HomeMy Public PortalAbout2011_tcwsmin0523Council Work Session
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
Hammier, Fernando "Marty" Martinez, Ken Reid, Kevin Wright and Mayor Kristen
Umstattd.
Council Members Absent: None.
May 23, 2011
Staff Present: Town Manager John Wells, Deputy Town Manager Kaj Dentler,
Town Attorney Jeanette Irby, Director of Engineering and Public Works Tom
Mason, Director of Finance and Clerk of Council Lee Ann Green
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Work Session Items for Discussion
a. Nan Moring: I am Nan Moring and I live in Exeter. About the
recommendation, hopefully you got to take a look at it. The PowerPoint
presentation also, the first page goes over the recommendations that at the
council's direction...in order to reduce the high water and sewer customer bills
attributable to people watering their lawns and in order to keep within the
current necessary revenue targets we recommend the following changes be
made to the current system: increase the fixed rate charge for 5/8 to 2 inch
meter customers by $19.60 per quarter to reflect 50% of the department's debt
service cost and the other recommendation that we put forth is to change the
sewer charge methodology by continuing to use 1:1 water to sewer ratio but
capping it at a maximum equal to winter quarter volume plus 3000 gallons and
we came to these recommendations after months and several meetings of
looking at a lot of data and weighing overall impact on the customers. The
ultimate goal of the committee has been to create a pricing structure that is
focused on fairness, transparency, simplicity, and conservation. The next slide
you will see is reviewing changes. Some of the other issues we were looking at
we will continue to work on and we are looking at a possible tiered rate
structure and evaluating that. The fixed rate charge increase... It was
interesting, we did review the work of the previous URAC committee and
found that they also recommended a combined water /sewer fixed rate of $22.
We also learned from reading books about water rates, which is interesting to
say the least, that the bond rating agencies look favorably on higher fixed rates.
In 2012 the estimated debt service for Leesburg utilities is $4.1 million. Fifteen
percent of that debt service translates to approximately $136 per year per
customer. The equivalent quarterly rate total would be $34 instead of the
current $14.40 or a $19.60 increase. Staff will split this amount between water
and sewer based on capital assets and Leesburg has historically been
significantly under the Loudoun Water fixed rate level, and I might add other
utilities, and it still will be lower after this increase. The current pricing
structure calculates sewer usage 1:1 water usage regardless of how much water
is used. This current method is unfairly charging high water users first sewer
11Pag
Council Work Session May 23, 2011
volume that is not actually returned and processed. URAC recommends that
1:1 water to sewer ratio be used only up to a reasonable maximal sewer
volume. The reasonable maximal sewer volume URAC recommends is equal
to the water usage during winter quarter +3000 gallons. This maximum when
combined with fixed charge recommendations results in a total revenue change
of less than 1%. Customers with high water usage relative to their winter
quarter will see a reduction in their bill but while customers with low water
usage relative to their winter quarter will see an increase. No customer should
see increases higher than the fixed charge increase of $19.60 per quarter.
Hammler: John, where is staff on this in terms of reviewing the analysis
and next steps?
Wells: there is no staff analysis. That's really the policy decision of Council. In
terms of implementation, if the Council were to direct these rates be
implemented, we would need to do two things. One would be to advertise a
change to the ordinance, the other would be to begin the change in our
computer billing system since this is different than the methodology that we're
currently using. So we would need to work with our programming company.
Hammier: what's the timing on the tiered rate structure evaluation coming
back?
Wells: the committee has not begun that work at this point. They've done
some preliminary runs of some of the trends of usage around the town in
various quadrants. One of the things that has been recommended to Council
by the committee is if we're going to do a wholesale re- examination of a rate
structure, in addition to URAC, a rate consultant would need to be brought on
to validate and work with them. Assuming that we are beginning that effort,
after this initial phase of work by URAC, staff would begin to procure that
consultant while the committee begins their preliminary work in terms of some
of the ideas and issues they would like to work through from a general
direction standpoint.
Hammler: okay, I know relative to the last discussion Council was talking
about doing things, just conceptually, if you can't measure the sewer we need
to start thinking outside the box relative to the overall pricing structure,
looking at high water usage and ensuring that is calculated, if you are going to
be changing water sewer ratios. So, I guess I'll continue to listen to questions
and look forward to discussion on next steps.
Butler: two quick ones, one is there are 10 people on URAC. How
many of them were involved in this decision and was it a vote or a consensus?
2 1Pagc
Council Work Session
Frank Holtz: actually Dave, we were all involved in the decision
equally. We all decided this was the best way to go. We were all in the same
boat together sail or sink.
Hammier: so there was a resolution at passed 7 -0?
Dan Connally: it was unanimous but we only have nine members.
Holtz: I think we had two members absent, right? But we had
correspondence with them so we had been in touch with them and they were
pretty much on the same ship as us. One of the important things to remember
here is we did a lot of looking at two things, one was looking back at the old
committee final report and this time we got a lot more leeway on what we
could do. We could use budget items, debt service, things that we couldn't put
in to our analysis last time. That really helped us get a big picture of where we
are. It was a big help that the Council extended what we could possibly do.
Butler: last time the focus was really on the surcharge.
Wells: actually if you look at the fourth page of the report...
May 23, 2011
Holtz: I would say we are in phase 2 of phase I don't know because I don't
know how many phases were going to have but we've been working pretty
hard on this. Besides meeting once a week for the last seven weeks and then
meetings we had before then and these guys working really hard with e -mail
back and forth, we spent a lot of time with this. We really have. The staff has
been great. Aref and the town manager gave us all the support possible, so it
was a little bit refreshing.
Butler: I know the other question. I'm sure that you haven't had a chance to do
this analysis yet. Maybe this is something for Norm. It would be interesting to
know if this would cause a significant difference in the net total that the out -of-
towners are paying.
Butler: I don't mean per customer. I mean the grand total which hopefully it
would not be a significant total either way.
Holtz: the difference was 0.1% current method versus the recommended
method.
Connally: most of the out -of- towners are in District 6, and you can see a
decrease in the revenue.
Holtz: most of the out -of- towners fall in the category of where their winter
quarter usage is significantly lower than the rest of the year. That's the category
3 t'.1g
Council Work Session May 23, 2011
usage that's helped most by sewer capping +3000. For those people that have
low winter usage and high summer usage, they are helped the most.
Munoz: this is a live model so you can put in any usage, any kind of value
and see how the bill changes for the total year. We played around with that to
make sure we understood the impact.
Martinez: you can do the same thing with the rate?
Munoz: yes. What's interesting is outside of District 6, if you look at the rest
of the districts, you don't see a significant low winter quarter. They're pretty
quiet. So you'll see a number of people that don't have a significant difference
one quarter to another. Eight the first quarter, ten the next, 12 the next, down
to eight, back to eight. And those flat kind of consistent low users will be the
ones that do see an increase that increase will be at a maximum of $19.60 a
quarter.
Butler: so now the problem is what you just told me is that since you're telling
me that zones one through five are generally flat.
Melanie Fondaco: district 4 has... Is not quite as flat.
Munoz: one, two, and three are probably the flattest.
