HomeMy Public PortalAbout2010_tcwsmin1213Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:30 p.m. Mayor Kristen Umstattd
presiding.
Council Members Absent: Marty Martinez arrived at 7:38 p.m., Katie Sheldon
Hammler arrived at 9:13 p.m.
Council Work Session December 13, 2010
Council Members Present: David S. Butler, Thomas S. Dunn, II, Katie Sheldon
Hammler, Marty Martinez, Ken Reid, Kevin Wright and Mayor Kristen Umstattd.
Staff Present: Town Manager John Wells, Town Attorney Jeanette Irby, Deputy
Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Finance Director Norm Butts, Director of Public Works
Tom Mason, Director of Planning and Zoning Susan Berry Hill, Director of Plan
Review William Adman, Director of Parks and Recreation Richard Williams,
Zoning Administrator Chris Murphy, Deputy Director of Utilities Aref Etemadi,
Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation Kate Trask, Assistant to the Town Manager
Kathleen Leidich, Senior Management Analyst Annie Carlson, Economic
Development Manager Marantha Edwards, Deputy Zoning Administrator Wade
Burkholder, Business Retention Coordinator Debi Parry, and Clerk of Council Lee
Ann Green
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Work Session Items for Discussion
a. Budget Update #4
Mr. Wells stated that Council had questions about various fees and
charges. He stated staff has put together an inventory of revenue
enhancements including fees, fines, and other charges. He stated staff is also
looking at expenditure reduction.
He discussed the various options for several different fees including fees
for off -track betting operations. He stated he is not looking for any direction at
this time, but this will be discussed more specifically as part of the budget
process.
Council Member Dunn stated he would not be in favor of very many
increases. He requested a list of proposed cuts. He pointed out that every year
since he has been elected to Council, the budget has been reduced without
reducing services. He stated he does not feel comfortable with "sin" taxes
because he feels it promotes the usage. Further, he stated he would like to see
the decal fee reduced to the bare minimum to keep the county from charging a
fee. He also stated he does not want to see the meals tax increased or fees for
Ida Lee rentals increased. He stated using the website for advertisements has
some merits, but cautioned that a disclaimer would be necessary stating that
the town does not endorse a particular business. He stated for every revenue
enhancement, he has a cost cutting measure. He stated the Balch Library is
one of the most costly services per capita of the users. He stated there are ways
to look at managing the costs to continue to be able to provide the service but
1 Page
Council Work Session December 13, 2010
at a lower cost. Further, he stated he would like to look at places the town
provides a service that should be performed by others.
Council Member Reid stated he is not interested in any tax or fee
increases. He stated he would consider an increase in the cigarette tax, but it is
a decreasing amount. He cautioned raising the fee for out of town residents
using the outdoor pool as it could discourage users.
Council Member Butler commented that his enthusiasm for fee
increases goes up the less elastic the demand for the service is. He stated he is
not enthusiastic about raising the fees at Ida Lee as he sees this having an
opposite effect over what is desired. He stated as long as the decals generate
the same income, he is open to whatever policy the rest of Council prefers.
Vice Mayor Wright stated the only thing that is funded by taxes is the
General Fund and the $2.5 million possible deficit is in the General Fund. He
stated he has no problem maxing out the cigarette tax. He stated with regards
to the decals, it is not a fee that people view as a fee but as part of their
personal property taxes. He questioned the utility tax and whether there is any
chance that the state would be able to take that revenue. He questioned
whether raising the fees at the outdoor pool would cause the park to lose
money.
Mr. Butts stated the state cannot take the utility tax revenue, at least
not at this time.
Mr. Williams stated there may be some people that may not come
because of the increased rate because no additional value is being added for the
additional charge. Further, he stated the outdoor pool and tennis center
generate more revenue than expenditures.
