Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2009_tcwsmin0713 Council Work Session July 13, 2009 Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:30 p.m. Mayor Umstattd presiding. Council Members Present: David S. Butler, Thomas Dunn, II, Katie Sheldon Hammier, Ken Reid, Kevin Wright and Mayor Kristen Umstattd Council Members Absent: Council Member Martinez absent Staff Present: Town Manager John Wells, Town Attorney Jeanette Irby, Chief of Police Joe Price, Police Captain Jeff VanGilder, Director of Public Works Tom Mason, Director of Utilities Randy Shoemaker, Director of Finance Norm Butts, Economic Development Manager Marantha Edwards, and Management Specialist Deborah Parry AGENDA ITEMS 1. Work Session Items for Discussion: a. Public Safety Briefing Chief Price provided a presentation to Council regarding the events of Friday, July 10 beginning with the attempted robbery of The Other Kind of Jewelry Store at 11: 27 a.m. and ending with the suspect's surrender to police on Valley View Avenue at 9:90 p.m. Chief Price stated the Loudoun County Sheriff's Office, Virginia State Police, Fairfax County Police, Leesburg Police Citizens Support Team, U.S. Customs, Loudoun County Mental Health, Loudoun County Fire & Rescue & OEM, the Red Cross and Loudoun County Public Schools all supported the Leesburg Police Department. He stated two individuals have been arrested in connection with the events of the day and that the investigation is continuing. Further, he stated a complete debrief of the tactical operation will be done for all involved to identify and implement procedural/training enhancements needed as well as a list of equipment shortfalls. Chief Price stated he has also established a Core Business Officer (CBO) program to enhance the sense of security in the downtown/core business/retail areas. He stated this program includes the deployment of officers into core business areas of the community during primary business/retail hours of Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. He stated the initial plan created a special 90 day overtime fund of $50,000 to cover the costs of 80 hours of deployment for 12 weeks in the downtown and Catoctin Circle business areas. He stated the long term plan is for the emergency hire of two additional officers by November 1 at a cost of $180,000. Further, he stated the community take aways from Friday, July 10, 2009 are (1) Leesburg is vulnerable to violent crime, (2) Leesburg Police and its partners are trained and capable of dealing with critical incidents to secure our community, and (3) vigilance, awareness and community involvement are our best defenses against crime. Council thanked Chief Price for his initiative. They verified that the two additional officers are above what was originally budgeted and that the officers in the CBO program would be visible traveling at different times on bicycle, vehicle and foot. Further, Council thanked Chief Price and his officers for their efforts on July 10 as well as all of the other partner organizations who assisted. Town Council Work Session of July 13. 2009 Page 2 There was Council discussion regarding the police perimeter established on July 10 as well as the current status of the victims in the homes on Royal Street and Valley View Avenue. There was also discussion of the need for additional police officers and grant funding, the possibility of surveillance cameras in the downtown and needed improvements in the way that Council and the community are notified of similar events in the future. Supervisor Stevens Miller, Loudoun County Board of Supervisors Dulles District Representative, thanked Vice Mayor Hammier for her remarks on the County's contribution to this effort. He stated he was at the Command Center on July 10 from 4:00 p.m. through the end of the hostage situation and felt he benefited from being able to learn about some of the technological assets deployed. He stated there were at least five uniformed agencies on site in large numbers and there was a tremendous sense of professionalism and calm attentiveness. He stated he was very proud of everyone involved and he hopes there will be a post event analysis where the Sherriff's office can participate. Further, he stated he will extend an invitation to the Town to work cooperatively to see what can be done in the future to make these incidents run even better. Mayor Umstattd shared various comments received from the community the next morning stating they were impressed with the professionalism of the Leesburg Police Department. Further, she thanked the community for their efforts to assist the officers. b. Incubator Follow Up and Next Steps Mr. Wells introduced Keith Segerson and distributed answers to questions that were previously asked by Council. He stated following Council's last discussion with Mr. Segerson, he has met with the Loudoun County Economic Development Committee and the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors where he found a high level of interest. He stated there is further work needed before a financial contribution can be made; however, the Board has asked to be kept updated as work continues. Council thanked Mr. Segerson for his presentation to the Loudoun County Economic Development Committee and the possibility of working cooperatively with the County. Mr. Wells stated next step include identifying potential locations through the issuance of an RFI to allow us to determine the range of costs. Council discussed the positive reactions from the stakeholders and support for the next step of issuing the RFI. There was discussion of the co-location issue and the options of locating in eastern Loudoun versus Leesburg. Mr. Segerson stated the Loudoun County Economic Development Commission has put forward a motion to support this effort and steps to move forward. There was Council discussion of the contributions made by the City of Fairfax to the incubator including a $25,000 yearly contribution and the need to work cooperatively with Loudoun County to offset the costs for the Town of Leesburg. Further, there was discussion of the possibility of having two incubators in Loudoun County. Town Council Work Session of July 13. 