HomeMy Public PortalAbout2010_tcwsmin1025Council Work Session
October 25, 2010
Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:30 p.m. Mayor Kristen Umstattd
presiding.
Council Members Present: David S. Butler, Thomas S. Dunn, II, Katie Sheldon
Hammler, Ken Reid, Kevin Wright and Mayor Kristen Umstattd.
Council Members Absent: Marty Martinez. Council Member Dunn arrived at 8
p.m., Vice Mayor Wright left at 10:37 p.m.
Staff Present: Town Manager John Wells, Town Attorney Jeanette Irby, Deputy
Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Director of Finance Norm Butts, Deputy Director of
Utilities Aref Etemadi, Director of Planning and Zoning Susan Berry Hill, Deputy
Director of Planning and Zoning Brian Boucher, Zoning Administrator Chris
Murphy, Assistant to the Town Manager Kathleen Leidich, Director of Plan Review
Bill Adman, Deputy Zoning Administrator Wade Burkholder, Communications
Manager Betsy Fields, Senior Management Analyst Annie Carlson and Business
Retention Coordinator Debi Parry
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Work Session Items for Discussion
a. Utility Fund Analysis
Mr. Wells stated the analysis was provided in the Council packets. He
stated the town will not meet coverage ratios in terms of revenue at 125% of
debt service in FY2010 and not meet the coverage in FY2011. He stated the
most efficient way to address this would be a restructuring of the debt package
for the Utility Fund as currently the payout ratio is higher than average. He
stated a restructuring of the debt package would allow the town to have no
additional rate adjustments over what has already been approved by Council.
Vice Mayor Wright questioned when Council will begin to see tracking
reports.
Mr. Wells stated starting at the next Council meeting, staff will be
tracking budget, revenue, customer counts, and demand information on the
utility system for Council.
Vice Mayor Wright questioned whether the true operating cost and true
operating revenue are closer in FY2010 than in FY2009.
Mr. Butts stated in FY2010, the fund finished the year with revenue at
99.1% of the estimate and expenditures were at 95% of the estimate, so the
year finished with a good balance. He stated on an annual basis, the fund has
always been solid and able to pay the bills and debt service on time.
Council Member Hammler questioned what the cost to refinance will
be to the town.
11Page
Council Work Session
October 25, 2010
Mr. Butts stated there are two points to be made, one that the debt will
be paid off within the time period that it was originally borrowed and two
thirds of the $500,000 was for new money and one third was for restructuring.
Courtney Rogers of Davenport stated there are some economies of
scale by doing the restructuring now. He stated in terms of the interest costs,
rates are as low as he has seen in 20 years, so these older bonds will be
swapped out for lower interest cost bonds.
Council Member Hammier questioned the possibility of raising
connection fees. She stated that obviously there are few connection fees, but
questioned whether an increase in the fee would be considered.
Mr. Butts stated the pressure has been on the town to reduce the
availability fees as some think they are too high to begin with.
Mr. Rogers stated if the fees are higher, it pushes people and business
out of the town and then the revenues drop.
Mr. Wells stated if the town were to attempt to solve the problem by
adjusting the availability fees, there would be no guarantee it would work.
Council Member Hammler stated "in 2005, Kristen and I were fighting
not spending all this money out of the utility fund to build a brand new $10
million building. How in just a few years did we get to this point? We had all
this money...isn't that a curiosity to you
Mr. Wells stated the largest expenditure was to pay for the plant
expansions.
Council Member Butler stated it is obvious that one of two things has
occurred; either the people who did the 2009 study missed the boat or the
availability fees have not matched the estimates in the 2009 study.
Mr. Wells stated the availability fees have really fallen off with the
exception of the Village at Leesburg.
Council Member Butler questioned whether water conservation
measures taken by customers in response to the increased rates will affect the
numbers.
to do.
Mr. Butts stated it will depend on whether the customers are convinced
2IPag
Council Work Session
October 25, 2010
Council Member Reid questioned whether lowering expenses has been
looked at as a way to bring the numbers into line. He questioned whether the
capital projects could be eliminated.
Mr. Butts stated the assumption was that things that were already
approved for the Capital Improvements Program would remain in the
program. He stated options could be considered to take out some of the
capital improvements.
Mr. Wells stated the town is in talks with developers in the lower
Sycolin service area that are interested in potentially reactivating their projects
and not being prepared to serve that area might hamper those efforts. He
noted there is potential demand beyond the jail and the park.
Council Member Reid verified that this is a proposal to go to a low
coupon bond. He questioned the definition of a low- coupon bond.
Mr. Rogers clarified that it is not a zero interest bond or a junk bond. It
was noted that in this environment, the interest rates are as low as they have
been in 40 years.
Council Member Reid questioned what the impact on the Utility Fund
would have been if the winter quarter discount was kept in place.