Vice Mayor Wright stated he did not have a problem with increasing
parking fines or charge for off track betting facilities. With regards to BPOL,
he stated he would not have a higher rate than the county. He stated the solid
waste disposal fee is one of the core services that people expect as part of what
their taxes pay for.
Council Member Martinez stated one of the reasons that the level of
service has been maintained despite budget cuts is because town staff has made
a lot of sacrifices. Further, he stated there may be places that cuts can be
made, but this will be the year that service levels will need to be reduced.
Mayor Umstattd stated she does not have a problem with raising the
cigarette tax; however, she stated raising it the last time caused revenues to
drop which was counterproductive from a financial standpoint. She stated she
is not interested in raising the cost for decals and although staff has good
2IPage
Council Work Session December 13, 2010
reasons not to eliminate the decal, she would be in favor of its elimination.
She stated she is not enthusiastic about raising in -town rates for the use of Ida
Lee and the outdoor pool, although she does not opposing raising the outdoor
pool rate by a dollar for out of town users. She stated she would be willing to
consider increases in parking fines. She stated her opposition to any increases
in waste pick up fees or the institution of a per bag fee. Further, she stated she
does not favor increasing meals taxes because town owners are already at a
disadvantage with respect to no meals taxes in the County.
Mr. Butts stated it is very difficult to keep track of mobile personal
property. He stated discussion has been centered around a permanent decal
but staff would prefer an annual decal because of the ease of collection and
administering the local vehicle tax. He stated staff feels with the current
program of sending out the decal with the personal property tax bill, if there is
no balance on the account, the taxpayer is not inconvenienced by having to
come in and stand in a long line.
Mayor Umstattd questioned if there is a way to make the decal more
easily removable. She stated some of the resident concerns are that the decal is
too hard to remove and replace and motorcycle decals do not survive the
weather.
Mr. Butts stated there are several types, such as paper or mylar, but the
easiest way to get the decal off is a window scraper. He stated the concern is if
they are too easy to remove, they might fall off or be "borrowed" by people
who have not paid the fee. He stated they have discussed setting up a program
to assist those who are not physically able to remove and replace their decals.
Council Member Martinez commented that it is difficult to get the
stickers on all five cars by the middle of November when some of his children
are out of the area at school.
Mr. Butts stated another reason to stay with the current type of decal is
that law enforcement is more effective with an annual decal. He stated the
town is part of the Northern Virginia Vehicle Decal Enforcement Compact
with a number of other jurisdictions. Further, he stated the no decal option
would lose the town about $780,000 in revenue per year, which is about 1.5
cents on the tax rate. He stated he only knows of one other community in
Northern Virginia with a permanent decal, the Town of Purcellville, and it is
only permanent as long as you own the car. He stated that statistics show that
most people do not keep a car longer than five years so even in a permanent
decal situation, about 20% of vehicles would require a new decal in any given
year.
Vice Mayor Wright questioned how permanent decals are handled.
3IPage
Council Work Session December 13, 2010
Mr. Butts stated an annual local license fee is still charged, but the decal
is permanent.
Vice Mayor Wright noted that one of the reasons the town did not go
the route of Fairfax County and do away with the sticker because Loudoun
County has the authority to charge the fee for a sticker if the town does not.
Mr. Butts stated Fairfax County is bringing back the license fee
component, but not the sticker. He stated the only town in Fairfax that does
not have a decal is Vienna.
Vice Mayor Wright noted that Vienna may be bringing their decal back.
He confirmed that the revenue would be the same with the permanent sticker,
but the problems would lie with collections.
Mr. Butts stated in the long run, there may be a 1 -2% fall off in
collections, but there are other means of collection including DMV stop, and
state tax intercept, but it takes longer to collect the actual money.
Vice Mayor Wright stated he understands there is no way to forego the
license fee this year unless Council wants to deal with a larger deficit; however,
he would like to find a way to go to a permanent decal.
Council Member Dunn questioned why the county would be willing to
give up the $800,000 to allow Leesburg to provide the stickers.