Butler: John, if you could do the analysis I'm looking for. I just want to make
sure that it's not significant either way. I'm done.
Reid: thank you all for your hard work. This was very hard work. I am very
grateful, this Council as a whole, is very grateful for your proposal. The
question I had is, first of all, in terms of meter size those with irrigation
systems... What's that usually? Two, 1.5? A resident with an underground
sprinkler system?
Etemadi: they would usually use a 5/8 or 3 /4.
Reid: and these average bills, are these all various meter sizes? So these are all
5/8. What's the highest for a residential with the sprinkler system?
Etemadi: the largest residential ones that we have are 1 inch. Apartment
complexes could be 2 inch. Most residentials are 5/8
Reid: so this table is based on 5/8. So therefore the bills could be very
different for someone with a 1 inch meter. The fixed fee would be the only
difference?
Connally: their bill would still only go up $19.60.
4IPa;e
Council Work Session
May 23, 2011
Reid: so this is all residential bills, these aren't businesses. I think it would be
nice to see this table with business. To see how businesses are affected. There
are some that are low -water users like my business, I'm definitely a low -water
user. My whole building is a low -water user. It would be interesting to see how
those people would fare compared to restaurants and folks like that. It's very
good. I guess my inclination is to have staff come back and take a look at the
numbers. Maybe they can figure out something else. We are not going to be
able to implement this even if we had a hearing in June based on what Mr.
Butts told us we are not going to be able to implement this. People are not
going to see anything this summer necessarily.
Wells: based on what we understand the amount of programming needed, yes.
Martinez: I just want to say thank you guys. I appreciate you guys doing all his
hard work. Putting in all the extra hours and I know there was a lot of really
boring homework you had to do. Question I had is, you mentioned
somewhere in here that are fixed charges are still lower than Loudoun Water.
By how much?
Reid: it's right here on the chart. It says Loudoun Water on the right.
Etemadi: 5/8 is about the same.
Martinez: on the districts, I'm assuming that those are the districts we have
already established. Ken mention something about irrigation systems, those
are typically tied to residential water, correct? That's why you have the $3000
plus on the fixed rate. I'm also making an assumption that staff was with you
guys during all this discussion and they had to bring in their stuff and there
was consensus between staff and what you guys were doing in coming up with
this recommendation.
Connally: staff was always there.
Wells: staff was not part of the recommendation. We just verified the data.
The recommendation was the committees'.
Martinez: they were there as a filter.
Munoz: absolutely. They were great. If we had a question they got back to us
immediately, if not they got back to us the next day or the day after.
Martinez: what I wanted to do was just make sure that it was stated that staff
was there to help you and support you and gave you the information that you
needed.
51 Page
Council Work Session
Etemadi: 15,300.
May 23, 2011
Munoz: if it wasn't for staff we probably could not have been done. They were
very supportive.
Martinez: again, I appreciate both staff and you guys coming up with a
recommendation. I like it. I like the approach are taking and hopefully you
guys won't have to have done all this work in vain.
Wright: a couple of fact questions. How many total customers are there in the
water system?
Wright: for my water unit standpoint, do you know that number? A
residential customer is one unit and then some of the other ones are...
Etemadi: 15,000 is the total number of connections. So if it's a 2 inch meter or
a 3 inch meter is still considered a connection. As far as how many are
residential, it depends on the usage basically. Three hundred and fifty gallons
per day for residential use. If a commercial use uses 1000 gallons per day, then
it's equal to about three residential uses.
Martinez: so in that context you're saying it could be a 2 inch connection that
feeds into an apartment which we are only counting that one connection, not
all the different users.
Etemadi: right. We go based on the number of meters that you have.
Martinez: so it could be 40 apartments hooked up to one or 2 meters.
Etemadi: yes 10 or 15 units could be in one building but we only send one bill.
Wright: can you give me the total use for the town. John, just some feedback.
As I was getting my head around stuff I was on the website and I was trying to
find a rates. I don't know where they are. When Marty asked the question
about what Loudoun water's rates are, it took me about 5 seconds to go on
their site and find their rates. So Marty, the fixed rate for Loudoun water for
water is $26.18, the fixed rate for sewer is $24.76. What are our current water
and sewer fixed rates?
Connally: $7.20 each.
Wright: so those don't escalate with the usage rates. Those stay flat. Then the
current water and sewer rates per thousand? In town.
Hammler: if I may just make a comment while everyone is looking at
numbers. We did not have this in advance. So keep in mind we will never have
61P age
Council Work Session May 23, 2011
an efficient work session discussion as when we have a chance to actually
review the material before we walk in. It's just very difficult to react, especially
to something that is so detailed and number oriented, it begs the question of
why we are even bothering because we have not had the time and ability to do
the background research.
Holtz: we were in the same position. These guys met over the weekend and
we wanted to put this together.
Hammler: I'm not placing blame anywhere. Just in general from a process
perspective in terms of council and council's review and a meaningful ability
for us all to be in one place to have a productive conversation. That's just the
necessary steps to have advance materials.
Etemadi: $3.57 for water per thousand and for sewer.
Wright: thank you. Breaking down the recommendation on the fixed rate, I
know we have all kind of generally looked at it, pulling the fixed rates down
when we made the last rate change was probably not the best idea and it
probably makes sense to move them up. But I'm one of those that use the same
amount of water every quarter. If I use a little more in the summer it's going
down the sewer drain. So the current billing system probably makes sense for
me so what would be the at explanation I would give to a customer like me as
to why my fixed charge should be going up as part of this overall change?
Munoz: we discussed that at length and one of the things we recognize is that
what we have had a significant amount of capital projects to expand both the
fresh water and wastewater facilities. Proof of that is that we have roughly $4
million in debt service alone. We just have not had a methodology to pass
along that fixed rate which is a way of saying we have extensive plants in the
city and we have to have a way of dividing that cost regardless of whether you
use one gallon or 10 gallons, that's what you paid to have the service available
to everyone. I think availability and carrying the fair share of that is what the
reason would be.
Wright: I think you came to your fixed rate by doing half the debt service
divided by the number of users. Because of what I thought of in my head
before I pulled out my budget book is the two systems budgets, so we have the
wastewater budget and the operating plan budget and we also have the admin
budget and the lines maintenance budget. The admin and the lines
maintenance seems to be kind of what it takes to have the base system, but
that's a lot more than half of the debt service. So I decided that was not a good
one to divide by.
Munoz: those are 3 million each.
71 P a „e
Council Work Session May 23, 2011
Moring: the other rationale was the fact that bond issuers look favorably on
higher fixed rates. That was the other rationale in this recommendation.
Hammler: May I ask a related follow -up question? Along those same lines
just in terms of how Kevin is phrasing them, how do you feel you have
achieved the goal of conservation?
Connally: we have maintained the high usage surcharge. We have not
encouraged conservation anymore than it is currently now. Our task was
essentially to fall back on that to some extent but by keeping the high usage
threshold, we are maintaining conservation measures.