2009 Page 3 Mr. Segerson stated there is the possibility of having two incubators in Loudoun County; however, he would want to start with one. He stated the one of the advantages of starting in Leesburg is that the County and Town governments are both located here. Council asked for notification of when the County Economic Development Committee will discuss this issue in September. It was the consensus of Council to proceed with the RFI, which does not limit the proposals to downtown. Mr. Segerson stated he was approached by a company who provides high speed internet and was interested in installing this at little or no cost to the incubator. He stated their goal is to be self sufficient; however, the other locations do get a small amount of input. He stated the Manassas provides a small forgiveness on taxes and Fairfax contributes $25,000. He stated there has to be a close relationship with the Town of Leesburg and the Economic Development staff so that as businesses reach maturation they will stay in Leesburg. c. Water Rates Background Information Jeanette Irby introduced the Town's consultants from Draper Aden Associates Tom Cox and Cheryl Stevens, and our subcontractor consultant, Mr. Myron Olstein. Jeanette Irby provided a legal update outlining the concurrent tracks the Town is pursuing on this issue including the appellate track and the rate adjustment track. She stated the court stayed the implementation of the order until September 1, 2009. She stated Council will hold a work session on July 27 receive more detail on the rates and utility fund. Further, she stated the first public input session will be held on July 28 to hear from the public and receive direction from Council as to the advertisement for the actual public hearing scheduled for August 11 to set the rates and amend Chapter 34 of the Town Code to be effective September 1. Mr. Tom Cox outlined the overall rate setting policies including the recommendation that Council establish a rate stabilization fund and rate study requirements including the net revenue requirements of $15,207,597 for FY 2010. He stated the judge has required that the out-of-town rates be set using a utility approach and outlined the difference between the cash-needs revenue requirement approach and the utility approach. Further, he outlined the proposed changes to the cost of service including modifying the quarterly fixed charge table to reflect American Water Works Association (AWWA) guidance, adjusting the quarterly fixed charge to reflect estimated meter and billing costs, changing the sewer billing basis to water use to reflect more common usage and having the excess use surcharge reflect the peaking factor to change from 35 percent to 45 percent. Mr. Myron Olstein outlined some of the different elements that could be involved in addressing the out-of-town utility rates. He discussed payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) stating the utility occupies land on an untaxed basis and if the Town charged a payment in lieu of taxes for this land the out-of-town share would be $58,700 on the low end and $342,080 on the high end or 2.3-13.4 percent of the consumption base charge. He stated in the last bond issue the Town put up a General Obligation pledge and outlined the variety of costs that Town Council Work Session of July 13. 2009 Page 4 could be attributable to that pledge. He discussed franchise fees of which the out of Town share would be 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent and fire service, which in Leesburg is included in the utility cost. He outlined owner's risk and industry recommendations for compensating owners for owner's risk resulting in out of town contributions of 136.8 - 225.6 percent for water and 266 - 445 percent for sewer. He stated because out-of- town customers are such a low percentage of total usage, the ability to lower in- town rate by increasing out-of-town rates is limited. In summary, to compensate for owner's risk in the utility rate method out of town rates would be established to recover interest costs, depreciation and return on rate base; whereas, those costs would be debt service. He stated taking into account the elements that go into calculating owner's risk, the excess of utility method over cash needs method for water is 40 percent and higher and 100 percent and higher for sewer. He stated since out of town usage is just 20 percent of the overall out-of-town water usage the 40 percent excess is approximately a 50 percent differential. Further, he stated the 100 percent excess for sewer is approximately a 120 percent differential. Vice Mayor Hammier stated she is looking forward to the public hearings. Council Member Wright stated the importance of getting the fiscal policies in place for the Utility Fund. He asked that the information provided to Council be posted on the website for public access. He stated as we are looking at the Town building-out to capacity and the fall-off of availability fees we need to start assessing a capital replacement fund or some other source of capital dollars to pay for the growth or expansion of the plants. Mr. Olstein stated the availability fees are set to recover the growth related capital costs based on a growth forecast. He stated theoretically if the availability fees fall short the rates will have to be