Loading...
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