Mr. Butts stated the county does not have a choice because of state law.
Council Member Dunn questioned why the town has to be part of the
enforcement compact.
Mr. Butts stated it is totally voluntary.
Council Member Dunn stated his choice would be no decal, no fee;
however, he understands if the town does not have a decal or fee, the county
would step in and impose their decal and fee on the Leesburg citizens. He
inquired whether the county would impose a fee if Leesburg only required a
decal, but no fee.
Mr. Wells stated the county has said in the past, if the town abandons
either the decal or the fee, the county treasurer would recommend imposing it.
Council Member Dunn questioned whether there can be a minimal fee
for the decal.
4IPage
Council Work Session December 13, 2010
Mr. Butts stated the town does not have to charge $25, but whatever is
not charged is lost revenue.
Ms. Irby clarified that the fee is not for the decal, but for the licensing of
the vehicle.
Council Member Dunn stated he would like the annual registration fee
to be as low as possible and have a life of vehicle decal. He questioned the
cost for the town to administer this program. He questioned whether this
service could be contracted out.
Mr. Butts stated it is about $85,000 in direct staff costs and another
$30,000 in actual production costs. He noted the equivalent of one full time
staff person is responsible for the program which includes the personal
property tax collection. He stated costs account for about 5% of the program.
Council Member Reid stated he would like to see, in lieu of a
permanent sticker, is a three year sticker so that the town could still collect
some revenue and reduce the hassle for residents.
Council Member Butler stated even if there were no sticker, the
personal property tax would need to be collected every year. He questioned
whether there are stickers that are easier to remove and requested that staff
look into finding an easier sticker to remove. He stated he is not interested in
decreasing the fee because he does not want to find revenue to make up the
difference.
There was discussion on the time line for initiating a permanent decal.
Council Member Reid suggested initiating the code amendment at the
next meeting. Vice Mayor Wright suggested it should be part of the budget
process.
b. Sign Ordinance
Wade Burkholder stated this additional information is based on the
November 30 public hearing. He stated there are a few items that need further
discussion.
With regards to roof signs, he stated the draft language is the same
language that was presented on November 30 to permit on compound,
mansard, and gambrel roofs not exceeding 25 feet in height and fixed flat to
the surface of the wall or roof. There was no consensus for either option A or
B.
With regards to flags, Mr. Burkholder stated that flags, emblems and
insignia of any government, religious, or charitable agency or nonprofit agency
5 Page
Council Work Session December 13, 2010
or business are exempt. He stated the practical effect of that is that
commercial flags could be flown in any size, number or location outside of the
public right of way and since they would be exempt, the town has no authority
to enforce any sort of maintenance standards. He stated the Planning
Commission recommended that one flag be exempt, not to exceed 15 square
feet. He stated the LDBA recommended exempting one flag per business
bearing the word open or other text not exceeding 15 square feet in area, but if
the flag contain corporate logo and /or corporate icon the flag would be
counted as one of the signs for the business.
There was majority consensus for the LDBA proposal.
With regards to balloons, Mr. Burkholder stated the draft language
would retain balloons as prohibited signs. He stated a proposed change could
be to exempt balloons less than 30 inches in circumference that are not
displayed above 10 feet in height, which would allow balloons on
merchandise, cars and A -frame signs but would prohibit inflatable signs.
There was discussion regarding the circumference of exempted balloons
and special event permits.
There was consensus to allow balloons up to 50 inches in
circumference.
With regards to neon signs, Mr. Burkholder stated the draft language
would allow two square feet of neon illumination if continuously lit when
open and shall not consist of LED or non incandescent light sources in the H -1
historic overlay district.
There was consensus for exempting internally illuminated open neon
style signs up to two square feet in the H -1 and prohibiting the use of LED
lighting.
With regards to window signs, Mr. Burkholder stated some of the
issues already have consensus such as window coverage going to 50% for
temporary and 25% for permanent. He stated the definition of window sign
has not been agreed upon.