increased, which is another element of owner's risk. He stated five years ago it was recommended that Council implement a repair, replacement and rehabilitation reserve and hopefully it is set at a good enough level to cover expenses. Council Member Wright stated in the past the connection fees, which were to be set aside to pay for growth were used to keep the utility rates low. He stated that has not happened in recent history and we need to make sure it does not repeat. He stated the Town is under court order to use the utility approach to setting rates; however, we are under bond order to use the cash-needs approach to ensure we are fulfilling our bond covenants. Mr. Cox stated they calculated the utility approach to determine out-of-town rates and whatever revenue is generated through these rates is deducted from the cash-needs analysis. He stated overall the utility is still operating on a cash- needs basis as is required by the bond covenants. Council Member Wright verified this method of calculation is not disproportionate to the out-of-town water users. Mr. Cox stated everything Mr. Olstein did as part of his analysis is divided on an units of service basis. Town Council Work Session of Julv 13. 2009 Page 5 Mayor Umstattd stated looking at the summary of Mr. Olstein's presentation it looks like if we use the utility method we will receive more revenue from the out-of-town customers than we have received using the cash-needs method. She stated so theoretically going to the utility method as was court ordered accomplishes the opposite of what the out-of-town customers had hoped and perhaps what the judge thought he was doing. She stated it seems the in-town customers will be better off theoretically because we will receive more revenue from the out-of-town customers. Mr. Olstein stated if you review the cost elements the difference between 2006 and now is that the depreciation has doubled. He stated on a cash basis you would hardly notice the difference because you are paying debt service. He stated this is one of the by-products of the utility method and why most utilities do not calculate their rates this way. Council Member Wright questioned if we solely calculated the rates on the cash-needs basis, determined the base rate and then reviewed the owner's risk would that take us to a different rate, or would it be similar. Mr. Olstein stated the bulk of what is charged to the out-of-town customers still remains as the business cost component. He stated instead of using a number of reasons for coming up with a value for that risk you are using the utility method, which is a proxy for risk. Council Member Wright stated the utility rate method provides a more solid calculation as opposed to a method that might appear more subjective. He asked for clarification on some of the range in percentages that created the summary table. Mr. Olstein stated part of the reason is that for some of the elements is that in looking at the system he noticed there is no PILOT or franchise fee and he thought it would be worthwhile to know what that is and to attach numbers to it. He stated the purpose is to provide Council with calculated numbers to determine what is best for the Town of Leesburg within the range. He stated the sewer system is the bulk of the utility costs so he went with the low end of the range there; however, this is just to provide guidance. Mr. Cox stated owner's risk is reflected in return on rate which shows up in the excess of the utility method over the cash-needs method. Council Member Wright stated when we discuss the cost of owner's risk currently the costs are all borne by the Utility Fund as there is no tax contri bution. Council Member Butler stated this shows the problem with the conclusions that the Court found in that the utility method is more complex, and seems to be less sustainable than a cash-needs method. He asked how many other Virginia municipalities use the utility method. Mr. Cox stated none that he knows of. He stated there are plenty of municipalities with differentials or surcharges set by councils or boards of supervisors and are normally straight, clean numbers between 50 and 200 Town Council Work Session of July 13. 2009 Page 6 percent. He stated he does not know of any other localities in Virginia who have had to litigate over the issue. Council Member Butler verified the utility method is only being used because of the court's ruling. He asked hypothetically if the Supreme Court rules in the Town's favor would we no longer have to use the utility method. Ms. Irby stated presumably Council would then have the legislative authority to set the rate as Council pleases as long as it is not arbitrary or capricious and fair, equitable, practicable and reasonable. Council Member Butler stated the rates we set in September then could be a short-term decision based on the ruling of the Supreme Court. He expressed concern that users with very large meters may have their cost subsidized by smaller users such as homeowners. He encouraged the large ranges laid out in the presentation stating as a Council we need to not look just at the short-term, but long-term at the business impact considering our excess capacity. Council Member Reid concurred with Council Member Butler's statement that we have to take a business view in this; however, this has not been run like a business as the plant was expanded when Council was mostly against extending water anywhere outside the Town except for a high school. He verified the summary provided by Mr. Olstein that the excess in utility method over cash- needs method equates to 50 percent surcharge for water and 120 percent surcharge for sewer. He asked what the in-town increase would be. Mr. Wells stated when the previous study was done