Council Member Butler stated it would be close to a million dollars.
Mr. Wells noted that the Utility Fund is meeting the revenue estimates
and has lessened expenditures.
Council Member Reid stated he would like to go back to the previous
way of calculating the winter quarter and questioned what that would do to
the Utility Fund.
Mr. Butts stated the rates have been set based on a cash needs model
and the utility rate model is used for the out of town customers by court order,
but the bottom line is there is a need for a certain amount of money so if
revenues are decreased in one area, they need to be made up in another area.
Council Member Reid expressed concern that users will boycott water
use in the summer. He stated his personal experience is that his bill doubled
even though he does not run his sprinkler every day. Further, he stated a lot of
water users were blindsided by this change. He stated he will support this
refinancing, but he is concerned that the current practice is gouging customers.
He questioned what it would cost the system if the winter quarter discount was
reinstated.
3 1P age
Council Work Session
October 25, 2010
Mayor Umstattd stated if the town adopts a tiered water structure, high
water users will end up bearing the brunt of the cost.
Council Member Reid stated he would like to see what can be cut as he
would like to see a rollback in the rates.
Mr. Butts stated the problem with this is there is a particular need for
revenue and rate structures are not something that can be done quickly because
that may cause potential problems with the income stream necessary to run the
department. He stated a tiered structure can be brought back, but a full -blown
rate study takes a long time. He stated the problem with the debt service ratio
coverage was caused by the steep drop in the availability fees. H
Council Member Reid stated his feeling that the town owes answers to
the public. He stated the town could go back to the winter quarter discount if
the town wanted to without doing a rate study.
Mr. Butts stated something would have to increase to make up for the
revenue loss.
Council Member Reid asked for a list of areas to cut in expenses and
staffing. He stated this needs to be looked at as a business and find revenue for
the system and cuts.
Vice Mayor Wright stated in January, when the deduct meters were
discussed, the majority of Council was not interested in them, including
Council Member Reid because of the revenue concerns. Further, he stated the
deduct meters would be a cost to the end user. He stated what was discussed
was a system that would mirror Loudoun Water's system. Further, Loudoun
Water has a tiered system and the high water users are seeing bills that are very
similar to the town's summer bills for high water users. He stated neither of
these methods will solve all the problems for the high water users. He stated
taking a million dollar hit on revenues will not solve anyone's problems. He
stated the swings in water bills are within the user's control by limiting
summer water use.
Council Member Butler reminded everyone that an expense study was
performed in the fall and the result was that the town is not spending enough
money and any further cuts will put water quality at risk and risk violating
federal laws. He stated there is no extra money to pull out of expenses so the
bottom line is to collect more revenue. He stated that Council deemed it better
to charge more for water that is used in optional ways rather than water used
for regular domestic needs. He stated that given all the bad options, this
choice seemed like the best at the time and seemed like the most common way
to handle the problem by other jurisdictions. Further, he stated reviewing the
study, the first year the town would be on the edge of the ratio and it turns out
4IPage
Council Work Session
October 25, 2010
the estimates were a little optimistic which causes the town to fall below the
required debt ratios but in the outer years, the town will be more comfortable.
Council Member Butler noted that Raspberry Falls is not intended to be
an income generator and will not save the Utility Fund. He stated this
development is too small and can only be considered as a health, safety, and
welfare issue. He agreed with Vice Mayor Wright that the tiered rate structure
has the similar issues.
He stated coming back with a rollback plan at the next meeting would
be too fast because every time the structure is changed, there will be winners
and losers since the Utility Fund has to be balanced one way or another. He
stated that who gets hit harder is a political decision and the URAC is an arm
of the political Council and will be able to come back with recommendations
based on those factors. Further, he expressed concern that some users are
getting hit very hard by the new billing system and noted that Council did not
intend that to happen. He stated his hope that the URAC will be able to come
up with some answers and Council will have to look at the options and pick
the one that is the least detrimental.
Council Member Hammler stated she is getting feedback around the
town that Leesburg utility customers are very appreciative of their water
system, which is an incredible asset to be able to provide top- notch, high
quality water to every resident in the town. She reminded Council that the
state Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether the town will have to use the
same methodology to refine the rate issue. She stated the logical time to revisit
this subject will be after the court rules. She stated her concern over the rate
structure, noting that it needs to be aggressively addressed. She noted the
figures for availability fees for Leesburg are cost plus $50, whereas other
jurisdictions are cost plus $1,500, 15% or $500 which begs the question of
whether Leesburg has looked hard enough at the connection fees.
Council Member Reid noted that in some of the newer parts of town,
residents must water their lawns because of poor soil. He urged the Mayor
and Vice Mayor to make their nominations to the URAC and Council to
nominate two out of town members. He requested a resolution to direct staff
to get some numbers of what it would take to go back to the previous system.