Butch Porter weighed in on the LDBA's recommendation for
regulating three feet into the building for illuminated signs and the window
frame for non illuminated signs.
There was debate as to the definition of a window sign.
There was no clear consensus on the definition of a window sign.
61Page
With regards to movie theater posters, Mr. Burkholder stated the
proposed language would allow two posters for upcoming attractions per
screen in the theater.
This was acceptable to Council.
Council Member Reid requested an extension of the time period for
political signs to 60 days.
There was no consensus regarding extending the time period for
political signs.
Ms. Trask stated there is a deadline this week for a more detailed
schedule with regards to which performers will be at which location and
button sales will start on Wednesday.
Council Member Butler questioned what advertising has been
accomplished thus far.
Council Work Session December 13, 2010
Mr. Burkholder discussed grandfathering of signs and stated it is not
always easy to get rid of signs once they are allowed. He stated there is no
simple way to reverse the decision.
c. First Night Follow -up
Kate Trask gave Council a brief update with regards to First Night
Leesburg. She stated there were three deadlines with regards to the
Memorandum of Understanding that First Night Leesburg needed to meet.
She stated the first was a July 31' deadline for a budget, which was met. She
stated the second deadline was November 1St for their programmatic plans.
She stated the plans were in place, but not necessarily implemented as they
were waiting to be assured they were meeting their fundraising goals. She
stated the last deadline was the December 1S deadline for the advance
publicity, which was partially done. She stated that some of the information
was posted on the website and the rest referred to an update by December 10
which was accomplished by December 6 Further, she stated they have a
new Facebook page.
Ms. Trask stated the committee has managed to raise almost $23,000
which is above their original goal. She stated they are building a relationship
with Loudoun Youth, Inc. and they are hopeful that Loudoun Youth, Inc. will
manage and host one of the sites to serve the teen population. She stated they
are also building a partnership with LDBA and the downtown businesses to
coordinate support for the events. Further, she noted they are working with
the Loudoun County Chamber to coordinate with the business community.
71Page
Council Work Session December 13, 2010
Ms. Trask stated the Loudoun Chamber did a blast email that was
focused more on sponsorships for the event. She stated there was a Call for
Artists but no advertising blast has occurred yet.
Council Member Butler expressed his disappointment that he has not
seen any advance advertisement for the event.
Vice Mayor Wright stated the website is more informed than it was this
time last year, but he agrees with Council Member Butler that the
advertisement is lacking.
d. Stormwater Management Regulations
William Ac stated there is nothing for Council to do at this point
and this is a brief summary of regulations that will come into effect in a year or
two. He stated there are substantial costs with regards to these federal
regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He stated the
threat is $32,500 per day fine for noncompliance.
Mr. Ac stated the EPA is trying to clean up the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed and will allow certain amounts of pollutants from the town to flow
into the creeks and rivers that eventually make it into the bay. He stated they
are looking at sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus. He stated that development
can generally control two of those, phosphorus and sediment, fairly
successfully but nitrogen includes things that occur naturally such as wildlife.
He stated the town treatment plants are much cleaner than others in the state,
but the EPA may make the town install more anti pollution measures. He
stated while the town treatment plants do not process stormwater, the water
ends up in the Chesapeake Bay and is thus measured for contaminants. He the
rough estimates for each household in the town are an additional $678 per
year. He stated the cost could rise to $1,700 per household for stormwater.
Mr. Ac stated a user fee based on the size of a lot and the amount
of impervious surface may need to be instituted to generate the income to fund
the mandates.
Council Member Hammler questioned whether there is any lobbying
effort to ensure these unfunded mandates do not occur.
Mr. Ac stated that is occurring right now. He stated that the
president of Wetlands Solutions has offered to come in and do a presentation
to Council to give a better understanding of why the federal government is
requiring these mandates and what the town will be required to do.