the initial numbers we were looking at before discussion of increasing the surcharge was 35 to 40 percent. Council Member Reid stated there is a feeling out there that the out-of-town surcharge increase was meant to keep the in-town rates low; however, in reality the in-town rate has increased 38 percent over a four year period. Mr. Wells stated those rates were never implemented. Council Member Reid asked the increase of the in-town rates over the four year period. Randy Shoemaker stated the increases that were approved were 7 percent, 7 percent, 4 percent, 3 percent and 3 percent. Council Member Reid stated that equates to a 21 percent increase over four years. Council Member Butler stated it would be higher than that if you compound the interest. Council Member Reid asked if the numbers provided are in the cash needs method or the excess of utility method. Mr. Olstein stated he calculated both and in the case of the utility method, two different methods were used giving the low end and high end. He stated Town Council Work Session of July 13, 2009 Page 7 the summary chart provides the excess utility method over the cash needs method. Council Member Reid asked if the expense side of the report will only provide numbers for chemicals, and electrical costs, etc. Mr. Wells stated there are two reviews that will be conducted on expenses. He stated Council directed a management audit on operations that is scheduled for completion in December, which is when we hoped to have the entire review of rates done. He stated given the limited time we have been able to identify O&M line items which are utilities and chemicals. He stated that review will be done by August 5th. Council Member Reid stated so we will not have the audit of the salaries and benefits, which is the major expenditure of the department until December and will have to enact different rates without knowing the full expenditures of the department. He stated it is not just the revenue, but it is also the expenditures. He stated he is very concerned about this; however, he understands we are under a tight timeline. Council Member Wright stated we will not have the management study and recommended changes prior to December, but we know our costs including what is budgeted. Mr. Olstein stated last year he calculated three benchmarks based on O&M costs and in all three Leesburg was better than median. He stated he is confident that the operating costs will not come out as being particularly high. Council Member Reid stated we have a problem with not selling all of this excess capacity. He stated we have expenditures and we are still in the hole. He stated Mr. Olstein mentioned in his briefing that getting rid of some of the capital expenditures could be a way of also reducing our costs. He stated we approved the CIP with a number of capital expenditures, some of which he thought were questionable. He stated he hopes that Council will look at those as well. He stated we know the expenditures; however, will we have to have the political will to do something about it for the in-town and out-of-town customers. Further, he stated there is also the availability fees which he believes are hindering the ability of restaurants and other water intensive establishments from locating in Leesburg. Council Member Dunn stated he has felt from the beginning that he would find it hard to vote for a rate increase for anybody without first looking at cost- cutting measures. He stated he finds it hard to believe that our current management does not have an idea of where cost savings can be found. Mr. Wells stated Council directed that the audit be done by a third party. He stated he is not saying that staff could not identify cost saving measures; however, Council directed that it be done by a third party. Council Member Dunn stated he would be interested in where staff would consider cutting costs. Town Council Work Session of July 13. 2009 Page 8 Mr. Wells stated the budget Council recently adopted reduced the number of positions in the Utility Department compared to what was originally presented. He stated he believes we have reduced five to seven positions over the past four years. Council Member Dunn stated Mr. Cox mentioned inadequacies in winter uses versus other uses. Mr. Cox stated what he noticed was the differences in the peaks between in- town and out-of-town customers. He stated the difference was much more dramatic in the out-of-town rates. He stated a winter basis billing tended to favor the out-of-town customers much more so than in-town customers. He stated the majority of utilities surveyed used total usage as opposed to winter quarter usage. Mr. Olstein stated the other factor is that the winter quarter is not the minimum flow into the WPCF. Council Member Dunn verified the Draper Aden study did not go into cost savings measures, did not look at ways to attract additional customers, nor did it consider working with Loudoun County to create a water authority. He stated these are things that we need to also consider in our discussions. Mr. Wells stated Draper Aden Associates were charged solely with reviewing the rates. Council Member Dunn stated we need to look for additional customers and therefore there may be a need to look at a joint relationship with the County. Mayor Umstattd stated the summary table appears to show that Council could end up charging higher rates to out-of-town customers than are currently being charged and this would be entirely justified. She stated we have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the owners of the system when it comes to owner's risk which shows a range of out-of-town differentials for water and sewer from 101 percent to 250 percent. She stated it seems the out-of-town surcharge has to be at