Wright: I get the winter +3 because I have been trying to figure out, and I
think I know the answer but I will go ahead and ask, is there a winter plus
something number where we would be able to deal with the hundred percent
sewer billing concern without cranking up the fixed fee to deal with an interim
answer while we go for, what everyone agrees is the longer -term answer, a
tiered rate structure. Is there a winter +7 that the system could absorb without
other fee changes?
Connally: I don't know that we went as high as winter +7.
Munoz: the numbers can be worked out. If you want to keep the fixed rate
unchanged, and still keep the revenue... as you put a cap on sewer you will
reduce revenue so we can come down to wherever comfort level the city feels
is right and catch up with fixed rates. There is any variation of changes you
can make. But you will be using increments that pretty soon don't make sense.
Connally: and if it's not a substantial change to the sprinkler users then you're
not helping anyone out, you're not accomplishing your goal.
Munoz: Kevin, there's one other thing to be mindful that there's going to be an
increase in the rates in July on the schedule. I wanted to come back and
remind you that. So raising rates more now, and then again in July or two
times for double whammy was an issue.
Wright: John, I heard with Kim's question you allude to if we were to adopt
something today just with the winter plus and some of the other variables, our
billing system would need modifications to get there. So those modifications
may not make the summer quarter this year. So with that in mind, please don't
throw anything at me, does it make sense... What I've heard all of you guys
say and the handwringing I heard the last time you were here is the real way to
address this is to get to a tiered system that addresses the higher levels of usage.
Would it make sense to figure out what these tiers are and rip this Band -Aid
off once instead of twice?
81Pa;e
Council Work Session May 23, 2011
Munoz: in my opinion it's a matter of time. With that tiered system it's going
to take us a while. This is kind of the Band -Aid approach that I think you all
asked us to look at. If you want us to go back and look at the whole thing...
Holtz: there's a couple of things. One, you're right when we look at this
internally, we're putting something in that's going to may be favoring the high
users second and third quarter. Then we follow with a tiered system that's
going to take that away from them because the tiered system basically will hit
that section rather than the other sections. So we were going to give them
something and then take it away with the tiered system. That's a disadvantage.
On the other hand, if you look at the numbers, the usage doesn't necessarily
peak in the summer quarter. It varies all over the place. So the sooner you
institute the change, even if it's just after the summer quarter, the faster the
result will happen. I wouldn't say while were missing the summer quarter, so
let's wait until next year. In the ideal world, I'm with you, why do the Band
Aid, do the whole thing. So here we are.
Fondaco: I was just going to say that you know it seemed that Council was
hearing from a lot of in town folks as well is out of town about the high bills
and I think that much of that was because of the sewer equals water and this
attempts to fix that. How you come up with the fair amount... I know maybe
you can study the more stable people and how much their bills differ from
winter to summer. I'd be willing to bet you're not going to find it varies by
more than a couple thousand so 3000 is sort of that cap. We developed a
model that used pretty large sample sizes and we ran different types of
scenarios, winter +3, winter +4, different fixed rates and that model is
supposed to be on SharePoint, but it's a very large file.
Hammler: more importantly, how do citizens open it?
Wells: this wasn't set up for that.
Hammler: well, I know, that's the point. As far I'm concerned though it's a
public document just like any of our SharePoint documents and should be
accessible to any citizen that wants to open it.
Fondaco: and that model looked at each different district and one of the
worksheets that you have in your packets says impact on current revenue using
the current rates by district and has districts one through six. These numbers,
these percentages came about because we put them into the model and ran it
and, like I said, the model is pretty big. In District 1 and it's got 1424
residential units and 18 apartment meters included in it. So you can see the
numbers there and how many units are in our sample. I did different columns
so you guys could maybe consider some different alternatives. The first
column there says effective winter +3 only. If you didn't change the fixed rates
at all and you implemented the winter +3, and that's the percentage effect by
91P a gt•
Council Work Session
district in total. In total your revenue would go down 8% based on this one
year of data for the six districts. That's not 100% of your population but it's
pretty large. That would bring your revenue down 8 If you did winter +4,
the overall revenue would go down 7.4 Likewise, I have some columns that
show what the effect is when you raise the fixed rate only and then you can do
a combination. You can add these percentages together and figure out the
different effects. So to get our recommended effect of winter +3 and a $34
fixed, you add column 1 which is winter +3 and column 4 which is $34 fixed.
Those percentages will give you your fixed. So you can kind of play around
with this. Our goal is to be revenue neutral or a little better than revenue
neutral. I'm not sure that next year's data will be exactly the same as this
years. That was our goal so that the revenue did not go down.
Reid: so in this column here, if I may...
May 23, 2011
Mayor: Ken, ask Kevin at least for permission before you jump in on his
question.
Reid: I'm sorry, no one else did. Is that okay Kevin if I asked questions? So
what about the... Your proposal is which column here?
Fondaco: the far right one. I actually went ahead and included that column,
effective winter +3 and $34 fixed.
Reid: so we're going to gain a little bit of revenue here?
Fondaco: Yes.
Wright: I very much appreciate all the work. I know this is something we
struggled with for a while. Since the last rate increase I have been trying to
figure out winter plus what will balance. We struggled with getting to that
number. The sewer billing is something we have to address and the quirks, if
you will, and our water billing need to be sorted out, which is why I would
much rather get to a tiered system and figure out what those tiers are and get
rid of the 35 The one example we always use is so you trip the high use
surcharge, but if you consistently waste water all year round, you just pay the
same flat rate. I'm looking at a tiered system here from a community... In
Florida they actually break it with six breaks, up to 5000, then from 5 to 10,
then from 10 to 15, 15 to 25, 25 to 50 and over 50 is the big winner at about
$9.50 per thousand. It would be interesting to see a system, maybe not with
that many breaks, because I think Loudoun water only has three... Get rid of
that sort of penalty thing and you're paying for what you're using. The other
challenge with that high use surcharge is if you go 1000 over it goes on the
whole bill which is the other quirk we need to fix. That is what I tend to hear
more, we need to address some of the quirks in the billing system, make the
billing makes sense and make a consistent. I only have heard from, honestly, a
Council Work Session
Holtz: can I respond to the mayor's comments?
May 23, 2011
handful of the high use surcharge customers, the sprinkler customers that are
getting hit. Some of which were just because they were taken off guard. Others
because they use that much water and they have a concern. My fear based on
what is outlined here, because we still have a couple other moving pieces that
aren't there, I'm pretty sure we hear from a whole lot more people if we up...
The larger percentage of folks that are floating on a normal percentage are
haven't really noticed their bill. If their bill goes up 20 bucks out of the gate, I
know we will hear from all of them. That's what I'm a little worried about as
we look at next steps. I very much appreciate it. Thank you.
Mayor: I want to thank the members of URAC. I appreciate our out -of -town
members. I will not support this at all. This penalizes our less affluent in town
customers and they get hit hardest with an almost 35% increase out of the gate.
It helps, greatly our highest water users who live out of town who will see
almost a 30% decrease in their bills. It is a regressive plan and I view it as
strongly anti conservation. You are encouraged under this plan to use more
and more water. If I lived out of town, I would be ecstatic and I think our out
of -town members of URAC did the best job they could for their out -of -town
constituents but I think for moderate and low in town users and even for
moderate and low out -of -town users, this will be a disaster. I cannot support
this at all.
