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