HomeMy Public PortalAbout2011_tcwsmin1114Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:30 p.m. Mayor Kristen C. Umstattd
presiding.
Council Members Present: David S. Butler, Thomas Dunn, Katie Sheldon Hammler,
Marty Martinez, Ken Reid, Kevin D. Wright, and Mayo Umstattd.
Council Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Town Manager John Wells, Deputy Town Manager Kaj Derider,
Town Attorney Jeanette Irby, Director of Planning and Zoning Susan Berry Hill,
Director of Plan Review William Ackman, Deputy Director of Utilities Aref Etemadi,
Director of Capital Projects Renee LaFollette, Senior Engineer Anne Geiger, Deputy
Director of Planning Brian Boucher, Assistant to the Town Manager Scott Parker,
Zoning Administrator Chris Murphy, Director of Public Works Tom Mason,
Economic Development Manager Marantha Edwards, Research and Communication
Manager Betsy Fields, and Clerk of Council Lee Ann Green
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Work Session Items for Discussion
a. Lowenbach Improvements Update
Geiger: Madam Mayor and Council Members, this is the from the
September 26"' Council meeting. At that meeting, you all asked us to have a public
information meeting, have the traffic study results that we had talked about and since
then, we also had SRTC recommendation that we would like to give you. The public
information meeting was held November 2 at Ida Lee and we had about 65 residents
there. There was a question and answer type of thing before hand and then a
presentation and question and answer afterwards. The traffic study and counts, Wells
and Associates did the 1995 study and they also did the 2011 update and several in
between.
In 1995, the estimates for Catoctin Circle were between 1500 and 1700 vehicles per
day. Then in the 100 block of Washington, they were about 1000 vehicles per day.
The 2011 projections that Wells has come up with are slightly lower than the 1995
projections. We are estimating about 1335 vehicles per day on the 100 block of
Catoctin and then it drops off a little bit in the 200 and then about 765 vehicles per
day on the 100 block of Washington. The take away points from the Wells study are
that obviously with the Catoctin Circle barricade removal,', the traffic increases on
Catoctin Circle, as we saw to about 1335 vehicles per day.' On Prince Street, with the
barricade in place, the existing conditions, vehicles per daft are about 800 and it
increases to over 1000 in the unimproved conditions with Woodberry under
construction. Queen and Washington, and this is the one that surprised me the most.
The traffic has just really not changed substantially whether the barricades are there or
not. Blue Ridge with the barricades removed, the traffic decreases west of Catoctin
between Prince and Catoctin and the traffic doesn't change substantially east of
Catoctin. With the barricade in place, this is the barricade' on Catoctin, the traffic
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
increases during the Prince construction, but that would obviously be on an improved
Woodberry. On Marshall with the barricade in place, the traffic increases during
Prince construction and the same thing on North Street with the Catoctin barricade in
place. The traffic increases 50 percent from just over a 1000 vehicles per day to about
1600 vehicles per day during the Prince Street construction. On November 7, the
SRTC looked at the Lowenbach project and they had several recommendations that
had to do with the Catoctin Circle barricade issue and what they were asked to look
at. First of all, they had recommended no temporary speed cushions on any of the
street, no permanent speed cushions in the 100 block of all the north /south streets.
They recommended that due to a sight distance issue on Blue Ridge that a four way
stop be installed at Catoctin and Blue Ridge and they also have found very good use
of the driver feedback signs to control speeding so they recommend that the driver
feedback signs be installed on Catoctin and on Blue Ridge where the staff ..the
department of Public Works staff recommended. Once those last two items are done,
they recommend removal of the barricade on Catoctin. You all had also asked
whether the Capital Projects staff would recommend removal and based on the SRTC
recommendations, we have also have agreed with what they have come up with and
recommend removal of the barricades based on doing the, two items they talked
about, the four way stop and the driver feedback signs. Sp, with that, I'll open to
questions that you all have.
Dunn: I had sent a question to Kaj. I don't remember seeing it back on that, or if it is
in here, I haven't had a chance to look. It was more about the ability of keeping the
roads that are being worked on, keeping them partially open during construction at
which point it would allow for through traffic to come through and directions from
workers on site, rather than just closing the streets down completely, allow some
traffic to come through.
LaFollette: I looked at that scenario and on all of the north /south streets, in an
unimproved condition, we are working with a pavement width of between 16 -18 feet.
The water line installation on these streets typically is two feet from center line. The
backhoe that digs that trench sits straddling that trench. So, it leaves me with between
4 '/z and 5 '/2 feet of asphalt to be able to get traffic around. I don't have a consistent
shoulder width. People park on the shoulder. I would end up having to put a
temporary shoulder condition right along the front property lines, which increases
costs to the project. In short, it's not a feasible option to do.
Dunn: Okay. What is the estimated time of completion, currently, if you are doing it
like you are doing now ... all blocked off and fastest. What is your time for completing
those roads?
LaFollette: Summer of 2014 is when we would have the bast phase of the Lowenbach
project completed. Prince Street is to start construction as soon as Woodberry Road
reaches substantial completion, which would be late Spring of 2012. Completion in
2013. Washington and Queen follow right upon it's heels, Summer 2013 to Summer
2014.
2 1Parc
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Dunn: Okay, would there be any time throughout the next roughly 2 '/Z years, then
that some of those roads could be partially opened. In other words, at what point
would the backhoe not be straddling that line. Could that allow a lane of traffic to
come through?
LaFollette: Well, what we run into is you are removing all of the pavement structure
down to subgrade and then we are putting curb and gutter on the side. We will be
narrowing... increasing the width, but you are narrowing it because you have all of the
construction equipment in here to do the work, so if we slip form the curb, for
example. When you come down through there, you have the concrete truck that sits
off to the side, so you are taking up over half of the road width with equipment to do
the work. So, looking at what happened on Catoctin Circle, granted we don't have
the grade difference that we did on Catoctin on any of the other streets, even getting
residential traffic through, we had to let them know "today you need to come in from
the north side of where we are working ... you are not going to be able come into your
residence from Edwards Ferry and go all the way to the north end because there isn't
enough room to get all the equipment and materials and vehicles through.
Dunn: and if you were to put in a temporary shoulder, would that be on ground that
is going to be improved anyway, or is that going to infringe on property that we don't
intend to be working on?
LaFollette: It could be a combination of both because the sidewalk only is on one
side of the road. So, if the water line is on the opposite side of the road from where
the sidewalk is, we would have the possibility to do that, but if it is on the same side
of the sidewalk, then I have to improve the opposite side. So, it's not consistent on all
of the streets. Again, we are looking at a significant cost increase to the project as
well because we aren't looking at temporary maintenance of traffic to get traffic
around.
Dunn: What is significant?
LaFollette: I would estimate, probably close to $20 to $2$ thousand dollars per street
for stone, excavation of that, placement and subsequent removal.
Dunn: So, if it was something that we wanted to do, we are looking at $20 -30
thousand dollar additional cost, it would probably not be something that would be
consistent. It may be three months before we could do that, then do it two months
on, five months off, two more weeks on ... based on what the width of the road is .... is
there a way we could do it?
LaFollette: We could do it. I haven't looked at the time implication for doing that.
Anytime you introduce traffic, lane closures and having flaggers on each end, you are
slowing progress down. Our directive pretty much has been to get them done as
quickly as you can ... I'm looking for ways to do that, not ways to slow it down.
3 t c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Reid: There is a ... apparently the Mayor had requested that the SRTC look at the
feasibility of closing Prince Street to all non - resident traffic during the construction on
Woodberry, especially if the barricades on Catoctin were to remain in place. Did the
SRTC discuss that or vote on that?
Geiger: They did and they made a recommendation.
Reid: I don't see that in the memo from the SRTC.
Geiger: We felt that Prince Street really didn't have much to do with the Catoctin
barricades, so we did not include that in the memo, but their letter is there. In essence
what they are saying is, Prince Street can be closed...
Reid: Oh, I see. They recommend that it not be closed during construction. Okay,
very good. So they did recommend against that. The question that I have is....
Geiger: No, I don't think that's right. They recommended...
LaFollette: They recommended that it not be closed during Woodberry construction.