He noted that Raspberry Falls will add some funds to the system. He also
advised that he is not suggesting allowing irrigation or deduct meters at this
point, though that would be the honorable thing to do.
meter.
Mayor Umstattd questioned the cost to the homeowner for a deduct
Mr. Etemadi stated there is considerable cost because a deduct meter
needs to be a separate connection to the water system and depending on
5IPage
Council Work Session
October 25, 2010
whether pavement or sidewalk reconstruction is necessary, could cost upwards
of $2,000 -3,000 per connection. He also noted additional cost to the system
for maintenance.
Mayor Umstattd stated the good news brought by Davenport is no
further increase in rates is recommended. She agreed that the outside
efficiency analysis performed last year found the system to be much more
efficient than most municipal systems around the country and the
recommendation was to spend more money, not less. She questioned whether
the Council action to allow new businesses five years to pay their availability
fee could become part of the problem.
Mr. Rogers stated it depends on the length of time allowed as part of
the cash flow is taking care of capital needs, ongoing maintenance, etc. He
stated availability fees are not being used for operations, but cover capital costs
and debt service. He stated there are some cash paid items that are year to
year that might need to be put off.
Mayor Umstattd questioned if there is a breakdown of what federal,
state and environmental requirements cost the system.
Mr. Wells stated he does not believe there is a breakdown, but staff is
tracking current legislation that could affect the system going forward.
Mayor Umstattd stated the citizens would like to know what level of
government is costing them what amount of money and that information is
not laid out for them. She reiterated that a tiered rate system is worth looking
into, but it will not alleviate the problem that many of the citizens are suffering
from and could actually aggravate it.
Council Member Dunn commented that it is not surprising that his
views are contrary to most members of Council. He stated he is disappointed
that the efficiency study done last year was the first analysis ever performed by
that company. He stated he still questions their findings since they have little
experience in performing this type of study on a utility.
Council Member Reid stated his intention to bring forth a resolution
tomorrow night to direct staff to perform an analysis of a tiered rate system.
There was discussion as to the timing of such a resolution.
Council Member Reid stated he would bring it forth for the first
meeting in November.
b. Raspberry Falls
6IPage
Council Work Session October 25, 2010
Mr. Wells stated a draft motion has been supplied as a follow up to the
joint meeting between the Council and the Board of Supervisors where the
discussion revolved around directing staff to do the research necessary about
the existing system, what the current revenues and expenditures to the system
are as part of Loudoun County Sanitary Authority (LCSA), what the
particular problems are regarding water quality, what is being done to address
those problems, and if the town were to provide some type of utility service
what would be the costs and revenues.
Vice Mayor Wright stated Council needs additional facts because they
need to know what is wrong with the current system before making any
investment or commitment to connect the two systems. He stated there have
been conflicting reports from the county and the residents regarding the
problem. He stated the town needs to understand where the system is failing
and how it is contaminated before undertaking the liability of providing water
to them. He stated he is certainly interested in helping from a health, safety
and welfare standpoint, but is unwilling to pick up someone else's liability in
the process.
Council Member Hammler stated she feels that comment is ahead of
the process in terms of articulating Council's intentions. She stated the
question right now is should staff be directed to do the research about the
problem. She questioned whether it is the responsibility of Leesburg taxpayers
to have town staff figure out the problem, when this is a county issue and
county staff should be figuring this out. She stated there are several very
important emails coming in from citizens, specifically noting that the town
again, and again because of a cooperative spirit, is the first to be willing to
embrace what is asked. Further, she stated there are other issues, such as
whether the county would be willing to drop their amicus brief against the
town should the town be willing to spend town taxpayer dollars investigating
this problem or whether the county would be willing to allow the town to
annex the area, which would be the proper process.
Council Member Butler agreed that he is not interested in spending
town staff time to research water quality and service issues for Raspberry Falls;
however, he disagreed that annexation has anything to do with this issue. He
stated a water service agreement with Raspberry Falls would be a contract
between the homeowners and the town and not be part of the 1984 annexation
agreement with the county. He stated he would like to change the draft
motion to read "I move that the Town Council submit a letter to Supervisor Kurtz,
copying the Raspberry Falls Homeowners Association and other appropriate entities,
stating that the Town Council would be interested in entertaining proposals from
Raspberry Falls and /or Loudoun Water to supply the Raspberry Falls community with
potable water by pipe, truck, or other means. The one non negotiable requirement is
that such proposal may not cause an increase directly or indirectly on the water rates,
availability fees, or quarterly fixed fees paid by current Leesburg utility customers". He
71Page
Council Work Session
October 25, 2010
stated he did not think any research is needed, just a statement of interest on
the part of Council.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that Supervisor Kurtz asked the town to
communicate to the Raspberry Falls homeowners what kind of capital outlay
would be necessary from them to either extend a pipe or to modify their
system to accommodate trucked water. He stated research to determine the
cost of these options would be necessary.