least 100 percent to meet our fiduciary responsibility. Further, she stated we also have a court decision which looks like it requires the Town Manager to do this. Council Member Wright asked if the owner's risk number were incorporated as the overall utility rate method was calculated. Mr. Olstein stated the ratios on the owner's risk page shows the utility rate amount divided by cash basis. The reason the low end numbers are shown on the summary is to allow for more room for the rate setting. Ms. Irby stated she needs direction on what Council would like to advertise at tomorrow night's meeting. Mr. Wells stated as was mentioned earlier the cost of providing service has increased from FY 2006 to now by 15 percent. He stated to cover this increase, the in-town water rates would need to raise 36 percent and the sewer rates would need to increase by 44 percent in one year. He stated that is not terribly Town Council Work Session of July 13. 2009 Paoe 9 different than what we faced four years ago when Council looked at a phased-in approach. He stated out-of-town water rates would need to change by 10 percent for water and 60 percent for sewer. He stated the fixed charge would be 16 percent for all customers. Further, he stated Council may want to provide direction at some point about phasing this out over a multi-year period. Vice Mayor Hammier stated ultimately the important point is that there is analysis and to the extent that there are conclusions to be drawn providing specific recommendations based on that analysis would be very helpful. There was further Council conversation about the information to be reviewed in providing direction for the public hearing advertisement. Ms. Irby stated the purpose of this public hearing is to solicit input; however, the advertisement for the August public hearing will have to be much more specific. Council Member Wright stated the requirement for the rate increase is to balance the fund and also to meet bond covenants and other performance obligations we are required to meet, which is why we needed to do a rate study to begin with. He stated he would like to look for a recommendation on how to spread this out, but not spread it out so far that at the end of it we are required to do another large increase. Further, he stated it needs to be made clear in the ad that there will be increases to the in-town users regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court case. Vice Mayor Hammier stated at the Virginia Municipal League Conference last year there was unanimous support for a policy statement that towns have the full authority to set their water rates. She stated the specific information relative to other municipality's shows our out-of-town rates are significantly lower than their in-town rates in some cases and suggested that the information be posted on the Town's website. There was further discussion regarding the need to include percentages in the advertisement for the July 28 public hearing. Council Member Reid expressed concern with the 36 percent water rate and 44 percent sewer increases needed for in-town customers. He stated it would make sense to look at large expenditures before the August public hearing. Council Member Dunn stated Mr. Wells mentioned that we have reduced utility personnel by four positions in the last four years. He stated we need to take in the near future that calls for drastic measures. He stated he will not support increasing rates; however, before we can move forward we need to have cost saving information from our staff. Vice Mayor Hammier stated there are a large number of fixed costs. Council Member Reid stated perhaps we will have to look at personnel cuts. Council Member Dunn stated it should at least be part of the discussion. Town Council Work Session of July 13. 2009 Page 10 Council Member Wright stated he does not mind having the conversation; however, he does not want people to pin false hopes that there might be some kind of magic bullet that can keep the rates the same. Ms. Irby stated this case was extensively litigated and neither the expert for the complainants nor our expert found that the system is being mismanaged. She stated Mr. Olstein created benchmarks and in his analysis has not found any obvious cuts that will save a significant amount between now and December. Council Member Reid stated suggested looking at canceling some of the capital projects we have in the utility system. He questioned what benefit they will provide in terms of customers or additional revenue. He asked if any revenue projections from some of the development projects coming online will be included in the audit. Mr. Wells stated any discussion of rates will also include a discussion of the potential growth of the system including revenue projections. Council Member Dunn stated it is not necessary to include a potential rate in this ad to encourage people to come. He stated he would like staff to examine what costs can be cut in the Utility Department to keep us from having to increase the rates. He stated part of the reason we have moved forward in fighting this decision is that the courts should not be legislating from the bench. Council Member Wright stated Council is trying to establish rates that are fair and reasonable, which is why we moved forward with the rate study. He stated he shares concerns about the large anticipated increase in utility rates and expressed the need to be cautious about thinking there is a silver bullet out there, as a lot of the reason for the increase in costs are mandated requirements. He stated there are things we can do to cut costs; however, he believes Council will find that there are not many optional costs to be cut. Council Member Dunn stated we have a large amount of available