Reid: That was what the Mayor's request was ... the feasibility. But the question that
I have is ... I was talking to some of the residents in the neighborhood over the last
couple of weeks and they were suggesting two things... 1), could the construction and
the pain to the residents on Woodberry and Prince be accelerated if those streets were
closed to all traffic except local traffic 24/7. Could you accelerate the construction?
LaFollette: We could possibly accelerate construction. I look at Prince Street with
the potential of accelerating construction if the road was Closed similar to what it was
on Catoctin Circle. I estimate we could take approximately three months off the
construction schedule by closing Prince Street and allowing a staging area at the north
end of Prince Street so that the materials and equipment are closer to the work site.
Reid: What about Woodberry?
LaFollette: Woodberry would probably be at about two months because we don't
have as much work to do on Woodberry as we do on Prince and the other streets.
Reid: What about the cost savings?
LaFollette: Cost savings are very minimal. Because you are looking at their
estimates are based on their units of work and not so much ... you get a little bit of cost
savings in terms of hours, that would be about it.
Reid: That way the streets are closed 24/7 except for local traffic and you don't have
to worry about directing traffic daytime at all. That sounds good to me. The question
41Pa e
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
that I have that other residents recommended was to open the barricades temporarily
on Queen and Washington while these two streets were being constructed. Would
that help off -load some of the traffic from Catoctin Circle because if we close Prince
and Woodberry, then Catoctin Circle is now the only real route in that area. So, I am
wondering if we...
Geiger: Are you talking about removing the barricade on Catoctin also?
Reid: Of course. I am talking about removing the barricade on Queen and
Washington on a temporary basis during the Woodberry 'sand Prince construction, but
also serve as a pilot to see how much traffic you really get on those streets.
LaFollette: Would the barricade on Catoctin remain in place?
Reid: No. No, no, no, no. No, I'm supporting the SRTC. I just want to say for the
record, I think the SRTC did a stellar job and I am prepared to support their
recommendations.
Geiger: This is Chris Turnbull from Wells and Associates. He didn't actually do a
scenario with the two streets closed, Woodberry and Prince and Washington and
Queen, but he might have a good idea of what would happen.
Turnbull: I think the question is, we are closing both Woodberry and Prince and then
opening up Catoctin, Queen and Washington?
Reid: Well, you would be opening Catoctin permanently,, but Queen and
Washington would just be temporary during the construction of Prince and
Woodberry as a relief valve for Catoctin.
Turnbull: Understand. My sense is that the bulk of the traffic will certainly use
Catoctin, then Queen and Washington will develop the same traffic as they have now.
As part of the passing of Edwards Ferry Road. The four way stop at Catoctin and
Edwards Ferry, folks would have to wait ... they have to wait their turn. On the other
streets, they have to wait for a gap and you have 9,000 trips on Edwards Ferry in that
section, so people will probably find it easier to go to Catoctin and then if they find
trouble getting off ...going up one street to Plaza and Plaza has a signal off Edwards
Ferry. So...
Reid: It's just that we had a recommendation... a request from a resident on Queen to
open the barriers. We had an email from someone on Queen ... maybe it was
Washington... to open the barriers. The folks that I was talking to live at least on
North Street, you know, in that general area I think are of the mind that it would
really help a lot just to have those alternatives.
5 a
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Turnbull: Well, it would certainly help with the local distribution of Queen and
Washington traffic. You can get the folks from Queen and Washington onto North
Street and not go onto Edwards Ferry.
Reid: I see. I would really like to have my colleagues consider that as part of the
resolution tonight, because it would also give us an idea ... we can do some traffic
studies and if we see that there is a real problem, how hard is it to put the barricades
back? Not hard at all. That would be my recommendation. I just think that ... I was
talking extensively to the residents in that area and I think that they would
appreciate... they were mentioning that there was a time when there were a lot of kids
that would play there ... like you know there would be basketball and stuff like that,
but the nature of the neighborhood has changed a little bit. There are not a lot of
really small children who play in those areas anymore. I just think that it would be
worthwhile to do it on a temporary basis and it would help a lot. I do support closing
Prince and Woodberry so we can accelerate the construction. I think that's only fair
because we did it for the folks on Catoctin Circle. I think its also better for the staff
and the crews.
Butler: Remind me again, if we close Woodberry and Prince at the same time, would
we do the construction at the same time? So, why would we do that? Maybe I wasn't
listening.
Geiger: I don't think we'd do it.
Butler: I didn't think so, but sometimes I miss something. Okay, so the idea would
be that you would close Woodberry during its construction, then you would close
Prince during its construction.
Geiger: Woodberry is closed during the day, but then its opened up at night.
Currently.
Butler: Okay.
Reid: What I was asking was closing it 24/7 except local traffic. That would save
three months or two months, respectively.
Butler: I wouldn't imagine that we would get that much traffic at night.
LaFollette: Nighttime volumes on each street...
Turnbull: After about 7 o'clock....
Geiger: It's the PM peak that seems to be the biggest on most of these streets. That is
what we would be getting rid of if we closed the streets and that traffic would then
have to go someplace else.
61Pa
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Butler: Okay, but it would be one street at a time. Okay, so alright, but the net impact
of doing that on Catoctin Circle, if we took the barricades off was how much?
LaFollette: The net increase to traffic?
Geiger: There were about 290 to about 1,335.
Butler: Most of that is because we have taken barricades off of Catoctin?
Geiger: Yes.
Butler: Okay, but the difference between if we take the barricades off of Catoctin, the
difference between closing ... say Woodberry during the day or closing 24/7. How
much impact would that have on Catoctin?
Geiger: Not a whole lot. Catoctin Circle takes the majority of the traffic. So with
Prince Street under construction and the barricades removed from Catoctin, the traffic
on Woodberry goes from about 600 vehicles per day down to 300 vehicles per day
because the majority of that traffic is now using Catoctin. And with Prince ... that
would be the same with Prince. Prince then goes down from ... they are doing 800
vehicles per day, plus or minus. Obviously with the barrier in place and Prince under
construction, it's just local traffic... that's 60 -100 vehicles per day. Then when
everything is finished, Prince drops down to 300 and some odd vehicles per day.
Butler: All right. So, what it looks like if you just look at the map of the streets.
When the barricades come down on Catoctin, they are going to get slammed. It is
going to be a whole new environment for them, whether we take it down now or
whether we take it down later. The other streets, barricading or not barricading any
of the other streets doesn't seem to make a material difference on the number of
vehicles that are going to go down Catoctin.
Geiger: No, because everybody is going to go down Catoctin. If Catoctin has been
designed to take the amount of traffic that it will get...
Butler: No, I understand. So, the one point I would like to make, though. I get some
emails from people on other streets that kind of imply that well, Catoctin used to be
open, but then we put barricades on because the people on Catoctin... now we really
ought to take them off for that reason ... put it back the way that it was. But the real
fact was that it was never opened, ever.
Geiger: The barricades have been there since at least 1989. I don't know how much
farther prior to that.
Butler: There was no street prior to that?
Geiger: Correct, well there was a street, but not to tie into.
711)age
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Butler: Right, it just came to an end. So, the road has never been opened.
Geiger: So, practically it has always been closed.
Butler: So, whenever we take the barricades down whether it's now or whether it's
later some number of years ... the whole street environment is going to change. So,
my only concern was is it going to ... depending on the barricades on the other streets,
is it going to create a material difference on Catoctin and it seems like the answer is
no. So, then my biggest concern would be overall safety and clearly if we open up
Catoctin to six times the amount of traffic or whatever the amount is, it is going to
become less safe on Catoctin, but it will become more safe on other streets. So, I
guess the sum... the net total of trips that are on unimproved streets ... if we can reduce
that, whatever that smallest number is ... seems to me the best overall measure of
safety for the neighborhood. Anyway, that's what I am guessing. I don't think I have
any other questions.
Hammler: First of all, thank you for the update. I was able to attend the meeting on
the 3rd. It was very well attended. I just wanted to thank everybody who has been
involved in the process. All the neighbors who have been willing to reach out to
Council. The SRTC in particular, for their recommendation. I know one of the
serious concerns about the process, is how personal it is in terms of knowing
everyone's neighbors, the impact on neighbors if and when there is going to be a
change. Clearly at some point there is going to be a change such as anticipating the
issue on Blue Ridge. So, I appreciate the recommendation for a four way stop from
the SRTC. The SRTC has been very consistent in terms of the principles of a grid
network and ultimately relying on improved streets in order to distribute traffic.