Council Member Hammier stated she could support that as long as the
Raspberry Falls residents or Loudoun Water are covering the cost of the
research.
Council Member Butler agreed that it is not unreasonable to expect
Raspberry Falls to compensate the town for necessary staff time.
Council Member Reid questioned whether extension of a pipe would
have a negative impact on Morven Park.
Ms. Irby stated that localities are required to allow intervening
properties to connect to the line and easements may be required. She stated if
the town chooses to provide service to entities outside the limits, there is no
guarantee that at some point there will not be litigation regarding the service.
Council Member Reid stated the motion will buy more time for the
Board of Supervisors and Loudoun Water to do nothing. He stated there is no
support on Council for extension of a pipe because of the risks. He stated the
town should not spend time on this as this is another effort for grandstanding
on the growth issue. He stated all he is interested in is a "back of the
envelope" estimate of what it would cost to truck water to Raspberry Falls. He
stated Loudoun Water may not allow the town to provide water to Raspberry
Falls.
Mr. Wells stated there is a cost issue beyond trucking water to
Raspberry Falls. He stated both motions speak to the aspect that there are
other costs including maintenance of the system, storage of water, and whether
the existing distribution system is adequate or part of the problem.
Council Member Reid stated the one facet of Council Member Butler's
proposed resolution that is non negotiable is that there cannot be any increase
in the town users fees as a result of this effort. He stated he would like to see a
resolution that would get the ball rolling for discussions between the Board of
Supervisors and Loudoun Water.
81P age
Council Work Session
October 25, 2010
Council Member Butler stated his motion does not direct staff to spend
any time, but only lets the Board of Supervisors, Loudoun Water and
Raspberry Falls know that the town might be interested.
Council Member Dunn stated the idea of trucking water in is a short
term, stop -gap measure. He questioned why Loudoun Water does not truck
water in if this is an option. He stated his concern that the town may not be
able to provide water in situations like the winter storm of last winter, leaving
the residents of Raspberry Falls without water. He expressed his opinion that
Supervisor Kurtz is interested in something more specific. He stated the only
situation that will solve this is laying down pipe from some other source. He
stated he has no interest in seeing staff spend a lot of time and energy on this
subject. He stated he has great empathy and sympathy for the people in
Raspberry Falls over their water issues, but this is a monetary issue for the
utility department that needs more customers to use up the unused capacity.
He stated this could be the beginning of a broader effort to sell more water to
more people.
Further, Council Member Dunn stated this is a delaying effort on the
part of Supervisor Kurtz since they know what their final answer will be no.
He suggested strengthening the proposed resolution to say that Leesburg is
interested in providing water through the most direct means and beyond that it
does not have to involve a huge study or annexation. However, he stated the
town will want to know if there are internal failures within their system, the
town will need to know about them to cover its liability. He stated he is
willing to entertain discussions with the Board and is willing to put forward a
motion or a resolution to the Board of Supervisors saying that Leesburg is
interested in providing water through direct pipe link to Raspberry Falls and is
willing to work with the supervisors and Loudoun Water in any way they see
fit. He stated he would rather turn the question back on Sally Kurtz and see
what under what circumstances she is willing to let Leesburg provide water.
Council Member Hammler agreed and supported that the town would
not pay to have a study done and would support any motion that explicitly
states that. She stated the consequences of laying pipe that far can have
significant real and indirect costs by opening up this entire area up to housing
development.
Vice Mayor Wright stated he liked Council Member Dunn's idea of
turning the question back to the Board of Supervisors by asking under what
circumstances would they allow Leesburg to extend water service. He stated
in addition to the liability concerns, the other thing that needs to be understood
is the soft costs of supplying water to a small number of users.
zoned?
Council Member Dunn questioned what the area west of Rt. 15 is
9 1i a gc
Council Work Session
October 25, 2010
Mayor Umstattd stated the county had tried to downzone western
Loudoun a number of years ago, which ended up in court. She stated
generally, the area was A -3, but she is uncertain of the current zoning.
Council Member Reid noted that the Raspberry Falls Homeowners
Association is still controlled by the developer, who would like to have
Leesburg water to enable him to sell the remaining lots. He expressed his
desire to have Loudoun Water staff and Leesburg Utilities staff work this out.
Vice Mayor Wright clarified that Loudoun Water may not be any more
responsive to Leesburg staff than they are to the Raspberry Falls residents.
Further, he added that it is not Loudoun Water's decision as to whether
Leesburg can be the water provider. He stated the first step is the Loudoun
County Board of Supervisors has to mutually agree with the town that we can
provide water in that area.