Mr. Wells stated this is not a single jurisdiction issue and the key is to
work with representatives from other jurisdictions. He stated one voice is not
enough which is why a lot of associations are going to be working on this.
Wage
Council Work Session December 13, 2010
Ms. Irby confirmed that the Commonwealth is also fighting this as well
as a lot of other jurisdictions. She stated at this point, the state has exhausted
most of the remedies available to them so the presentation will be helpful to
give Council an idea of what will be expected.
Council Member Hammler questioned why Council has not heard
about this earlier.
Ms. Irby stated this has been raised with Council on several occasions.
She stated the town was given two weeks to comment on this and if the town
failed to comment, they would lose the right of appeal.
Council Member Reid stated it was discussed at the Northern Virginia
Regional Commission (NVRC) and he brought back some information from
the previous meeting. He stated the necessary upgrades to the water plants
could be $30 million.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that once the TMDL levels are released, a
report will need to be generated that lays out how these regulations will affect
each household in Leesburg. Further, he stated that the Mayor's strategy of an
information campaign to the residents, sooner rather than later, is a good idea.
He stated the other strategy is a legal one on two fronts, 1) how can we partner
with the state or other localities on opposing this, or 2) find out what happens
if the town cannot comply. He questioned where the federal delegation is on
this subject and suggested partnering with those who are against this
legislation.
Mr. Ackman stated that he could have a speaker come in to help the
Council understand how to best fight this legislation.
e. Barber and Ross Verbal Update
Mr. Wells stated the company is out of bankruptcy and the bank no
longer holds the note on the property. Proceeds from any sale will go to pay
existing creditors. He stated there are two individual companies that are
considering purchasing the property and they are looking at a modified version
of the mixed use development that was approved. He noted that due to rock
on the property, the project as previously approved by Council, is not likely to
be buildable from an economic standpoint. He stated that staff has not seen
any plans or specific numbers.
2. Items for Future Council Meetings
Council Member Butler requested information on the cost for two trash pick
ups per week rather than one.
91Page
Council Member Hammler stated she will be needing to nominate a new
Economic Development Commission representative and asked interested parties to
contact her regarding this upcoming vacancy. She also requested an agenda item to
deal with renaming the tree lighting and Holiday parade.
3. Closed Session
Mayor Umstattd made the following motion:
Pursuant to Section 2.2- 3711(A) (3) of the Code of Virginia, I move that the
Leesburg Town Council convene in a closed meeting for the purpose of discussing:
1) Marconi
2) Linden Hill Property Acquisition
3) IPCO
In accordance with Section 2.2 -3712 of the Code of Virginia, I move that
Council certify that to the best of each member's knowledge, only public business
matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act and such public business matters as were identified in
the motion by which the closed meeting was convened were heard, discussed or
considered in the meeting by Council.
Council Work Session December 13, 2010
Council Member Reid requested an item to initiate the Town Plan amendment
for the transportation links around the Battlefield Parkway /Route 7 interchange. He
requested no parking signs on either side of the mid -block crosswalk that was installed
in Tavistock. He requested a discussion about Kimco /Edwards Ferry Road
dedication and an update on the Arts and Cultural District. He requested an update
regarding the winter quarter water rate and the street parking plan.
Mayor Umstattd reminded everyone regarding the Town Manager's
evaluation.
The motion was seconded by Council Member Martinez and approved by the
following vote:
Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None
Vote: 7 -0
The Council convened in Closed Session at 11:08 p.m.
The Council reconvened in Open Session at 11:40 p.m.
On a motion by Mayor Umstattd, seconded by Council Member Martinez, the
following motion was made:
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor Umstattd
10IPage
Council Work Session
Nay: None
Vote: 7 -0
4. Adjournment
On the motion of Council Member Martinez, seconded by Vice Mayor
W s t, t i eeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m.
Clerk o
2010 tcwsmin
December 13, 2010
11 Page