Ultimately, I think the level of frustration. So, I think those are critical. So, how long
would it, if approved by Council, would it take to put up a four way stop at Blue
Ridge and install the actual driver feedback signs. When would that happen.
Grow: We should be able to do that within hopefully about three weeks.
Hammler: About three weeks or so? One of the points that were raised at the
meeting ... first of all it seemed like there was a bit of frustration by a number of the
attendees, asking staff well have you given a recommendation to Council. What are
you going to tell the Council? It's almost like what's happening next. So, I
appreciated your being direct and telling us what your recommendation is. One other
key point, I know Brian is here in the audience, was a coal premise here is for a
Council promise. There has been a resolution not to open the barricades until the
entire construction project is done. There is clearly been information presented to
residents who understood that ultimately the construction phasing had not changed
after. Could you just clarify, based on the resolution that was passed by Council,
what did the timing and the actual things that have since changed based on the fact
that it was going to all be done at the same time versus now there is a phasing... which
may impact the decision on the barricades.
8111 a„
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
LaFollette: When the project was initially in the CIP, it was three groups of streets
being approved, widening, shoulder improvements and ditch improvements. We
went into design. By 2004, we hadn't reached consensus with the neighborhood.
Council, then in 2005 appointed the Ad -Hoc committee. They brought their
recommendations forward. We did our design based on their recommendations that
Council approved. Once we got our initial set of plans in and we went through a
constructability review of those plans, having five streets torn up all at the same time
in a small neighborhood like that, did not make any sense to staff. Our directive was
to work with the Ad -Hoc committee. So in early 2008, we took that recommendation
to the Ad -Hoc Committee, to separate it and work each street individually. They
accepted that recommendation, so in the 2010 budget, we separated out the traffic
circles as a single phase but in the text, we talked about doing the project in phases
based on our conversations with the Ad -Hoc Committee. Then in the 2011 CIP, it
was clearly separated out into phases, I was the traffic circles, II was Catoctin Circle,
III Prince Street, etc. When we put that phasing together, we were under the
assumption that the resolution was going to stand ... that the barricades were going to
stay. So, that is why we never brought anything back to Council to change to bring a
barrier down. Then when everybody started talking about it, hence we were here in
September to give you a history of the project, a neighborhood input meeting, etc.
That's how we got to where we are today.
Hammler: So, logical things happened, which is you were very proactive in listening
to the concerns of those affected by the construction. You made modifications as you
would administratively, but what clearly did not happen and I think we need to
acknowledge, is that there was a set of expectations from the neighbors, even most
recently from the neighbors, that these barricades would shay put and I think that we
need to acknowledge that all of a sudden something significant may be happening
that you did not anticipate until 2014. And I think that's a critical point. It concerns
me when I hear things like Catoctin is going use the word Slammed at some point.
And we have a walk the street. I appreciate that it is very historic, as are many of our
streets. But this issue of traffic calming ... many will get slammed, whether they are on
Catoctin or they live on Marshall or they live on Queen Street, we have got to take
that on as a number one priority for this Council that we are not going to let people go
40 miles an hour down a street that the speed limit is 25. 1 think that we acknowledge
the fact that we have got to be proactive and aggressive about traffic enforcement on
Catoctin and on every other neighborhood and residential street. But, given I think a
number of key points that have been raised in any logical 'way relative to the overall
safety for the greater community leveraging a street that has been improved certainly I
feel taking into the consideration the recommendation of staff, the SRTC and the
entire public input that I would support bringing a motion forward tomorrow to bring
the barricades down after the improvements are made ... the four way stop and the
feedback sign.
Dunn: Just a quick follow -up. Maybe I think the question is ... I don't know if you
got the answer, but I'd like to get another answer. When the original motion was
9 1 pa C
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
made by Council to keep the barricades up, what was their anticipated completion
date? In other words, you mentioned things that happened ongoing, but they
wouldn't have known that was going to happen. This has been a moving target,
basically. What was their target at the time at which they said, let's keep the
barricades up because we expect this to be done six years — sixteen years ... what was
that?
Brandon: In the 1997 CIP, which was the first time it actually showed up in the CIP,
the completion date was 2002.
Dunn: Okay, thank you.
Wright: Was '97 when the rezoning went through and the first time it was
determined that the barricades would stay up?
(inaudible)
Wright: So there were two years ... was it in '95...
Geiger: It was '95.
Wright: Okay, it was '95 that the rezoning was approved and the decision was made
to not connect the streets ... or was that '97?
Geiger: I don't know about the rezoning, but it was...
Wright: When the adjacent parcels were developed, that would have been the
rezoning. Memories....
Mason: It wasn't a rezoning. It already had zoning, but the developers came in with
a preliminary subdivision plat which went to the Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission made some recommendations to the Council so before the
construction of the Exeter Hills subdivision actually began this issue came before the
Council and around 1995, the Council adopted a resolution that amended the CIP to
add improvements so that as the developer built his improvements, the town would be
building it's improvements and once the full subdivision was done, the town would
have the opportunity at that time, assuming funds were available, to it's
improvements so that everything would be done at the same time. That was
the ... that was how everyone wanted it to work out. Obviously hasn't. I don't know
if that helps or not.
Wright: That helps. Thank you. So, with Woodberry already starting, what would
be the benefit to fully closing that as opposed to your current means and methods?
LaFollette: Woodberry? It would allow us to leave equipment in place without
having to go back and forth every night. It would be easier to use plates at the end of
101PtC
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
the day than have to close the entire hole and dig it back up. It would save time in
those two ways.
Wright: Okay. Then Prince ... I know you noted that with Prince being able to start
and basically create a staging area and all of that, you may be able to reduce that
construction time by three months. So, what would be the start time for Prince and
the estimated end time with all the disclaimers about traffic... or weather, acts of God,
all of that good stuff?
LaFollette: If allowed to close to Prince Street, if the barricades are down, you have
the administrative procedure in place to be able to close Prince Street, we take that
forward, I would schedule the Prince Street construction being a nine month project
versus a 12 month project. When the documents go out, it would be set as a 270 day
project. It could start after Woodberry is at substantial completion and right now,
that would be late spring.
Wright: So, actually by ... if we were to allow you to fully close Woodberry, that
would also help to accelerate Prince?
LaFollette: Yes. Because I would be able to start it earlier.
Wright: Would we be ready to start it earlier with all the land acquisition and the rest
of it?
LaFollette: That's the biggest question mark right now because there is ... I forget
exactly how many properties, but there are approximately 25 of them that have some
form of either temporary easement, storm drainage easement or permanent fee simple
take. How many of those have second mortgages, deeds of trust, so all of that is a
time factor. We are hoping to start contacting those residents by the end of December
or January to begin the land acquisition process for Prince Street. So...
Wright: So, assuming all of that goes right, would that then have a similar effect on
Washington and Queen, to speed those up? Okay. Traffic volume question, since
you are here and made the mistake of being seen ... I think what you have highlighted
in your presentation is in the scenario where kind of all the streets ultimately get
opened that Queen and Washington really take minimal utpticks in traffic ... most of it
goes to Catoctin and that really the set of streets from Prince to Washington has a
minimal effect on Mayfair as well. Can you expand on that?
Turnbull: It kind of goes back to where I was talking about before... passing the
intersections of Queen and Edwards Ferry... Washington and Edwards Ferry and
Mayfair Drive. All of those in combination set the volume for where we are at now
to a certain extent. The other variable for Washington Street is it has a higher volume
of traffic on that road because of the
II I P a g C
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Wright: That was one of the other things that struck me was that today Prince is
taking almost 900 trips and the 100 block of Washington is just over 800 trips and the
end condition of Catoctin Circle you are estimating at 1300 trips?
Turnbull: Roughly 1500 trips.