Council Member Reid stated then this item will not be resolved.
Council Member Dunn stated the town has to at least try but this will
make them go on the record.
Council Member Butler stated one of the reasons that the BOS is not
ready to embrace any move by the town is that a number of the board
members do not believe there is a problem. He stated if they could agree there
is a problem, it might be a different situation.
Mayor Umstattd stated her agreement that no town utility customers or
taxpayers should have to pay for any studies. She stated her suspicion that
some of the answers to these questions will be fairly complex. She questioned
if the town were to provide water, would it go to every home in Raspberry
Falls. She stated the town does not know that all the homeowners want this or
whether they are happy with the relatively low cost well water. She stated any
outside provision of water will cost significantly more than what they are
paying. Further, she stated some of the communications from Raspberry Falls
have included a need for guarantees of the quality of Leesburg water. She
stated the town water will be entering a contaminated system, which may
cause it to become contaminated and the town will be held responsible. She
questioned whether a new distribution system will need to be installed and
questioned whether the homeowners in Raspberry Falls are willing to pay for
such a system. She agreed that selling water is a good idea, but pointed out
that when Leesburg and its current service area finishes developing under
current zoning, there will be no excess capacity which would cause the need
for an additional plant expansion, which will have to be paid for by current
users. She did note that the BOS is not enthusiastic about Leesburg getting
involved in this issue. She stated she is not in favor of Leesburg getting into
101
7 C
Council Work Session October 25, 2010
this because all it can result in is liability for the town and real pressure to keep
the rates down for Raspberry Falls. Further, she noted while Council may feel
sympathy for the Raspberry Falls residents, their duty is to protect the interests
of Leesburg utility users and businesses.
Council Member Reid questioned whether Raspberry Falls could be
made to sign a waiver that they would not hold the town liable.
Ms. Irby stated there are things the town can do to limit the extent of its
liability, but at some point when serving customers not in the towns service
district, the town begins supporting a business model of selling water. She
stated there would not be sovereign immunity with regards to those residents.
She stated the bonding and insuring the water system would be very expensive
for the Raspberry Falls residents.
It was Council consensus to add this to Tuesday's agenda for vote.
c. Sign Ordinance
Wade Burkholder stated this evening discussion would be limited to the
items show in yellow on the slides. He stated the items in white were talked
about at the previous work session and there is renewed interest in having the
Board of Architectural Review look at those items again. He stated their
review session is scheduled for November 3. He stated once the BAR input is
gathered on November 3, it can be reported to Council in November, which
might clarify some of Council's questions.
Vice Mayor Wright questioned at what point will the Council be
making a decision?
Mr. Burkholder stated there is not enough time to properly advertise the
public hearing before the first meeting in November, so it is tentatively planned
for the second meeting in November.
Vice Mayor Wright suggested that Council spend only about 30
minutes on this subject since it will come back to Council later in November.
Mr. Burkholder stated staff took the comments that Council made and
developed more specific options and recommendations to consider. With
respect to roof signs, he displayed three options for Council consideration: a)
retain existing language which prohibits roof signs as recommended by the
Planning Commission; b) modify the existing definition of roof signs to permit
such signage on compound, mansard and gambrel roofs not exceeding 25 feet
in height and flat to the surface of the wall or roof (which would specifically
address the Patient First scenario); and c) modify the existing definition of roof
signs to permit flexibility in location on the building.
111Page
Council Work Session
October 25, 2010
Council Member Dunn questioned who would have the ability to be
flexible and what would be the deciding factor?
Mr. Burkholder stated as long as the sign is above the eave line, but
below the roof line, a permit could be issued.
Two Council members expressed preference for option A and two for
option B. The other Council members were undecided.
Mr. Burkholder stated with respect to vehicle signs, staff has developed
four options for consideration: a) retain existing language in the ordinance
which prohibits vehicle signs as categorized as portable signage; b) adopt
proposed language as recommended by the Planning Commission which
created locational and operational standards for vehicles signs; c) adopt
language creating a new definition for a vehicle sign with location limitation
standards only; and d) adopt language creating a new definition for vehicle
signs and permit them by -right with no proximity or location standards. He
noted that other types of permitted signs have locational standards.
Mayor Umstattd stated she prefers option D with no setback standards.
Council Members Butler and Dunn stated their preference for option B.
Council Member Reid stated he likes either B or D.
Council Member Hammler stated this is going down a slippery slope
and prefers A as a two- square foot magnetic sign is allowed.
Vice Mayor Wright expressed his preference for B.
There was majority consensus for Option B.