Hammier: to tell the truth, that's part of the issue. I think we need to take the
time to be able to digest this, determine the timing, some of the additional
inputs relative to whether it's the tiered rate structure to meet other significant
issue of assimilating this information is a whole issue of predictability for
customers and how we best communicate once we make a decision but we
can't do that without the adequate information that I assume is coming.
Holtz: I just have one sentence to respond. I respect everybody's opinion and
views, but you asked us to do this. Based on the factual information that's
what we gave you. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings or how they look
at it. As Dragnet said just the facts and that's what we did. We didn't look at it
in any political way. We didn't look at it in any other way. I made that very
clear when I told my committee members and sometimes I came up but I said
we are going to stick to the facts here. That's all we can predict.
Hammler: and that's very helpful information, so don't think it's not.
Reid: the staff would come back with... We will work with the numbers.
Titus: your comments have been discussed and understood very clearly. The
dilemma we got into was we were giving the people who were using the most
water break and sometimes that's... It's like that's the bottom line so you got
111Page
Council Work Session May 23, 2011
account for it somewhere. I clearly understand what you're saying and why are
saying it.
Mayor: I appreciate that, Terry.
Wright: one follow -up. As far as direction for staff, the one thing I don't think
we ever got because I know that when I had been to the URAC meeting, I said
you know Norm told you that it's a zero -sum gain, but there's got to be some
margin of error here. Maybe there's not, but if there's a margin of error so that
dashboard you promised me...
Wells: actually you have it in your managers report.
Wright: okay, I didn't go that far back. So I'll go look for that. In that
dashboard are we over a certain percent of revenue... that we have some
percent in revenue that we could possibly work with to address the short -term
issues that have been brought up while we figure out a longer -term solution?
Because if there's a way to get the win -win, because I know the answer of
looking at a lot of very tired people to get to the longer -term solution is not
telling them to meet weekly until they sort out a tiered rate structure because
I'm pretty sure will have 10 openings on URAC if we do that. I know that's the
next step I know this is giving us a good foundation for that. But if there's a
margin of error that we can play with, that may help Council inform their
debate as to how we proceed with this.
Butler: unfortunately, I think if there's a margin of error it's going to be a
negative margin of error because since people aren't surprised by the high rates
and we've had about a ton of rain this spring, I would anticipate revenues to be
down this year. I would not support any proposal that has revenue declining
based on it even though all of us seven as politicians would love to do that.
You can see every level of government loves to provide services at no cost or
borrowed money to constituents because that wins them votes from both sides.
Unfortunately, we can't afford to do that. Now I'm okay with this general
approach for a couple of reasons. One, I know what it's like to be on URAC
and to try to come up with a consensus solution, is difficult at the very best. I
think what we're here for is not to give high water users a break, but to
understand when we implemented the new rate structure in September of 2009
that it really hammered the high water users much more than we anticipated.
So if you look at the Delta change in the bills from non -high water users with
the September 2009 decision, it was I won't say it wasn't significant, but it was
much, much less significant than for people who water their lawn a lot. So an
approach like this may tend to temper that decision and bring it back to
something that Council may have... If we had more time may have come up
with back in September 2009. I do support raising fixed rates because I have
been through that discussion and looked at the data in 2008. That was one of
the suggestions back then and it made sense back then although it was a
121Pa;e
Council Work Session May 23, 2011
smaller increase than this. Our goals were different and we were working with
different constraints. My only real reaction to this is that, I think like the vice
Mayor, maybe it's a little too strong of a delta. Instead of the winter +3 with an
8% and the $34 fixed with a plus with a +8.9 maybe we bring those
percentages down a little bit. That's what my gut is telling me right now.
Maybe a winter +5 is more of a place where wouldn't be too bad for one, but it
would be good enough for the other so that we are in not a happy place, but
maybe a little less sad place. If that makes sense.
Dunn: I wasn't going to say anything, but since others decided to go for it I'll
mention a few comments. One, I do appreciate you alas work and this tireless
effort. I think what it gives proof to is that this continues to be a Band -Aid on a
much bigger situation. I think that the biggest discrepancy, or the biggest
problem we have in Leesburg is you're looking at it. It's elected politicians
making decisions... It's a full -time decision made by part -time employees.
There's also and I really think we would be suited for a long -term
solution. Let the town look at a water authority that has the deciding factor for
what utilities are and takes the politics right out of it. This is going to go on
once we're gone. Somebody else will be sitting in the seats and making the
same decisions, except for the mayor she'll still be here for 100 years. And
making the same wrong decisions. The problem is, the same politicians that sit
here now and making a decision on this, some are the same ones who voted
for the utility plant expansion and yet we don't have the businesses to support
it. I still firmly believe there are cuts to be made in the utility department and
that's proven to me by the fact that only just a year or two ago we had an
auditor that came in and reviewed our system and said you all just can't make
any cuts. And yet, we have seen through recent budget issues there are people
who are no longer in the utility department so cuts could be made and it hasn't
fallen apart. I think if we were big adult political and civic leaders, we would
be looking at the long -term solution which is putting this into an authority and
taking it out of us politician's hands. That's my feeling.
Reid: I just want to say something in the mayor's defense because I think that
there are probably several people in town that would be a little irked, to say the
least if they had their fixed rate for the low water users raised in this manner.
But again, I think it's a good working start. Again it was my hope that staff
could have done this on their own and then bring it to URAC back in the fall
and then you guys can work it out. But now what we're doing is we're going to
have staff come back and maybe come up with something that would be a little
bit more, how should I say, equitable. I just wanted to set the record straight,
but I know where you're coming from. John, it's in your lap. Good luck.
Hammier: Madam Mayor, back to Tom's point which is perhaps were not
spending enough time and effort as a Council on digging into these issues. If
councilmember Dunn has another alternative for how we might approach this
from a work session perspective, because to the extent that yes this is a starting
131Page
Council Work Session
Mayor: Thank you all.
May 23, 2011
point, we need to look at the work plan in terms of when and how are going to
get the tiered rate structure. We clearly have billing issues. We need the
communications plan. We can't look at something in isolation. You can call it
politics, but to me it comes down to the desire and necessity of making the
right comprehensive decision from a customer service perspective. So, yes this
is a good starting point. It's interesting in terms of the variables and the model
and how you came up with it and all the important goals you were seeking,
but now we have to put it into... Tom's calling it politics... I would call it just
the reality of all of the other important elements which do include the billing
system. Whether were going to get to monthly billing, predictable billing much
the same way you can do with the gas bill. There are variables but customers
want predictability and that's what we need to be achieving. So, great baseline
but we as a Council need to figure out how do we have the type of process in
work session to be able to properly make that decision.
b. Bike /Pedestrian Plan
Wells: tab 9 in your agenda has a summary of staff work that had been
done in preparation for general discussion about the bike /ped plan. The report
that you have outlines a number of key components of what a good plan
would include and also identifies a number of key issues in terms of
destination, inter- connectability, amenities that could possibly be included in
such a plan, and a number of these types of issues such as capital costs. But
what we want to be able to identify for Council is what is your broader goal. If
the goal is to work toward, and I think I'm kind of jumping pretty far ahead in
terms of getting to the end of the report, but there is identification of a number
of goals and objectives that Council could identify in terms of becoming an
overall bike friendly community. If that's Council's broad goal, then what staff
could identify is what are the tangible things that we could do considering that
there's not been adopted budget for that particular program in the current year.