Wright: The other thing... and what I have heard from a Lot of residents in the area is
the concern if you look at your number on Catoctin Circle above Marshall Street, it's
showing about 1500 trips and those start to disperse out ... the concern for Catoctin is
when those barriers come down, at least for a period of time until people realize that
this street has traffic calming measures... there are four way stops, it's not going to be
notably faster than some of the other routes ... the concern is that there is a bottled up
demand and those counts and the impact on that neighborhood would be more
significant. Can you give any feedback on some of the numbers you saw or how you
think that would run?
Turnbull: Well, we thought about that and what we felt was the folks that are to the
north of Marshall Street, they are finding their path down to Catoctin Circle south of
Edwards Ferry or they are going to the bypass. Generally whatever patterns are
existing today and in fact Prince Street is sort of the defacto Catoctin because the
maneuver is not that far removed from Catoctin. Or the route for North Street and
Marshall Street, fairly large roads relatively speaking, North Street being also a
collector so the thought was the flow of traffic from north to south is happening
today. There is no implied or pent up demand, if you will, for folks coming down in
that direction. If they were coming from north of Battlefield, for example, they may
not find that the traffic to come down through this route, with the traffic calming
circles, they just might go out to the bypass and go south and east that way. So, that
was sort of the thought basis on that ... that there wasn't going to be a significant
increase from north to south.
Wright: Then a last question to staff, because I note we are probably going to have to
figure out something because several folks have said they are ready to do a
resolution... short of...the commonalities that I have heard is addressing the barrier at
Catoctin and implementing the improvements suggested by the SRTC. As far as
means and methods for your construction and whether you fully close the street or
partially close the street, do you need feedback from Council on that in the resolution
or what?
LaFollette: Right now, we have an administrative procedure in place to be able to do
street closures for local traffic only which requires the town manager needs to write a
memo requesting that. Then, we notify fire and rescue, police, public works, utilities,
etc. To close the street, we go another step further where we have the advertisement
that's on the web site, etc. So, we have an administrative process in place. I don't
think we need anything in the resolution stating we need to close the street.
121 Pit,,c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Wright: For tomorrow, we simply need to address kind of what we want to do with
the barricades from a construction standpoint as it relates to Prince and Woodberry
that could either be taken care of administratively or what it sounds like is as a
separate action because if additional action was required, there would need to be a
separate public input session on those streets, is that what you described?
LaFollette: Not the way the administrative procedure is set in place right now.
Wright: Okay, so if we are going to close it to local traffic only, that's a memo to
John.
Wells: That includes a notification of the public. That's part of the...
Wright: So, that would be handled through the Capital Projects... doing their job?
LaFollette: Yes. That's our modus operandi.
Wright: That should simply the powers of writing resolutions on the dais tomorrow.
That's all I have for now, thank you.
Martinez: Well, we went through all this at the SRTC meeting last week and in the
presentation ... for those of you who haven't gone through it, there is a whole group of
scenarios that talk about the traffic increases and decreases ... I guess what I wanted to
summarize is there is no 1000, 2000 residents out there who have never used
Lowenbach's transition... that are just waiting for Catoctin to open, correct?
Geiger: That is correct.
Martinez: We are anticipating the same amount of volume through that whole
neighborhood.
Geiger: What did you call it? A closed grid system?
Turnbull: Yes.
Martinez: There is nothing more that's going to generate new trips. It will be just
redirecting the volume. So, Prince ... I really feel sorry for the people who live on
Prince because they have had to deal with all this through traffic and so now I'm
looking forward to seeing all of this change so that the volume at least goes for me a
more natural flow. My big concern, again, is the public safety. I do know that one of
the things that we need to really focus on is more ... we have the stop signs ... we are
talking about feedback signs, but also enforcement. We need visibility of our police
on that street, especially during peak traffic times to say that this is ... we are going to
enforce it. Nothing speaks louder than to be hit in the pocketbook if you are going
down there at 35 -40 miles an hour and you get a ticket. I don't know if we want to
talk about increasing fines in that area for that kind of thing, but that's always
131Parc
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
something that we can do. More my concern about this is we are having these same
issues on Battlefield and Catoctin. We need to deal with those kind of issues also and
that's something that I have also brought up to the SRTC. I know that's not the focus
of this conversation, but I just wanted to get it out there. Do look at the presentation.
They have a lot of scenarios. I don't want to think up any new scenarios. I think
that's enough. That's all I got. Thank you.
Mayor: As Marty alluded to, and I think Kevin was saying, we need to look at this.
The legal way in which to enhance a fine, in say the 100 and 200 blocks of Catoctin
Circle is 75% of the residents in that block need to petition the Council, or the Town
Manager to enhance the fine in that area? Calvin?
Grow: There is a traffic management plan and it recommends that if 75% of the
residents want the enhanced fines, then we could implement that on that roadway.
Mayor: And that would be an additional $200 added to the normal fine level or is it a
total of $200 for speeding.
Grow: No, it's an additional $200 on top of the fine.
Mayor: Okay, and does it apply to people running stop signs as well as those
speeding?
Grow: No, it's just speeding.
Mayor: Just speeding, okay. Well, that's something that the residents on Catoctin in
those two blocks may want to think about whether they want that enhanced fine in
place. Thank you, Calvin. The way I am reading the reports that came to us by the
traffic study, the western block of Blue Ridge between Catoctin and Prince
benefits ... sees a reduction in traffic when Catoctin is opened and that presumably is
because people or no longer coming down Prince and honking a left on Blue Ridge
and going that way. Then the eastern end sees an increase for a period of time and I
don't recall what that is ... but I guess when Prince is under construction, they will see
an increase for some period of time on Blue Ridge, I think ... yes, 159 additional when
the barriers come down on Catoctin, but Prince is under construction. That is
why ... that is the eastern side. Why are we seeing that? I know you have probably
told us already, but just refresh my memory, if you could. Who are those additional
vehicles?
Turnbull: Some of those folks are the folks that would normally take Prince Street as
an normal route. So, they are going to come over to Catoctin from Prince, taking the
easiest path to come down through there. Also onto Washington Street.
Mayor: Okay, why wouldn't they ... if they wanted to access ... where are they coming
from? If they were coming from Edwards Ferry, they could get onto Washington
already?
141Pagc
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Turnbull: Here is one ... the existing number is roughly 249, so the comparison is
based on the barriers removed under certain scenarios. So, basically what happens is
because that street is now available to the folks that were normally taking it, it just
brings those trips back on. These trips that are are in comparison to when Prince
was closed and you have a decrease of over 184 trips. So, the eastern section of
Prince Street when it is closed, went down as far as 65 trips per day.
Mayor: You mean the eastern section of Blue Ridge, right?
Turnbull: Blue Ridge, correct. So, when you go to the next slide, it's really
comparing that number... removing the barricade on Catoctin that goes back to
almost what it was. It's really a comparison of the previous closure. So, it's not really
in addition to. It's actually when you look at the total number, the 224 is less than
what it is existing. So, it's actually compared to the existing.
Mayor: Thank you so much. Whether Queen and Washington are opened up to
North makes no substantial difference. The barriers being up on Catoctin or coming
down on Catoctin, it really doesn't matter. You see no dispersion of traffic onto
Queen and Washington is the impression that I am getting, regardless of what
happens.
Turnbull: The net result, correct. We do have a redistribution of some of the existing
trips that perhaps gravitate towards North Street, but there are some increases from
some of the neighborhoods to the north, who now find an opportunity to use
Washington, for example. Those folks up in that neighborhood now have an
opportunity to use Washington Street, but since some of the traffic was distributed to
North Street, the net result is an even exchange.
Mayor: The only other thing I have wondered ... the recommendation from SRTC.
Remind me again, are we doing four way stops at every Blue Ridge intersection?
Geiger: The only recommendation they gave on this one was for Catoctin and Blue
Ridge and that was because of a sight distance issue. It has nothing to do with speed.
Mayor: But we aren't going to see four way stops at Queen and Blue Ridge, or
Prince ... well it would be a three way at Prince and Blue Ridge ... that would stay in
place.
Martinez: All these enhanced fines ... I would assume there would be a nice big sign
that talks about enforcement fines doubled in this area?
Geiger: He is nodding his head, so yes.
Wells: That's the process.
15 a
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Martinez: Can we make it fluorescent? Neon lights? Really get people's attention.
Wells: On North King Street, Council had approved that a number of years ago and
those signs are in place.