Mr. Burkholder stated with regards to temporary signs for places of
worship and real estate sales, the proposed language includes a display time of
48 hours prior to the open house and up to 24 hours after a open house event
and are restricted from public right of way. He stated the square footage has
been increased to six square feet to be in compliance with other A -frame
signage regulations. He noted that animated signage is still prohibited. He
stated the language for temporary house of worship can be displayed 48 hours
prior to the service and up to 24 hours after the service and cannot be located
within the public right of way, a maximum of six square feet and prohibited
animation.
Ms. Irby stated the original language restricted the signage to Friday
through Sunday and other religions may worship on times other than Friday
12 1 Page
Council Work Session October 25, 2010
through Sunday, so to allow all religions to advertise their services, the times
had to be adjusted.
Council Member Reid expressed his support for these changes.
Council Member Dunn stated his concern with the 48 hour restriction.
He questioned whether the state allows 72 hours. He also questioned why a
temporary sign of this nature would be needed 24 hours after the event.
Ms. Irby stated it is intended to be sympathetic to those groups who
cannot work or remove their signs on the day of their Sabbath.
Council Member Dunn suggested allowing the signs to be posted for 72
hours, thus allowing the poster to decide how much before the event to post
the sign. He also expressed concern with the definition of animation as many
open house signs use balloons. Further, he stated he would not support any
language that restricted animation until the definition of animation is changed.
Council Member Butler stated he agrees with the attorney supplied
language.
Mr. Burkholder stated with regards to the prohibition of attaching signs
to railings or porch railings, that language would be stricken.
Vice Mayor Wright expressed his preference for Option C and Council
Member Butler expressed his preference for Option B (Planning Commission
language). There was Council consensus for Option C.
Mr. Burkholder stated with respect to political signs, currently there is a
time limit of 45 days prior to the election and it is proposed to increase the
allowable size to 32 square feet. He stated the discussion should center around
matching the time prior to the election to the time allowance for other
temporary signs, which would increase the allowable time to 70 days.
Ms. Irby stated that the law requires political signs to be treated no
different than temporary signs; therefore, if Council wishes to make the time
limit for temporary signs 70 days, the political signs would have the same time
limit unless the 70 day limit required the sign to be changed after 45 days.
Vice Mayor Wright and Council Member Butler expressed preference
for a 45 day time limit.
Mayor Umstattd and Council Members Reid and Dunn stated a
preference for a 70 day time limit.
13J P age
Council Work Session
October 25, 2010
There was discussion regarding limiting the number of 14 day
temporary sign permits that can be run consecutively.
Mr. Burkholder stated that with respect to sign maintenance, the
options are to a) retain the existing language found in the Zoning Ordinance;
or b) revise the existing language to further define clean and attractive
condition, good repair and working order. He stated typically the town has
not enforced the maintenance issue.
Mr. Burkholder stated with respect to wayfinding signs for hotels the
Planning Commission recommended that the town's wayfinding signs be
looked at for the possibility of accommodating signs for the hotels. Further, he
noted that there are VDOT such as the Virginia Directional Sign program that
would provide some directional support for hotels in the VDOT right of way.
Mayor Umstattd and Council Members Butler, Dunn and Reid
expressed preference for Option A. Further, Council Member Reid stated he
also liked Option E, which Council Member Butler did not support.
There was discussion regarding directional signage for emergency
veterinary hospitals. Mr. Boucher stated that staff has been discussing an
option available to Council to allow additional signage for emergency
veterinary services.
Mr. Burkholder questioned whether Council would like to be updated
regarding the BAR review at the public hearing on November 30, or whether
they would like to hear the BAR's comments at the first meeting in November.
There was consensus for a work session on November 8.
Mayor Umstattd stated it would be extremely helpful for Council to
hear from Leesburg Downtown Business Association (LDBA) and the more
specific the comments, the better.
Council Member Reid suggested the LDBA attend the BAR work
session as well on November 3.
Council Member Hammler alerted Paige Buscema that the Council will
be voting on whether to extend free parking beyond the holidays in the garage
at the meeting on Tuesday night. She requested any comments that the LDBA
might be able to provide.
d. Legislative Agenda
Betsy Fields stated the Legislative Agenda has been divided into two
sections with the first being those general positions that the Council would
take on any action of the Virginia General Assembly regardless of specific
14IPage
Council Work Session October 25, 2010
topic and she stated they include opposing any reduction of the town's
authority to level local taxes, any reduction in the town authority over local
land use, any unfunded mandates from the state and support revenue sharing
with the state. She stated the next section would be positions on specific
issues. She stated every position, with one exception, mirrors or supports
Loudoun County's position on these issues. She stated the exception is the
restoration of 599 funds for local law enforcement.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that last year, the legislative agenda was
much more specific. He stated that a lot of the broad based items can be
summed up by agreeing with the Virginia Municipal League (VML) position.
He stated going through the list chews up a lot of time with the state legislators
and suggested calling out a specific item and having the more generic items as
an appendix.