But what are those things we could begin working on that could be potentially
longer -term budget proposals? What are some of the policy type changes or
system changes that would have limited dollar impact, and what are some of
the things we could do in the short term that could improve overall bike safety
and an enjoyable bike experience for both those traveling through town or
those coming to visit us from out of town? Very general information, but the
question is at what level do you want to work. Again, I think the question
before Council is this a broader goal that you want to work toward and if you
do, we can have a very targeted program working toward that as opposed to
identifying specific elements without having a broader goal.
Martinez: I'm going to defer. I know we need to have a plan like this in place
and I've always been an advocate from day one of bike lanes and wider
sidewalks, pedestrian access in the past. It's really ironic, in the past we had a
lot of businesses complain about not enough people walking downtown and
141Pa
Council Work Session May 23, 2011
here we want to provide them with a way for people to bike and walk
downtown. I think we still need to do that. We are all talking about gas prices
and the fact that... I said a long time ago gas is not going to be cheap and it
may be going down, but that doesn't mean it's not going to go back up and
people are looking for alternatives. I just listened to a report on the radio today
about the fact that most people were making $50,000 or less per year aren't
driving. They are walking. They are going different places. They are choosing
not to eat out or drive to new places. That's going to increase. You're going to
find families like ours that don't want to spend $10 going to some place to eat
in gas alone where it's easier just to walk downtown.
Wright: the one thing I didn't see within the report... I know we had from
parks and rec and was later referred to in the town plan... There was an overall
bike /ped mobility plan that was in those two documents. Was that document
referenced, does that document still exist, is that document dead?
Hammler: Rich, why are you here representing this and not Tom Mason, as
an example?
Wells: actually, neither one are here on that. I am representing the bike /ped
plan. He is here for the closed session.
Rich Williams: I don't know if you're referring to the ad hoc trails committee.
Wright: no, the one even before that.
Williams: there is a 20 year comprehensive parks master plan and has a
section that relates to this. We are actually in the process of updating that
currently.
Wright: the other thing, and I don't know if this caught other folks, but I know
when we were dealing with the town plan as far as the destinations, now these
two destinations are outside of the town, but every time we talked about it we
got hit with Balls Bluff and Whites Ferry. Now granted, that needs to tie into
something the county is supposed to be doing, but I know they're not because
they don't have any money. From a long -range planning perspective I know
that's still out there.
Wells: from a destination standpoint, you have two types of travelers and you
have multiple types of destinations. One is you got... Leesburg is in the way or
on the way to some other location. So you've got east -west and north -south
connectability. East -west you're looking at the trail as far as those going
through town, north -south through Rt. 15. Just following the bike traffic those
are your larger quarters. In terms of destinations, you got everything from
downtown, the outlet mall, Balls Bluff and White's Ferry, which is part of that
north -south connection. Those are for the out -of -town travelers are those who
15 a
Council Work Session
May 23, 2011
are beyond the local traffic trying to move just recreationally or for fun within
town. In a sense, you need a couple of different plans. One is how do you
move... Four -lane connectors versus the neighborhood roads. What are the
things you need to do to have a larger connections work but then have either
bicycle lanes or other type of identification on smaller routes within town.
Using the plan that parks and rec has done, which needs to be updated and
Rich is working on, we've got a figure out where are those gaps and how to fill
in the gaps from a trail perspective and also from the perspective of how do we
make our roads more bike friendly. Is that lanes, share the road signs, is it
training or all of the above are different combinations. There's not going to be
one solution, but ifs going to be a variety of them working together.
Wright: the other thing, when we talk about either bike lanes or adding trail
connectivity, I think we've gotten better. Anything we build either has wider
than standard sidewalks or we just go ahead and put in a bike trail. So I think
we definitely gotten better at that. I still struggle a little bit from an education
standpoint when I'm going 50 mph behind a bicyclist who is properly and
legally in the road, so therefore I can honk my horn at him, is cruising down
the road and there is a bike trail right next to him as to why they are not
utilizing the resources we have provided them. It gives the naysayers a fairly
good argument of why are we building all these bike trails if they don't use
them even when they are right next to them. The other thing I've noticed
when walking around, and we have some glaring examples like Plaza Street,
which we are trying to bump out and add a sidewalk to which will narrow the
road to what the road actually needs to be. That road is actually four times
wider than it needs to be. It is a two -lane road with four lanes of width and
people swerving around each other, which is great because they do it in front
of the police station, they get pulled over, they get a ticket, we get revenue
which is awesome but probably not the safest thing. You look at even on my
dog walking route, Fairview Street. Granted the circumstances on the street
have changed, it was designed fairly wide allow for a parking lane and half of
that parking lane is no longer needed. The school obviously overflowed out
onto the street and the new use that's there doesn't even overflow out onto its
own parking lot let alone the street. I'm looking at that thinking how can I get
rid of all this asphalt and put something else in its place. There are some
opportunities so looking at this it seems the best approach is trying to identify
bike and pedestrian mobility as a priority and figuring out in the course of
things we are doing how can we capture those opportunities. So as were
looking at a staff report, asking for economic development impact we are soon
going to be asking for storm water management impact, is trying to get the
bike /ped impact figuring out what the core priorities of the town are and
making sure as we are making particular decisions, we are mindful of that and
not passing by an opportunity. So for getting street signage... are we going to
put up one sign if for 20 bucks more we get bicycle education or stuff like that?
I know because we cut a bunch is stuff out of the CIP; there's not a bunch of
161Page
Council Work Session
May 23, 2011
dollars floating around to do significant projects. We need to be mindful of
other opportunities.
Wells: capturing the opportunities when they arise and knowing what the
bigger picture is so those pieces can fit into it. We can make a lot of progress in
those areas and as these opportunities present themselves to Council, whether
through proffers or other opportunities if we know what we're trying to work
towards and there are other ways to get there.
Hammler: first of all, I want to know who wrote the staff report.
Wells: the staff report was Betsy, Kaj
Hammler: who actually wrote the staff report. Who wrote the first paragraph?
Wells: I don't know that.
Hammler: I almost thought my daughter wrote it, I don't know who has
called me Kathryn ever. Tongue -in- cheek, because I do think this is clearly a
long -term vision and it's going to be something for our children and future
generations as we anticipate the importance of multimodal transportation and
it's interesting thinking about some of the key things Kevin, in reacting to the
report, has brought out which is the fact that we build sidewalks that only
pedestrians can go on but bikes can go on. We have trails which can have
bikes and walkers. We seem to have created a transportation system where
roads are only used for cars and the example of John even trying to walk
around town, you can't put your foot in the street without feeling like it's an
unsafe activity.
Wright: well that depends, if it's John he's got a different set of variables then
say, you or I. It would probably be safer for John.
