire and as Inspector General in Montgomery County. He stated people who do performance audits understand the nature of performance audits and how to go into any operation, regardless of the nature of the business, and assess the performance. He stated a firm that is qualified to do Yellow Book Standards performance audits could do an audit of any program. He stated the firms that applied were well qualified in any area. Mr. Wells stated he will forward to Council the specific scope of services that was reviewed. He stated there are 22 specific questions to be evaluated during the course of the project. He stated this also identifies items to be included in the final report. He stated cost, efficiency, and effectiveness were all integral parts of what was reviewed and reported on. He stated a risk analysis was not performed, but the steps prior to that spoke directly to what the Council asked for, specifically concerns about inefficiencies and waste in the operation. Council Member Dunn stated he was discouraged with the selection of this company as they had never done a utility audit. Mr. Butts stated his disagreement with this statement. He stated the ____ selection of MAI was made because the professionals on the team did a lot of work for the military and it was the selection team's feeling the work was comparable to the systems of a small city or municipality. Council Member Dunn stated while the utility department may be as good as the auditor states, since the Town was their first utility audit, we would be the best one they had seen. Council Member Martinez stated that business practices are business practices regardless of where they are performed. He stated he does not appreciate using the water department as a scapegoat. Council Member Reid agreed with Council Member Martinez and agreed with his statements about quibbling over $10,000 for Boards and Commissions' requests, as well. He stated the reality is if the Utility Department was a business, it would be cutting staff and making choices. He stated the audit did not give Council much to work with. Council Member Butler clarified the bottom line is the utility department is efficient and there is no chance to reduce expenses there. He stated the budget problems were caused by Council actions over the last 20 years. He stated cutting staff to solve the problem is an abrogation of responsibility. He noted if this was a business, Council could not just cut staff because there is a minimum number of legally required staff to do the job. He questioned whether users of the water system would want to potentially sacrifice water quality and safety for lowering water rates. Town Council Meeting of January 124 2010 Page 17 Council Member Martinez stated he is concerned about making sure the water and sewer departments are doing a good job at providing for the public health. He stated anything less would be detrimental to the residents. Council Member Wright questioned how this subjected ended up on the agenda as the discussion is more suited for a work session. He stated the fact is the Town has a very efficient operation. He stated the key points that impede profitability are 1) the rates were not raised for 20 years; and 2) a large amount of growing debt service without customer base growth because of the economy. He stated it is easy to point the finger at the Council that made the decision to expand the wastewater plant as in hindsight, the plant should not have been expanded, but at the time the growth projections required the expansion. He stated cutting staff may make it impossible to make State's unfunded mandate requirements for public safety. Council Member Dunn stated his point in bringing this up was he wished the Town had selected a company with specific experience in utility audits. He stated it is easy for those who supported rate increases to support this audit because it backs up their view. Mr. Wells stated having been on the selection panel, he would disagree that the firm was not qualified to do the report or the characterization that they were not qualified to do utility audits. He stated Item H in the RFP speaks to cost directly - °are staffing levels and workload demands in balance? Is the staff sized directly based on our service level objectives?". Mayor Umstattd stated the audit indicated that the Town is __._ understaffed and need to add staff in the Utility department. Vice Mayor Hammier stated her understanding of Old Business is that it is actually action oriented during a Council Meeting. 14. NEW BUSINESS a. None 15. COUNCIL COMMENTS There were no Council comments. 16. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Umstattd had no comments. 17. MANAGER'S COMMENTS Mr. Wells had no comments. 18. CLOSED SESSION a. Town Manager's Evaluation Council Member Martinez made the following motion: Pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(1) of the Code of Virginia, I move that the Leesburg Town Council convene in a closed meeting to discuss a personnel matter regarding the Town Manager's evaluation. Town Council Meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 18 The motion was seconded by Council Member Butler and approved by the following vote: Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor Umstattd ..--.- Nay: None Vote: 7-0 Mayor Umstattd made the following motion: In accordance with Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia, I move that Council certify that to the best of each member's knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and such public business matters as were identified in the motion by which the closed meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered in the meeting by Council. The meeting was seconded by Council Member Wright and approved by the following vote: Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor Umstattd Nay: None Vote: 7-0 19. ADJOURNMENT On a motion by Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council Member Butler, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Clerk of Co I 2010 tcmin0112 ~ ~t C. U stattd, Mayor Town of Leesburg