Mayor Umstattd questioned whether there is support for requesting
specific funding for the Sycolin overpass and the climbing lane.
Vice Mayor Wright noted that the climbing lane is almost fully funded.
It was Council consensus to add Sycolin overpass funding.
Council Member Hammier questioned whether the Council should
request authority to adjust speed limits up to 45 miles per hour on four lane
divided roads such as Battlefield from Rt. 7 to Kincaid Boulevard and between
Sycolin and the Greenway.
There was discussion on this item. Ms. Fields questioned whether staff
should draft a proposed bill and present it to the delegation to get sponsorship.
It was Council consensus to direct staff to draft the legislation for
Council so it can go to the delegation as soon as possible.
Council Member Butler stated he would like to see the ability to put
trailers on property for people who are taking care of relatives be repealed or
give localities some authority to regulate them. Further, he asked if localities
could have some authority to mandate environmental regulations rather than
have them all as incentives.
Vice Mayor Wright noted in Fairfax County, they go after business
owners to show that they are providing some level of recycling. He stated he is
unsure of whether it is incentive based, but their program may provide some
insight.
Council Member Reid stated he has a few legislative and policy items
he would like to see added to the document. He stated there needs to be a
151Page
Council Work Session
October 25, 2010
section to oppose the General Assembly setting rates for local utilities and
support legislation to allow distance based pricing on the Dulles Greenway.
He stated this may require a change from the State Corporation Commission.
Mayor Umstattd stated she does not want to see this backfire and cause
people living in Leesburg to have to pay more for tolls.
There was discussion that distance based pricing may be good for
commuters from Ashburn, but detrimental to commuters from Leesburg.
Council Member Reid noted that he believes that Delegate Greason is
behind this bill and the town may want to sit down with him and discuss it.
Further, he stated the town should support funding for a college in Leesburg
and also include funding for autism research. He questioned whether key sites
in Loudoun County and Leesburg, where there were significant contributions
by slaves during the Civil War, could be part of a tour for the anniversary of
the Civil War. He stated another policy item he would like to see is asking the
delegation to ensure that Leesburg is maintained in its entirety in one
legislative district. He stated that Senator Vogel would support this.
Mayor Umstattd stated she would not support this because she likes
having more delegates to represent the town, or at least to listen to the town's
concerns. She stated having both Senator Vogel and Senator Herring increases
the town's clout in Richmond. Further, she added she feels the same way
about Board of Supervisor redistricting.
Council Member Butler agreed with Mayor Umstattd.
Council Member Reid discussed the need for flexibility to allow old
growth trees to remain in the median or on the side when the town performs
road construction. Further, he discussed the need to have flexibility to change
road plans to accommodate residents needs.
Ms. Irby stated with respect to the Linden Hill issue, the town does
have the legislative power, but does not have the ability to limit liability for
gross negligence. She stated the town can do whatever they want, but it is a
liability issue for the town and the engineers and the engineers do not want to
risk their license.
Council Member Dunn stated a year ago, the autism funding was
included. He questioned what the status of that legislation is at the present
time.
Ms. Fields stated there were several bills introduced in the last session.
16 11' t g c
Council Work Session October 25, 2010
Council Member Dunn stated he would like to see a state mandate for
autism and legislation that would allow the town to have the ability to force
the removal of dilapidated homes. He stated other legislation to possibly
consider would be the state being opposed to moratoriums on foreclosures. He
stated there are some lending institutions that are attempting to have a
moratorium on foreclosures. He stated on the surface, it sounds like an
assistance to people who are unable to pay their mortgages, but the impact
would on communities would be devastating as homebuyers would wait to
purchase until these homes came on the market.
Vice Mayor Wright stated with respect to the dilapidated buildings, the
authority rests with the building inspector and the town does not have building
inspectors.
Ms. Irby stated there are two elements of the authority. She stated the
building inspector is the front line, but the fire marshal also can determine that
there is a threat to public safety and health. She questioned who would make
the call if it does not affect health, safety or welfare because then you are
affecting the property rights of the owner. She stated there is no magic
language to allow the town to demolish a structure because it is unattractive.
Vice Mayor Wright stated this is not an authority that he would support
Leesburg expanding. He stated the town has the resources in the building
inspector and the fire marshal and both have said the building in question is
not a health, safety or welfare risk. He stated he understands that the
community does not like the way it looks, but he does not think the town
should hire a building inspector to do something that is the county's job.
Mr. Wells stated he has heard a possibility of lowering the threshold at
which Council would require action. He stated the question is how to define a
target short of demolition.
Council Member Dunn questioned whether wildlife living in the
structure would qualify it as detrimental to health, safety or welfare.