Hammier: I very much do appreciate staff moving this forward because I think
it's very important for us as a Council to do something we've been talking
about doing ever since we, quite frankly evaluated the Southwest connector
which is that we know it's an important leadership point to say we can't do
things from a budget perspective where we are going to have point to point
very capital intensive trails but anticipate that we have to create ubiquitous
ability for there to be safe bike access everywhere in town and from there do
the low hanging fruit, all the things that we can do, where we have identified
ourselves as a leading bike oriented community, all the signs that will create
the atmosphere to start changing behavior in a gradual way so that cars do
slow down. That there is the safety education so that more and more people
are taking their bikes; so that we have places for bikes to be kept if people are
getting on the commuter bus. I don't think we're obviously going to solve it
tonight, but I would very much appreciate Council considering voting on
17 1Page
Council Work Session May 23, 2011
affirming that we are going to be a bike, and I would not just say friendly, bike
and pedestrian safe community. Put our flag in the ground and then typically
identify the process, whether it's a specific subcommittee of an existing
commission or a subcommittee of this Council working with staff so that we
can identify, if you can visualize the actual matrix that was used for the
downtown business plan, it was a matrix which was this ongoing vision. You
know how are we going to be live, work, play? In this case we are going to be
bike, pedestrian ubiquitous and enlist specific tactics and how we are making
progress on them. I don't want to be too long- winded tonight, but I would like
to see us put a resolution in place so we can affirm this, put the process in
place and start making initial progress.
Butler: for the sake of not being too long- winded, I'm just going to let that
point to point trail comment slide on by. But I will mention in the first
paragraph not only does it say Kathryn Hammler but it said Dave Butler. So I
got the diminutive. In any case, I appreciate... I would certainly be in favor of
a resolution and I appreciate the report. A couple of things I would like to see
going forward is I want to make sure that staff is aggressive in promoting
bike /ped transportation as much as they are at promoting automobile
transportation. I think we overbuild sometimes for cars and under build in the
other direction and we just have to face the facts that if we are going to be
bike /ped friendly and safe it's going to require... There's not going to be as
much parking for cars, the streets aren't going to be as wide for cars. It's going
to be... There's going to be trade -offs and it's going to make automotive
transportation slightly less friendly but hopefully not less safe. The other thing
is I want us to focus as much as we possibly can on at least one of those routes
across the bypass in the Northeast quadrant because there are a lot of
opportunities and at least one of those ought to be able to pass muster.
Reid: just a question, first of all John. This came up... Some residents of
Greenway Farms were wondering what is the status of the route 15 widening
project and the extension of the trail, the S. King St. trail and is it going to
hook up with the Greenway Farms Path which is right along the street or is it
going to be a parallel trail?
Dentler: it's part of the project.
Reid: so it will connect right there, and the town is going to take it over for
maintenance?
Dentler: no, we would just connected in, the same way we did in Exeter.
Reid: do you want to come up and tell us the status of the widening project?
Dentler: the status of the widening project is we are working through design
and are very close to getting it approved signature wise. Utility relocations are
18 P a e
Council Work Session
May 23, 2011
going on. We are going forward with construction starting in the spring or
summer.
Reid: This spring?
Dentler: no, next spring.
Reid: I remember Council member Dunn went down with Mr. Dentler to the
intersection of the bypass the S. King St. and looked at pedestrian crossing
signals and came up with a total of $40- $50,000. Is that something we could
do? Would we put it in the CIP or is it something that... What became of that
effort to either do a lit crosswalk across the bypass ramp or do some kind of
pedestrian or bike...
Dentler: that report was given to Council several months ago and there was
some funding that would be needed based on the crossings and there was no
action taken at that time. You were thinking it could be done internally
without funds.
Reid: I was going to put that on for us to take action on because that is
something we could do right now especially since the trail is going to be
extended and will increase usage. The other thing is what is called the S. King
St. trail extension which goes through Food Lion and the park over to the W&
OD. Is that still on hold?
Butler: it's not in the CIP.
Dentler: it's been moved out to the future list.
Reid: that's something that would definitely provide some connectivity. I don't
think it was referenced in the report. Finally, I still get these questions as to
why the trail on Battlefield ends right at Route 7 and you explained it here
that you can't encourage people crossing Route 7 and VDOT has a rule on that
so that's one area where the trail is getting a lot of use. I'm wondering is there
something that can be done? In the November memo there is actually a
reference to a pedestrian refuge island over near Ft. Evans Road. Right?
That's in the November memo that I read. Is there something that VDOT
would accept for us to extend that path to Route 7 or not?
Wells: I think the purpose, councilmember Reid, at this point would be to
take all of those items in the report that have possibilities and put them
together as part of an overall plan as opposed to picking out individual pieces.
Kind of give us a big picture.
Reid: Right. So there are certain things that we can do right now to improve
safety. That's what I'm looking at because as much as it's great to talk about a
191Page
Council Work Session May 23, 2011
big picture and the overall goals and stuff like that, we do have a master plan
of trails. The key thing is what can be done within existing fiscal constraints.
That's what I'm looking at here. When it comes to Route 7 and the bypass and
Fort Evans, yes, I was actually a big proponent of the pedestrian bridge back in
2006. It's extraordinarily expensive. We would be better off just doing a grade
separation or coming up with the new configuration for the road so people can
at least get across. Safe -T -Ride has been very successful. I'm concerned with
the fares charged for the trolley, whether that's going to diminish the number
of people using it who will then walk across the bypass at Edwards Ferry
Road. So that's where I am but there is no question there is a certain demand
for these facilities. The question arises of who pays and how we get it done.
Dunn: I think John you either alluded to or came right out and said it, the key
point is right now to draft a resolution. I hope your response is to what.
Because what is our purpose? Is it to, and I think you mentioned this, get
bikers from W &OD into town, is to get citizens in from the neighborhoods
into town, is it to provide interconnection to neighborhoods, what is our
purpose going to be? If we want to put safety up as the prime motive for doing
trails, the safest thing would be generally considered to be a skywalk type bike
trail system that puts everybody riding above traffic. Safety is in the mind,
eyes, ears of the user. This state determines that a bike is a vehicle. They are on
roads, they should be obeying traffic laws. Just to say that we are writing a
resolution at this point is a little premature. We want to be a bike town, it's
easy to say that but we could also say that we want clean air, clean water and
can you put in there that we like kittens, dogs, and butterflies. But I think we
need to have a purpose. That's the discussion the Council needs to have. What
is it we want to get out of bikes? If we want to just say we want to have people
bike everywhere. The market is determining that. We could say we want to
bring it back to a horse and buggy too but the market isn't there for that. So if
there was a huge demand for bikes and bike trail system everybody would be
in here demanding it everywhere and we would quit driving our cars and we're
not ready for that. So if this is a recreation purpose, maybe what we need to
have is more trails built within each community. Obviously, we have in town
and it's going to be very difficult for us to do interconnection from every part of
town into town. We can't build 12 bridges over the bypass. It's a town and
we just can't get it done. I do believe that the interchange at Edwards ferry and
the 15 bypass is designed to have some sort of trail on it when it gets built, $35
million later. So, I think too... What ever happened with... I had talked to you
and thank you for you and Kaj going down walking to the Dominion power
lines down off Chancellor Street and looking at... Basically they put high
power lines through our town. It was noticed by myself and I actually took a
look at it. They created basically a trail system under the power lines.