Hammler: Follow -up question. Marty and I had the opportunity to talk to John
about the comprehensive traffic calming based on what is going on with Battlefield.
One of the things that John did mention is... if you could just describe this, John, but
legally individual citizens can actually get trained with the radar gun and what the
mechanism and /or involvement of the local citizens on the street would be.
Wells: The Town Council was briefed a little over a year ago on a program that
Chief, in working with some of the neighborhood groups had put together that allows
for citizens to be tr fined on the use of radar detection equipment, then able to submit
that information in for follow -up enforcement to the department. There is
information on the website and I'll look that up real quickly as we are continuing to
talk about this and give you the exact name of it. But, that is in place and that's
something that allows for some proactive involvement from neighborhoods
themselves.
Hammler: This is a broader conversation. I think there are a whole package of you
know, recommendations, about that town wide. I just really, even this evening, I
know even though there is a $200 increased fine, people heading north on King Street.
It just makes your eyes pop open in terms of how fast they are going. So, the next
logical question is how could I have done something to figure out what the license
plate number is and do something immediately because it's happening everywhere in
the town and I think all of us feel a sense of rage that we want to get more involved
and ensure that people follow our traffic laws.
Reid: I asked that the Mayor's email to us be put in the packet and I didn't make a
print out, because you did an actual memo based on your meeting. I just had my
scribble- scrabble and I didn't take my scribble - scrabble, but I do remember. So, I
have to ask the Mayor is there anything that we are forgetting based on that meeting
with the Catoctin Circle residents? I know that there was concern about the kids
standing at Blue Ridge and Catoctin for the bus. So, I do remember that. Is there
anything that can be done to do some kind of a temporary improvement on Blue
Ridge for those folks who have to stand there and wait for a bus. I know that you are
not going to...
Geiger: If you are talking about the intersection of Catoctin and Blue Ridge, there is
sidewalk there now that they can stand on. I thought the issue at that intersection was
that there was no street light and that street light has been fixed. We put that up on
the to do list.
Reid: I thought there was something about the kids standing on Blue Ridge waiting
for the bus.
161Pa,c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Mayor: There was concern about them not being able to safely cross the road.
Reid: Yes, should we add something here regarding at least the bus stop?
Wright: I think one of the things that might address the bus stop at Catoctin is the
four way stop, because traffic now has to stop. I have seen how well people abide by
four ways stops, so that's a different issue. I guess the question is have we gotten any
feedback from the public schools on their thoughts from the transportation
department. Have we asked?
LaFollette: We haven't received any feedback from the transportation department
about the location of their bus stops, whether they feel they are safe or not. We have
been in communication with them weekly, if not daily, during construction of the
project. We have not heard anything related to safety of the bus stop itself.
Wright: Have we specifically asked?
LaFollette: I haven't specifically asked about what their concerns would be once
Catoctin has been opened.
Wright: Can we?
LaFollette: Yes.
Reid: Do you remember anything else from your memo, Mayor? I remember there
was all the speed humps, which the SRTC is recommending against at this point.
There was some concern with the parking space in front of Mr. Caney's house. I
remember ... I don't know. I think it...
Mayor: There was the concern about mentally or physically disabled residents who
live either on Washington or Blue Ridge walking Blue Ridge to reach homes on
Catoctin. There was a lot of concerns when we did those walking tours about the lack
of safety for pedestrians on Blue Ridge given that. I think the most difficult thing and
in our packets is to find when Blue Ridge gets done. Is it at the end, is it 2014, or
when is...
Geiger: We do a half a block of each of the north /south streets, so they get a half a
block, it was done with Catoctin going east and west. When Prince is done, the
remainder of that block between Catoctin and Prince will be done. When
Washington is done, we will get half of Blue Ridge between Washington and Queen.
When Queen is done the rest of Blue Ridge will get done. I would like to point out
again that the traffic through the work that Wells has done does not increase on Blue
Ridge over what it currently is under existing conditions.
Mayor: Are you talking about the west block or are you talking the entire street?
17�C,a
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Geiger: I'm talking about all along Blue Ridge.
Reid: Yeah, but you see, this is my concern. This is why I was telling the Mayor and
others that a lot of folks in Exeter and Exeter Hills want Catoctin opened, but with a
four way stop there at Blue Ridge, plus the four way stop at Edwards Ferry, it's not
going to be a picnic necessarily. There is going to be this potential for folks to want to
cut through once Prince is reopened down Blue Ridge and Prince or to go towards
Queen, even though Queen ... you know there is a blind spot there. So, this is my next
question is the issue with the traffic light at Catoctin and Edwards Ferry. That's
already paid for and funded. Has it been designed yet? Is it ready to go or not.
Geiger: The way it is written in the Capital Improvement program is once all five
streets are done and a period of time passes until the traffic settles down an analysis
would be done as to what the impact of that is.
Reid: See, the traffic light is already warranted and the concern that I have based on
the public input session is I believe that we should actually get the light in within
2012.
Wells: If I may, that is something that specifically the Council had directed. The staff
put in the CIP in that manner based on public input.
Reid: I realize that. But you see, how do we ... you are talking about a two year wait.
You have all these folks coming down Catoctin Circle. They hit a stop sign at Blue
Ridge now. Then they hit another stop sign at Edwards Ferry which is already
failing.
Wells: I think the debate is whether that stop sign at Edwards Ferry is failing. I think
there is ... I would let some of the residents speak to that point because that was the
concern three or four years ago.
Reid: Well, I know that. Three or four years ago it made no sense to put the light in,
but now you have Catoctin Circle potentially opening up and you are going to have
potential traffic back ups in front of people's drive ways on Catoctin Circle. Catoctin
Circle between North and Edwards Ferry is a residential street. It is very different
from most of the rest of Catoctin Circle. So, I don't know if the residents of Catoctin
Circle like having the idea of having traffic queued or platooned between the two stop
signs, especially in rush hour ... so, I am really going to have to work with this
resolution.
Wright: On the stop signs versus the stop light. I know, if the Planning Commission
had their druthers, it wouldn't be in the CIP at all. And actually every year for as
long as I can remember, they have sought to strike it, because it is their feeling and
based on also the community feedback's feeling, a stop sign or a stop light there is not
conducive to the function of that road or to that neighborhood. Keep in mind, there
181 Pane
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
is a stop sign at the end of Prince today. There are 900 trips coming down Prince
today and they don't have the advantage of a four way stop. Everyone on Prince has
to stop and wait to get out and it's not backing up. We need to try and keep that in
context, but I don't think you'd see a lot of people lining up saying oh please put a
stop light at the end of Catoctin and Edwards Ferry, at least that live in that
neighborhood.
Reid: Not that live in the neighborhood, Kevin, but the fact of the matter is that you
are talking about an increase in traffic ... how many cars? 1300 cars that will be using
that section of Catoctin Circle and you want them all to back up to wait for the stop
sign. I think that the Council...
Wright: No, I want them all to go onto the major through collectors and have only
the appropriate local traffic go down local residential streets.
Reid: You are just not going to account for that, Kevin. People in Exeter, Exeter
Hills ... I have talked to so many people who are going to be using Catoctin Circle
because it's a straight shot. If the Council wants to see people backed up in front of
people's driveways ... I mean the traffic light is paid for by the County, Kevin. It's not
a taxpayer funded thing. It's already warranted. I would encourage my colleagues to
consider having staff' move forward with that and not wait until 2014.
Hammler: Did the SRTC....
Dunn: In essence, it is taking what is today a three way stop, for all intents and
purposes and turning it into a true four way stop so it is something to consider for that
traffic light. We may very find that while we can sit here today and say we don't
know that's needed, by the end of 2012 we find that it is needed, so we won't need to
wait until 2014.
Mayor: Katie, did you have follow -up?
Hammler: No, that answered my question.
Martinez: The other comment that I have on that, Kevin, is I disagree on one reason
is we are not increasing the traffic, it's already going through that neighborhood. If by
opening Catoctin, we are increasing the number of traffic through that neighborhood
then we would be able to be warranted, but the volume of traffic anticipated is not
changing.
Reid: It's 1300 on Catoctin.
Martinez: But the volume of the traffic through the neighborhood is not changing.