Ms. Irby stated it would, but it would be up to the building inspector
and /or fire marshal to determine. She stated that property maintenance issues
are best dealt with through the homeowner's association. She stated they are
best suited to deal with these problems through their covenants and bylaws.
Council Member Butler stated he agrees that getting into property
maintenance issues could become a problem. Further, he stated getting
involved in the issue of a moratorium on foreclosures is a bigger issue than
what the town should be weighing in on. He stated he would not support
adding these issues to the agenda.
171Page
Council Work Session October 25, 2010
Mayor Umstattd expressed concern that if the town were to have the
authority to require demolition of a structure, she would think there is a
fiduciary duty for the town to go after the property owner to reimburse the
taxpayers. She noted a potential risk if the property owner is the HOA, it just
raises the HOA fees on the community. She agreed with Council Member
Butler, that the Council does not have the time to get enough information on
the foreclosure issue although she does feel it is not a good idea to have
families out on the street.
Council Member Reid asked for an opportunity for staff to return with
some ideas on the abandoned building issue. He stated perhaps the town can
lower the threshold so the town can require boarding up the openings in the
building as the fire marshal only requires that there be no entry into the
building, but does not require roof repairs in many instances.
Vice Mayor Wright stated he does not have a problem lowering the
threshold. He cautioned adding more authority and cost to town government.
Ms. Irby stated the town can request a concrete requirement, such as
making a building impervious to wildlife.
Council Member Dunn stated he would like to have the option to take
on the additional authority, if desired. He stated with respect to the
moratorium on foreclosures, the moratorium would not stop it from
happening, just prolong the event. He stated the point is that the moratorium
would be detrimental to the housing market, which is also something that
impacts the tax base.
e. Budget Update #2
Mr. Wells stated there is no new information since the last update. He
stated the town is continuing to monitor the supplemental assessment
information on some key properties that were added to the tax rolls last year.
f. Development Fee /Miscellaneous Utility Fee Recommendations
Mr. Wells stated staff has specific recommendations after performing a
fee study across all departments. He stated these are specifically fees related to
the land development process and some miscellaneous utility fees that are not
tied to consumption or use of water resources.
There was Council consensus to move to public hearing.
g. Loitering (Dunn)
Council Member Dunn stated there were a few citizen issues with
regards to loitering. He stated he wanted to hear from staff about the
regulations with respect to loitering. He stated there is a group loitering at the
new 7 -11 on Battlefield Parkway. He questioned how the town is working
18IPage
Council Work Session October 25, 2010
with businesses to control loitering. He stated that the management of the 7 -11
says they have reached out to the town and asked for assistance with this issue.
Mr. Wells stated the town has reached out to the 7 -11 management on
Plaza Street and done some specific things with respect to loitering and have
found no specific violations. He stated there is a fairly defined area where
people can congregate and the town has complied with what can be enforced.
Ms. Irby stated a bill was sent to the committee on Counties, Cities
and Towns regarding people congregating around a business for solicitation of
work last year and did not make it out of committee. She stated there is some
concern that it is unconstitutional because people have the right to assemble
peacefully. She stated if they are not assembling peacefully, then the town can
do something about it, but as long as they remain peaceful, for whatever
purpose, there is nothing the town can do to interfere.
Council Member Dunn questioned whether people are actually
assembling. He stated they are just gathered in one area.
Ms. Irby stated even a person of one, if they are doing nothing illegal,
they can stand on public property all day. She stated the private property
owner can issue a debarment and the person is asked not to remain on the
private property and if they continue to remain there after debarment is issued,
the town has remedies to alleviate the situation.
Mr. Wells stated a number of officers have been patrolling the area to
make sure all the activities occurring there are appropriate.
h. Transportation Summit /Scope of Meeting
Mr. Wells stated this was an item on Council's Strategic Plan and was
defined by Council as an opportunity to meet with representatives at the state,
federal, and local level to have a summit to discuss transportation issues.
Council Member Reid stated that Senator Herring has a Route 7 Task
Force and he would very much like Council to participate.
It was Council consensus to request that Senator Herring include the
town on his task force.
Mayor Umstattd stated even though there is a national trend against the
earmark system, Leesburg has benefitted from transportation earmarks in the
past.
2. Items for Future Council Meetings
Council Member Butler stated there needs to be a crosswalk at Hope Parkway
and Burnell.
191Page
Council Work Session October 25, 2010
Council Member Reid said he already has been working with staff on this.
Council Member Dunn stated he would like a discussion on the 150th
anniversary of the Civil War events, marketing, etc.
Council Member Reid requested that Items D, C and E be put on the Consent
Agenda for Tuesday night.
3. Adjournment
On the motion of Council Member Butler, seconded by Mayor Umstattd, the
mee ing was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
'1 ,
Clerk of Cou c
2010 tcwsmin1025
•
20IPage