Whatever happened with that discussion? I know they weren't thrilled about:
it, they weren't thrilled about anything other than tearing down trees and
putting up power lines.
201Pgc
Council Work Session May 23, 2011
Wells: they are open to a discussion about that. There is obviously a
significant cost involved not with necessarily the right -of -way, but the
construction itself. It's not something that would be ruled out of hand as can't
be done.
Dunn: first of all, the one that comes to mind you addressed in your report is
that we're waiting on certain roads that might connect Leesburg village to
other parts of town. They put a trail that goes right from Wegmans underneath
the power lines right to Battlefield. We have a trail right there on Battlefield
currently where people can walk and run. It would nice to see those easy ones
come to fruition and actually a lot of people will start using those for bike
purposes. When you think about the possibility of some kind of connection
with the Southwest using what was the King Street extension, obviously we
are not calling it that now because it's out of the CIP. What are we calling that
now, Kaj?
Dentler: Tuscarora Creek.
Dunn: we'll go with that then. Or even the fact that there was a trail they
built -in at the end of Chancellor Street and then knowing the property that's
across the street from Chancellor Street is potentially for sale and we only have
about 3 feet... That property backs up to the W &OD, that we just need to have
a two -step access agreement with the County to go ahead and connect that up.
We have other options out there. Again, what is our purpose going to be? Is it
just going to be claiming we are a bike town USA? What is that going to mean
then? Do we want to encourage everyone to get out of their cars and start
riding? Well, we can't do that. So if we can't do that then what is our goal
going to be? I don't know if it's going to be one of those things where if we
build it, they will come. I don't think it's going to be the case. There's just too
many cars out there. Again safety we have to do our part but safety is in the
rider. They are a vehicle, they do need to abide by the rules of the road. Right
now, I know throughout town on the weekends I see bikers all over. They
come down Battlefield. When I was out in the southeast I talked to a neighbor
who said the bikers get off the W &OD trail onto Dry Mill and ride it into
town. I said why do they do it? It's faster. Okay, so they don't even stay on the
W &OD, they get off at Dry Mill as busy as that road was and they ride into
town past the high school on Dry Mil Road instead of staying on the W &OD,
why? Because it saves them a few more minutes in their travels. Anyway, I
would rather see us come up with the real purpose of what we're trying to
accomplish before we start sending staff to do anything else. Council needs to
decide what its direction will be.
Mayor: I would like to follow -up on something Ken said, which is the trolley.
I have had two citizens bring to my attention... Somehow I had missed it that
the trolley is no longer for free. Is it $.25, $.50, what is it now?
21 1Pa;e
Council Work Session May 23, 2011
Wells: I think it's $.50.
Mayor: both of these citizens said that for people in their income bracket, and
they are in a lower income bracket, they really miss their free aspect of the
trolley. What led to that move to start charging for it? Was it that we didn't
want to subsidize it anymore because of the budget constraints?
Wells: Financial constraints.
Mayor: how much had we been spending a year? I think it was around
$30,000 per year.
Wells: I think it was more than that. I think that $30,000 strikes me as the
number that was the starting number for the Safe -T -Ride. I want to say, I hate
to guess, but I think the trolley number was $150,000. I think that was a six
digit number. The Safe -T -Ride was five digits and that was supported by gas
tax funds through the County.
Mayor: and are we not subsidizing it at all anymore?
Wells: no, we are continuing to subsidize it but the costs are exceeding the
level that we are supporting.
Mayor: do you know how much we are spending now to subsidize it?
Wells: I will go back and find those. I can find this pretty quickly.
Mayor: I don't know the extent to which the fare would make a dent in what
we had been paying to subsidize it in the past. Had VRTA increased their
request for money from the town for the trolley?
Wells: I brought forward the full amount of their requests this year. I don't
recall cutting their request.
Mayor: all right. I guess that would be the main thing. I kind of liked Kevin's
point on Plaza Street being so wide, and the point about Fairview, there isn't a
need for the parking...
Wright: on a portion of it.
Mayor: got it. Where the school used to be and now Spring Arbor is. I think
that's a good point. We had discussed when we opened up Battlefield
Parkway, we had discussed some kind of temporary bike trail past the
wastewater plant to connect with Village at Leesburg. I would guess we
haven't done anything further on that. That strikes me as being a really good.
22 (Pag
Council Work Session
May 23, 2011
idea and from there people could pick up the trail across Route 7 on River
Creek Parkway.
Wells: one of the things that's happened with that, the initial idea was one that
we thought we could do fairly quickly. The development that was going to be
occurring adjacent to that that would naturally pick that up, and it seemed
gotten on a fast track, so it seemed to make sense to go along that. Now that
development has slowed down and we may be faced with is it better for us to
just go back and do it ourselves and not worry about the pace of development.
It's been kind of a fast /slow type thing. It's never stopped. I don't want to give
that impression. But I think rather than riding the wave of the pace of
development in an effort to save a few dollars, we probably should just
maintain the effort to do it on a temporary basis.
Hammler: I think these are all excellent suggestions. I think to the extent that
we can affirm that we want to be bike friendly, whatever the official national
designation is for a bike leading community, take a look at those parameters as
part of this overall plan. And then in addition explore all of these ideas
including ideas like a mobile app. In this day and age being able to have
instant access to information for a citizen who may need to plot out how to get
from home to the commuter bus or home to downtown or home to a friends
house or any visitor that is coming into town however they are getting here, on
the W &OD, that we can connect Dodona Manor to Balch library to Veterans
Park to Balls Bluff Park. There so many things that we could be making
available with our partnership with George Mason University so we will be
adding our own level of innovation with its stamp and its flag in the ground
that we are going to be a leading bike and pedestrian oriented community. So
again, we won't have all the answers tonight. But we can start gathering it. I
don't think it needs to be all on staff' s shoulders. There are many citizens who
very much want to find ubiquitous ways, and safe ways to get across the
bypass to the outlets, to their jobs but we need to say we're going to do it and
we're going to find the metrics to know that we're making progress. So I'd
support a resolution.
Martinez: I do have two agree with Tom somewhat. I think what we really
need to do is are we going to be a spoke in a hub or a whole wheel? Where is
our center? What's our goal? Are we just going to be... For example I love
your idea from where the Wegmans is, that development there, along the
sewer water treatment plant to Battlefield and finding a way to get them to the
W &OD because we can cross at River Creek. I think what we need to do is
before we go any further, we need to decide what are we going to do? Do we
want to bring everybody to the center or give everyone a way around?
Hammler: so, Marty, would you recommend that something Council takes up
at a work session as a whole, do we want to send it to a committee? Do we
231Page
Council Work Session
May 23, 2011
want staff to come back after an amount of time with a plan? Is that the whole
point, they come back with a plan?
Martinez: I would say the best place to start is with the parks and recreation
commission because they have already worked on trail plans and other things.