Right now, they are using Prince Street to go through most of it but still it's the same
amount of traffic. What I envision is if you put a traffic light up there, as soon as it
hits green, you are going to have as many cars trying to make that green as possible to
19 P't
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
speed up to the stop sign. I would rather just see them stop, go forward, stop, and
then go all the way to Battlefield. But, if you see a green light there, the natural
tendency is as soon as it hits green, you want to make that green before it hits yellow.
Now, if the volume of traffic was going to increase to the point where that would
become a real big issue, then I could see a light, but right now I find it hard.
Butler: I don't think the problem is the people going through the green waiting for the
yellow. The problem is the people running for the yellow hoping ... I agree 100% with
the argument. I hate traffic lights. If I were emperor, we wouldn't have any.
Dunn: I actually thought we would see more traffic because living in the
neighborhood across from you in Potomac Crossing, I usually take Plaza myself. I
can't vouch for everyone because I don't ride in their cars ... I just ride in mine. But I
take Plaza. I'm one of the few people, I guess that haven't learned how to take all the
zig -zaggy roads through your neighborhood to get through when I go to King Street.
Once I get down to King Street, I'm back tracking down whatever number of streets.
So, I'm either on Plaza or King. If Catoctin is open, I'm going to be taking Catoctin,
so I'm not in that count. If I'm one of the people that goes to King Street because I
didn't even see that.
Wright: Why would you take Catoctin versus Plaza?
Dunn: If I'm going further west...
Butler: Plaza is about four miles wide and...
Dunn: I guess if the amenities I am getting to are off of Catoctin ... the Giant shopping
plaza... anyway, I think there are still some unknowns. The bottom line is there are
still some unknowns here that we are going to have to address once it becomes
known.
Mayor: You know, on that whole discussion on the stop sign or traffic signal at
Catoctin and Edwards Ferry, I would predict that traffic will back up on Catoctin
once it is opened. I think that a lot of the residents outside of Lowenbach will think
the solution is a traffic signal. I don't know if that will make it better or worse. My
suspicion is that it will make it worse and you will have even more of a back up with a
traffic signal, but I don't know. Does Wells and Associates have any speculation on
that? I mean the initial assumption was that a traffic signal at some point would make
things better. Lowenbach in general doesn't think that way. I tend to think they are
right, but I could be wrong.
Turnbull: Just thinking it through ... we didn't do an analysis of it, but the thought is
that with a traffic signal there are going to be stops in each direction for a period of
time. That period of time, you are all stopping, so you can see an increase in the
queue occur under that condition. With an all way stop, you are metered and traffic
is slowly moving queue if a queue forms. The stop sign meters the traffic for all four
20111agc
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
directions. The other thought was with a four way stop at Catoctin and Blue Ridge is
that when the light turns green, you start to flush out, someone has to stop at the stop
sign and sees it turning green, even though it's turning yellow, they will speed to the
light. That's just some thoughts that I had. We didn't do an analysis.
Reid: Well then, I will take that to heart. The question I have is does Council want
to put in a ... is there a consensus to close ... even though we don't have to make a
decision, is there a consensus to close Prince and Woodberry at staff discretion during
construction? If we lift the barricades so we can speed that up for the folks on Prince
and Woodberry.
Mayor: Before I would ... I like the idea of speeding the project up but before we make
that decision, we have got a public input session tomorrow night and we have some
residents of Prince Street ... I don't know if we have any Woodberry folks here ... but
I'd like to hear from them and give them tomorrow evening because they may or may
not want that. I don't know yet.
Reid: But I would like my colleagues consider temporarily opening Queen and
Washington and lifting those barricades to allow some... as a relief valve even though
we see potentially no ... there might not be any difference, but I think it will help, so.
Mayor: Anybody else before we move on?
b. Form Based Code
Scott Parker: Good evening Madam Mayor and Members and Council. For the past
few months, Town Staff along many levels has been hard working on evaluating the
various aspects of form based code that Council endorsed last February. As you are
aware, an implementation date of March I is rapidly approaching for us. I have been
leading a team working on this effort and we have representatives here this evening
from all the disciplines involved in that effort at present. After this brief intro, which
has turned longer the way that I am struggling with the words here, I will be turning
over the podium to Brian Boucher for the balance of the presentation since the other
staff here this evening is much more intimately knowledgeable about the details of the
form based code than me. After Brian's presentation, if Council wishes, staff is
available to answer any questions you may have related to the issue. In order for the
form based code to be an effective tool, various regulating documents such as the
Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, the Zoning Ordinance and DCSM
are being analyzed for compatibility with the new code with resulting and possible
legislative amendments to these documents, hence the one year time frame for
implementation. It should be noted that this effort is on track for a March
implementation date. In addition, staff has been working on further analysis and
tweaking it, if you will, the various aspects of form based code itself with those
changes on track for the implementation as well. Those changes will also require
Council approval. One of the main reasons for our presence here this evening, other
than a check in for progress and process analysis is to have a discussion about the role
the town would play in implementing the form based code. In order for the form
211Pagt
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
based code to be a success, staff continues to believe the town will indeed have to play
an active role for the development of infrastructure in the area which translates into
costs for the town. Since the beginning of the discussion about form based code, staff
as well as the steering committee has noted that this type of regulatory tool may have
a potential cost to the town. Since we have been engaged in the analysis of the form
based code, those potential costs have become more evident and staff needs to bring
them to Council's attention so that you can give us guidance on how to proceed from
here and what, if any funding mechanisms may be instituted or available. Form
Based Code, in particular the regulating arm, as it becomes required as a force of
zoning law appears that it cannot be a developer only driven plan as has always been
the goal unless the town's monetary requirement is, as well as how soon it will be
required will be dependent on development patterns and the cost could be significant.
Building of key road infrastructure, acquisition of key properties, building of off -site
storm water management facilities, easement acquisition, legal fees, loss to existing
business are all realistic costs of building. What other staff will present here is our
findings, our cost estimates and some must have and first development scenarios or
development alternatives. Please note, however, when we look at this that the cost
estimates you will see have been done in staff, in house by staff and they have done a
terrific job of putting this information together but they are very rough estimates at
this stage. Even so, we sincerely believe they are conservative and accurate enough
for our conceptual purposes at this time for discussion. With that, I am going to bring
up Brian Boucher, who is going to go through a presentation and some mapping of
our efforts to date.
Boucher: Basically one of the things we are doing ... when Form Based Code
got approved last February, there was some time needed to take a look at
implementation of Form Based Code. The reason for that is we wanted to make sure
the code as written was practical ... we wanted to run it through some more paces, so
to speak. There were also some other things we needed to do. We have to revise the
H -1 and H -2 district and certain ordinances. So those are on track. Tonight, we are
going to talk a little bit about what we found when we did an infrastructure analysis of
the form based code. Now part is too the updated plan documents. Some of our
documents are considered pretty old. Stormwater management plan hasn't been
updated since 1990, I believe, in this area. It doesn't do enough for Form based code,
so we are looking at some of this stuff in house. Now, you have to remember form
based code as it develops, in this case we will call it the Crescent Form Based District.
When it develops, it has got to be served by public roads, stormwater management
and utilities. The problem is where we are looking to put form based code ... it's
redeveloped. These things are already there so what happens is form based code has
grid streets that don't necessarily coincide where things are now. Now and that has a
cost. Now the town plan and the Crescent District element actually speaks to this a
little bit. It says the ability of the town to condemn land would implement or
facilitate this redevelopment. But that some public infrastructure improvements
should take place. These would be formatted to occur in a thoughtful process
involving commitments from private developers and public commitments for
infrastructure improvements where necessary. This will be particularly important in
22�C3a��e
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
certain long term improvements for roads will need to be connected. And the sense
that the town would participate in doing anything is really the subject of discussion
tonight. Now, overall infrastructure costs. You got in your staff report some small
tables that had a lot of numbers on them. A lot of folks put a tremendous amount of
work into it. I'm not going to throw those up here ... you couldn't read them, I've
tried. So, what I am going to do is give you some bottom lines. Then, break down
that large cost into some of its component smaller costs and discuss that a little bit and
about how those smaller costs may be managed. So, the big news ... all public
improvements envisioned by the present form based district cost about $35.35 million.