commercial space in Town and can use our resources to get the highest utility paying businesses into our coffers such as restaurants. It was the consensus of Council to provide direction for the August 28 public hearing advertisement to Ms. Irby at tomorrow night's meeting. d. Bond Financing Norm Butts stated the issue before Council is whether to borrow $54 million to fund the Capital Improvements program over the next five years. He stated in 2010 we have an approximate total of $19.5 million, $9.5 million in 2011 and $23 million for the final three years of the program. He stated the sale could be done by starting with $30 million followed by a sale at a later date for the rest of the funds needed. He stated approval of the bond sale is needed by October 13. Mr. Wells stated the reason for the compressed schedule is to capitalize on the current market conditions. He stated if we wait there could be significant implications on the interest rates. Mr. Butts stated there is also the possibility of doing $7 million in refunding and the sooner we can move forward, the greater the potential for refunding. Town Council Work Session of July 13. 2009 Page 11 Mr. Wells stated staff can wait two weeks for a decision on Council's direction for this item. Council Member Wright stated he would like to see a cost benefit analysis on the acceleration of the borrowing. Mr. Butts stated if we only borrowed the $20 million needed in year one and waited to borrow an additional $10 million, it would save us approximately $800,000 in debt service in one year. He stated there would be additional costs of issuance, but it would not add up to $800,000. He stated waiting to borrow the additional $10 million could result in an interest rate increase. Council Member Reid stated he would like to move forward with the projects in the General Fund and Airport Fund; however, he would like to have a discussion of projects in the Utilities Fund before moving forward. Council Member Dunn stated he would also want to know the impact on the tax rate of borrowing funds this far in advance. Mayor Umstattd stated since we are hiring additional police officers we need to identify funding for those yearly expenses, in addition to the yearly debt service payments. She stated she does not think the downtown improvements are as critical as our public safety needs. e. Changes to the Holidays in Leesburg Program This item was deferred to the July 14 Council Meeting. f. PATH Powerline Information This item was deferred to the July 14 Council Meeting. g. Flag Display Update This item was deferred to the July 14 Council Meeting. 2. Additions to Future Council Meetings a. Mr. Wells asked if Council has any questions on the item for tomorrow night's agenda regarding the fee waiver for Dog Days. Mr. Wright stated the Leesburg Downtown Business Association (LDBA) is willing to pay the $250 cost for the police officers so therefore, the resolution should be amended to deduct that amount from the fee waiver request. He verified this action would not set a precedent. Mayor Umstattd verified this would be a fee waiver of $2,000 and stated she would be voting in favor of this request. Lisa James, Old Country Peddler, stated last year the LDBA did not do an official estimate for the Dog Days event last year; however, the crowd was estimated to be between 1,500 and 2,000. She stated they are hoping more advertising this year will increase the crowd. b. Council Member Reid stated the Valley View resolution scheduled for a vote Town Council Work Session of July 13, 2009 Paqe 12 tomorrow night only includes curb, gutter and sidewalks; however, the community also would like either a traffic light or other safety improvements at the intersection of Valley View Avenue and Davis Avenue to handle traffic if the barricades are lifted. He asked for Council's consent to add "and a traffic light or other safety improvements Valley View and Davis Avenues as warranted." to the resolution. Mayor Umstattd stated she and Vice Mayor Hammier have discussed an amendment to say the barricade will not be lifted from Valley View Avenue unless additional action is taken by Council at a future date as the sentiment of the community seems to be to not open the street. Council Member Wright stated if that is the direction that the majority of Council would like to move in then we need to determine the implications, if any, to the by-right development which is scheduled to provide frontage improvements to Valley View Avenue with the assumption that the street would be opened. Vice Mayor Hammier questioned the timing of this resolution. Mr. Wells stated the residents raised the issue at the Standing Residential Traffic Committee meeting. Kaj Dentler stated several months ago when the proposed development became known to the community the residents came forward to the Standing Residential Traffic Committee with concerns regarding the barricade. He stated staff evaluated the situation and the project was assigned to the Committee and there was a request from the citizens to leave the barricade in place or make certain improvements before it is removed. Council Member Reid stated he was simply providing additional language based on the discussion at the Standing Residential Traffic Committee; however, the Mayor may have new information from the community given her visit there over the weekend. There was Council discussion regarding the intersection of Davis Avenue and Valley View Avenue as well as the timing of the resolution. There was also further discussion of the possibility of tabling this resolution tomorrow night. Adjournment On a motion by Council Member Wright, seconded by Vice Mayor Hammier, the meeting was adjourned at 11:06 p.m. cI1j Clerk of Council 2009_tcwsmin0713