They have a good feel for what people want. I would say go to them and ask
them to take a look and see what would be the best to suit the town and then
go from there. Then bring it back to Council for work session. Let them have
two or three different ways we can approach this as a plan and then once we
decide this is one we want to go with, then we can start tasking staff with
doing the things we need to do. We can't just throw everything out there and
say we are going to do it. We need to start at the bottom. I think the Parks and
Recreation commission is a good beginning.
Butler: do we need a resolution to charge them to go do that?
Wells: it would probably be a good idea because frequently when you are
working with citizen groups, they are going to want to refer back to what the
specific mission or task is. I would recommend that.
Hammier: the only concern I would have...
Martinez: it could be done in phases. We could just draw lines to the center
and plan on a hub on a second or third phase of the wheel.
Hammier: I think that's an excellent point, Marty. If I may, I think it's
important that we expand the concept that it quite frankly isn't just going to be
a recreation goal. There's going to be a significant requirement for citizens to
be able for job purposes, for daily life purposes, get places. There are citizens
that have been really active in developing that concept, like Ann Robinson,
who would be I think an important part of a subcommittee that could include
members of the Parks and Recreation commission. But I would certainly
support a broader citizen -based committee to tackle this plan.
c. Potential Sale of Surplus Property (Real Estate)
Wells: Madam Mayor, Council members, there have been inquiries
regarding a couple of different parcels of land that the town owns over the last
several years. One of them specifically deals with Loudoun Street, the area in
front of the town garage. General question before Council is are we interested
in the potential sale of surplus property. Is it surplus, identifying it as such, and
then disposing of it through some type of competitive sale process.
Considering the nature of the discussions that have occurred so far, my
recommendation is if there is interest in pursuing potential sales of land, that
those discussions be held in closed session because we are going to be dealing
with potential real estate negotiation points as well is the fact that some of the
prospective buyers would prefer to remain anonymous from a public
241pagc
Council Work Session
May 23, 2011
perspective at this time. So, if there is a general interest in looking at that, I
would recommend that we add that to the closed session for this evening. We
can talk a little bit more specifically there.
Mayor: the map, looking at it, we are going to sell the Potomac River, Ida
Lee, and the airport. Really?
Martinez: I would say, I'm reluctant to give a timeline. I wouldn't be adverse
to a long -term lease of property. If someone wanted to do that, I wouldn't be
adverse to doing that. Of course, there are conditions on what is being built on
that and other things, but I would hate to give up any town property.
Wright: John, the one thing that would've been helpful on the map is actually
highlight the surplus as potential surplus property. Although this map was fun
too. I have been going around trying to identify what's what, especially since
the streets aren't labeled. Thanks for that part of the fun. There is like two that
I still can't figure out and I will quiz you on later. I would certainly, I mean we
have been talking about Loudoun Street forever, I would certainly want to
have a conversation about how we could approach that and what conditions
we could place on a sale. I don't think a land lease would work. So it's either
were doing something with it or we're selling it so someone else could do
something with it. But we have said since we built the parking garage however
many years ago we were going to put something there and it's umpteen years
later and we haven't. So if there is an opportunity to sell it to accomplish that
goal, while still protecting the town's interest, I would be very open to those
discussions.
Hammler: can you show me where that is on the map? I'm trying to see where
the museum is as it relates to owning actual land versus a building.
Wright: the other question I would have is of all of this stuff that's on the map,
most of it is parks or is being used. Obviously it's not surplus, but I would be
interested in seeing an updated map that maybe has crosshatched or only
shows those parcels that may be identified as either surplus are underutilized
that Council would have a further discussion on. The only one I'm prepared to
discuss at this time is Loudoun Street.
Wells: That's the principal one at this time.
Hammler: as I was looking at the top, I'm like how did this even come up as
an agenda item because it sort of came out of left field unless it is about
Loudoun Street or dealing with what we have talked about in the past which is
the operating costs of the building maintenance for the Loudoun Museum
because I was going to come back to Council. So from a broader perspective,
I'm not sure exactly what we need from a Council perspective. If you just need
25I
Council Work Session
May 23, 2011
general policy guidelines, such as the importance of market timing as it relates
to the sale of a property. I don't know exactly what you need.
Wells: I think if the Council is interested in potentially selling Loudoun Street,
then we should be in closed session.
Hammier: in general, I would believe if there is a piece of property that it
doesn't make sense to keep it anymore and the market timing is correct and it
might help offset something very specific, then there would be a legitimate
reason to do so.
Butler: No questions, comments or anything else. I am all psyched up for the
closed session.
Reid: I have no problem going into closed session to discuss this at all. I also
think that the leasing idea is not a bad idea. We just have to study it and see if
it's feasible, whatever the parcel.
d. Rules of Order
Mayor: there is debate about whether those who first proposed it want
to defer it, but they thought may be you (Butler) or someone else wanted to
talk about it. I'm not sure what we should do. I'm hearing no enthusiasm for
discussing it. So I guess it's deferred?
Dunn: I have enthusiasm for not bringing them up at all.
Reid: same here.
Dunn: our rules are fine as they are.
Mayor: So that's deferred, at least.
2. Additions to Future Council Meetings
Hammier:
a. Increasing the time of the meter on Market Street in front of La Lou.
Council Member Hammier stated it used to be two hours, but was reduced to
30 minutes when it was a coffee shop.
Mr. Wells stated he could fix it.
Reid:
a. Memo on what's happening with Virt's Corner and what is going on
with the utility relocation, funding, timing of construction, etc.
b. Memo on whether the town should revive the spraying program for
mosquitoes and ticks on town property such as Ida Lee, Freedom Park and
Izaak Walton.
261Page
Council Work Session
c. Adoption of an ordinance in July on guns.
Ms. Irby stated it is on the Council's work plan and has been initiated
and on target for amendment.
d. Rescue Squad is interested in expansion.
e. Skate Park.
Dunn:
a. What would be involved in creating a water authority for Leesburg.
b. South King Street lights for the King Street trail at the bypass. Detailed
numbers for funding.
c. What would be involved in resurrecting the Tuscarora Creek Trail.
South King Street to Douglass.
Mayor:
a. Signage for Fort Evans Road businesses.
May 23, 2011
3. Closed Session
On a motion by Mayor Umstattd, seconded by Council Member Reid, the
following was proposed:
Pursuant to Section 2.2- 3711(A)(3) and (7) of the Code of Virginia, I move that
the Leesburg Town Council convene in a closed meeting for the purpose of
receiving information and discussion regarding:
(a) Cornerstone
(b) Linden Hill
(c) Potomac Crossing Park
(d) Sale of Surplus Property
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammier, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None
Vote: 7 -0
The Council convened in closed session at 9:13 p.m.
The Council reconvened in open session at 10:15 p.m.
On a motion by Mayor Umstattd, seconded by Council Member Wright, the
following was proposed:
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.
271Page
Council Work Session
May 23, 2011
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Butler, Dunn, Hammler, Martinez, Reid, Wright and Mayor Umstattd
Nay: None
Vote: 7 -0
4. Adjournment
On the motion of Council Member Martinez, seconded by Council Member
Butler, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
I
Clerk of Co`tij it
2011 tcwsmin0523
28It'age