That's the rough cost that could be borne. That's the total cost. That's assuming that
nobody builds ... you are going to build all these roads and you are going to do it
yourself, that's what it would cost. If one guy went in and built it all. So, building the
roads ... if you take out some elements... the major ones are the roads ... they would be
your biggest cost. Stormwater management and water and sewer. Utilities. If you
look at providing those in this area, it's of that $35 million is roughly $24.75 million.
Those three things make the bulk of the cost of this. Now something I have got to
mention that makes that cost more ... more interesting is the total cost of right of way
and easements necessary for the roads, stormwater management and utilities is
estimated to be approximately $10.6 million. That is not a complete cost. What it
doesn't do, is in some cases, you would condemn existing ... you would be taking
existing businesses... condemn is such a nasty word, I think, for a public body. So, it
doesn't take the loss to the business, the cost of administrative, etc. The
estimates would assume to be somewhat higher. This is the bottom cost that
somebody could go and do this on their own. Now, what's really important is who
pays for the infrastructure. That depends a lot on how the crescent form based district
actually develops. One way is for the private sector to pay for everything. That is the
idea when you adopt this and put it into ... you know, it's fully up and implemented,
that there will be enough incentive there for private sector members to actually go in
and build this infrastructure. If there is an off -site road that they will need, they will
either cooperate with the owner or enough of them will get together and buy it from
somebody. That's one way. We think that's not likely that all of it would be built by
a few major developers. Now, another way is for the town to pay for all of the
infrastructure and we know that is not going to happen. So, what you are really
looking at is potentials for condemnation. That's where the private sector will do
some work, we think the bulk of it, but the public sector may have to do something to
make sure that the goals of the Crescent Form Based District are achieved. Now, the
infrastructure estimates we put together... again divided into three major categories,
it's a number of things but if you really look at roads, stormwater, and utilities. Then
it highlights some improvements that staff thinks the Council may want to consider to
at least get the form based code off and running in the proper direction. Now, what
you see before you now is the regulating map for form based code. This is really what
was approved last February, but what we studied after looking at this and what we
learned since February, we costed out something that is slightly different from the
map here and I'll mention the two major changes to you. One is the cost of the
Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority property... W &OD trail. After talking
with NVRPA, we were going to pursue this, it's over a 10 year process. You would
231Page
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
have to put a lot of money into it and the outcome is by no means certain. So, given
that, it really amounted to it's almost an impossibility. Not quite, but if you are
willing to go through all of this, it may happen, but you don't want to count on it. So,
we decided to knock off that connection. Let's assume that connection does not
happen. That's a change to the regulating map you saw earlier. One of the other
changes right here ... that's a private road that's internal to the Barber and Ross
property. It's a public road on the map. After much discussion, we felt that it really
wasn't completely necessary, so it could be an option for the developer who wants to
make a public road there or a private street. We do think it's necessary to cost that
out because that's helpful overall to the district.
Now, what we actually looked at is this .... we created our own map and we wanted to
put it on the existing conditions out there. So, you can see the two changes that I just
talked about and we kind of end this here. It would be impossible to cul -de -sac there.
It might go away. It might not be that either. You can see that internal road is
missing there. What we did is we looked at the alignments that were on the
regulating plan pretty closely to get a number of versions to see what made the best
sense. We ended up staying pretty close to what the regulating map shows. The
reason is you get these very developable lot sizes and very regular lot sizes. You start
moving the roads, you know like over here and over here, you really begin to squeeze
certain blocks. You can put a road on one guy's property but the problem is he has a
lot less to develop and we didn't think that was particularly effective, plus if you do
start messing with the alignment, it's not quite the grid pattern that you see here. It
begins to move around. So, for many reasons we felt that this layout here is the one
that we really studied and go look at, laid out with all the costs. So that is essentially
what we have done. Now, getting to those costs ... let's talk a little bit about roads. Of
that $35 million, the road construction costs alone for the entire cresent form based
district, looking at all these things... that's $14 million. That includes $800,000 for
four traffic signals. The signals are actually along Catoctin Circle and along Market
Street where demand will put signals. Because this is a by -right development, the cost
of the signals, we need to assume will almost all be a public cost. We cannot make
those by- rights build off -site improvements, so the bulk of it is we can get easements
from those right next to it, etc., but the bulk of those costs would be ours and again,
we estimate it at $800,000. So, barring a developer who wants to built it all and is
concerned that the traffic won't function unless they are there and the town puts it in
the CIP six years down the road ... barring somebody doing that, we would have to
pay for that. We are just almost making the assumption that most of them, if not all
of them, would have to be paid for. Again, $14 million is not including land
acquisition costs, off site easement acquisition cost, litigation, losses to private
businesses, damages to parcels, etc. It doesn't include all of that in the $14 million.
That's the cost of all the roads. One thing I will say now, some of these roads will
most likely be built by private developers. In the report, we mentioned that these
places include the Barber and Ross property. Because you have a concentration of
property, about 10 acres, it is reasonable to assume that there will be a road on the
property. Another place is here at the Trailer Park. Should it redevelop, you have a
lot of acreage with roads going through it. Most of these roads could be assumed to
24 �t c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
be built by the developer of the property. The third place is the auto salvage yard.
There are difficulties here because he'd have to go off site to the NVRPA. The
possibility is there, but it would take some negotiation. Again, some of these you
could assume to be built by private parties. When you get to some of the
improvements along here and here and here, that's a little more problematic.
Essentially you have small parcels and some of these are off -site development parcels.
Again, in an ideal world, the private sector pays for it all outside the $800,000 that we
would pay for the traffic signals, but what is more likely to happen is you are going to
get piecemeal development over time. Here you are going to see single and small
conglomerations of the property develop. What happens is somebody may want to
develop back here. Let's take this piece of property here, if they want to redevelop, if
this link is not here, then most of your traffic is coming down South Street, here. The
problem with that is, if you achieve the density that Form Based Code wants here,
you need these road outlets. So, if you are coming down here, you might get a traffic
situation there that the town needs to address sooner than later. Again, the
piecemeal... you could have somebody who says everybody here wants to develop,
everybody here wants to develop, but you could take the guy in the middle who says I
don't want to do it now, or I am happy where I am. What that does, is it could force
people here and here to say, well I'm not going to get the density so I can't solve the
traffic problem. No one will come here if I build for a 1000 and can't get out, so you
get less density than the form based code calls for. So, you take that situation, that is
likely to happen with piecemeal development. Some roads get built by the private
sector, some don't. It could cause logjams if you have properties in the back, etc.
You might not get the density that they would otherwise get under form based code.
When you look at the roads, there is a major impact on two properties, in particular.
On the map here, it's highlighted .... southern states. Why it has a major impact is,
notice Parker Court if it is extended, goes right smack into the middle of the property.
So, that's it's east /west. Now you have this urban boulevard, which is kind of the
north /south road. It is still important, but it actually goes through _. So, literally
they are kind of the epicenter of this intersection. You will see in this little section
here of the urban boulevard cuts through what is essentially an existing warehouse
property which might make it untenable. So, you have got those two properties in
particular that are heavily impacted by the form based code. Again, if you had some
major developer wanting to build this, they might be able to deal with them and meet
their price, this could be constructed. If that does not happen, then we may have a
little bit of an issue. So, that's where a combination might come into here. Because
these two properties are located in a very critical area for the overall success of form
based code. You can see what that is, is notice this. If you had this area, you have
two access points for a property back here to get out onto Catoctin Circle. You begin
to get some of that grid. Without that, you are just stuck with single access. That is
the area that the town might want to consider basically obtaining to help the form
based code achieve what it's ultimate goal is, that is to get the higher densities.
Again, we call it a "u ". It's basically a "u ". You go up South Street, you build an
urban boulevard, build a single section, and Parker Court comes down here. That
gives property back here direct access to Catoctin Circle through a public right of way.
That's something to at least be considered. Now, again just pointing it out ... now
251P1i c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
talking about cost. Based on the estimate we have done today to install this, if you
wanted to build this, and you also while we are at it, you would probably while you
are building the road, put the water and sewer line in here. You are also going to be
building stormwater management. The proposed cost of that is approximately $7.7
million. What that doesn't include is the cost of right of way, land acquisition. When
you are looking here when you finish, you are going to have a Southern States. You
know the Southern States is an industrial use in a commercially zoned property. It is
a legal non - conforming use but it's a going business and industrial uses are hard to get
in other places. So, if you are looking at the cost of that, it's a lot of things ... it's not
just the raw land. It's what's the impact on the business, what's the cost to make this
guy whole if he goes someplace else. On top of the $7.7 million, you will have some
millions to develop it, so you are talking over $10 million, certainly. To what extent,
I can't say. The good news about this is we can put the water and sewer utility lines
here and we start forming these kind of, utility corridors. We can get some
compensation back for that through pro - ratas. Both the water and sewer lines here
and the stormwater management. We probably won't get all of it. Some people may
be able to handle things off site and won't have to deal with us much here, but you
can get some of it back. So, that's something we would hope to do. For the roads
themselves, we can't under by right development. There is no mechanism at the state
for us to recoup that money. We spend it up front for public roads, nobody has to pay
us back in a by right scenario, so we would basically have to extend that cost on our
own.
A little bit about stormwater management, itself. Through the entire area, the
estimate for stormwater management is, again, about $2.4 million. We make some
assumptions, though when reviewing... coming up with our costs for stormwater
management. It was assuming that individual developers would provide water
quality and quantity control on -site. Now, what that does to the form based code
is ... that means they are basically going to build stuff in underground storage tanks
and filtering systems and the like built on -site. When you do that, you could put them
under parking lots. If you are putting them under parking lots, it means you have got
surface parking lots. The concern is that we have cut down the density that you
would otherwise get. So, if the stormwater management is handled by developers,
even piecemeal, what you are going to get is lower density most likely than the form
based code. Just as a practical matter. Now, what this estimate of $2.4 million, again
for all of it. Again, we wouldn't have to build all of it, there are places they would
build things. What it doesn't include is cost for a regional approach to stormwater
management. We have done that elsewhere in town, but we don't have it here. The
thing about the regional approach is we would have to spend some money up front.
We would invest in the area and we would build stormwater management facilities,
regional facilities. Because of the way this property is divided, you would probably
need two separate facilities. To construct those facilities, you are probably talking
about an extra million for the construction. The land costs for that would be
something different. We don't know the exact land costs because we haven't studied
it yet ... located an area where that could practically be. We think that's also the best
approach, frankly, is a regional approach. With the recent changes in the state code,
261 Pit Pc
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
we may have to do something like a regional approach. The good news for a regional
approach, from a development standpoint, is you are going to capture the density. If
we build a regional facility, we can charge. In other words, we built it, manage it and
to hook into it, you have to compensate for the water you are putting into it. One
issue, though, in some places the developer may say I want to handle the water on-
site. If he does that, even though we built the stormwater management facility, he
does not have to pay. It is kind of a lost opportunity. So, you probably wouldn't get
everything back, but you would get something back. Again, ideal cost would be
stormwater management... development pays for it all. If that doesn't happen, you
are likely to get piecemeal development. The problem with piecemeal development is
there are places here where if somebody wants to develop up here, stormwater
management is going to break down here. The pipes down here might not be the size
to handle what he has to dump from his property, so he has to handle it on -site, so
that means he is going to cut down the density. So you get this man in the middle
problem. The guy up here wants to develop, the guy here wants to develop, the guy
in the middle doesn't. In the private sector world, well they need to talk with each
other and deal with each other and come to an agreement. If they don't, if they don't,
then what's probably going to happen is the fellow up here, he will wait until
something happens. I mean this guy dies and somebody will come in, or the
redevelopment that takes place here will do so under zoning at a lesser density.
Again, the heart of the Crescent Form Based district is to get higher density closer to
town in a grid pattern, more like traditional downtown development, which is fairly
dense in intensity. So, that's one of the problems that we are going to run into here.
Also, you can get stormwater management that occurs at a very slow pace over time if
you get this kind of piecemeal development. That's the likely scenario. Again, people
will wait. It's kind of a waiting game. So, you almost ensure that's what happening if
you don't have a regional approach to stormwater management... you know, if it's
piecemeal over time. So, one of the things that we do is find what the town perhaps
consider doing is actually building regional stormwater management facilities for this
area. Again, rough estimates of cost would be about $3.5 million, not including land
acquisition. What that would do is it would most likely accelerate the pace of
development in this area. Because people know where the stormwater management is
going to go and it is also going to get you higher density on a property because I won't
need to build all the storage vaults and filters on my property, so again from the
Crescent Form Based district standpoint, that's a good thing, but the point is the only
way that's likely to happen is if the town were to invest in it. It is possible, in a perfect
world, if some developer, again developing it all would say I need to do that to get the
densities I want. But again, unless you have that really deep pocket, major developer,
it's not likely to happen from the private sector side and would be something that we
have to look into.
Last thing I'll turn to is water and sewer utilities. Throughout the whole area, the
whole Crescent district, you are talking about $2.9 million for them. When staff made
its estimate, it assumed that utilities... the lines that are there would be able to handle
the density that could go here. What that then ... you have to replace a lot of these
lines. They are really old, so you are not necessarily upsizing, you are replacing
27 1 ►1 <i c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
them... realigning them to work better. One problem ... a potential cost to the town is
if we guessed wrong. We think we are right, but if we are a little bit wrong, you have
to upsize lines getting closer to the plant down here, that cost would be on us. We
might try to raise our availability fees ... I hate to say that, but we might have to raise
them. That's one thing we have done in the past to kind of catch that extra cost for
these kind of facilities, but that's really the only alternative we have because it's off -
site, you are going to have to build it in a by -right scenario. Now, one other thing is
assuming that we don't have to upsize the pipes downstream... it wouldn't cost us
anything; however, we think what is most likely to happen is again, piecemeal
redevelopment over time. With that again, the private sector could run into
problems. Water is not an issue because it is done by pressure. You can loop
things ... water doesn't matter who goes first. Sewer, it's important. Because sewer
here is by gravity flow. So, basically you don't have to build any expensive pump
stations, but the problem is we are looking for gravity. So, you have to realign some
of these lines because it is developed. If you want to develop up here and it is flowing
down here and the guy over here doesn't develop yet, it's the same situation... the
man in the middle. You may want to get a higher density ... you'd have to upsize your
lines or whatever needs to happen. The problem is the guy in the middle gets to
change everything. You can't, as a private developer, go off -site and compel them to
do it. If prime negotiation fails, then you are in that situation where either the
redevelopment is at possibly lesser densities or just simply you have people waiting for
something to happen. Again, you can have one guy here at the top of the hill can be
happy. The bottom of the hill can be happy, but the guy in the middle doesn't want
to redevelop yet. We don't exactly know what to base the line on, it won't tie in
correctly, you haven't done all the grading to figure out where it could go, so it could
cause problems. So, this also means you are going to get redevelopment at a slow
pace over time. So, if you go back to this idea, we call the U, where you do some of
this, that at least starts the ball rolling. In that $7.7 million estimate about $800,000
was the cost of water and sewer lines. Again, we can hope to get some of that back
through pro - ratas. If you set that up, you begin to set corridors, if you will, where
things have to be located, where people have to tie in. If you did the U. Sorry, if I'm
being myself. It really helps this landbay, this landbay, this, and really this the most.
It helps them a lot towards redevelopment of form based code. This one is sort of a
separate shoe because of the way the topography and they have some other issues that
might not help them as much. But, you can see if you did that could spur re-
development in some of these areas. Now, one thing that is of course of concern here
is the public acquisition of public land. I think what we have been saying is, if you
did something like the U, that's the town going out and acquiring some private land.
Again, $10.6 million, but not including damages for lack or loss of access, business
relocation, legal services, litigation and off -site stormwater management
facilities... that regional thing we were talking about. To make this work, something
that I think none of us have anticipated, there is a state constitutional amendment that
would severely limit the localities ability in the use of power of eminent domain.
What it does is "what's a public purpose ". Things we would argue, these roads are
on our town plan and our zoning ordinance. It's public purpose. There are a whole
bunch of people that benefit from this and the town generally. You can make all
281 Pa, c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
these arguments. What this new amendment might say, is well when you are
condemning something like this, or this guy or this area, it's really more of economic
development and it's redefining what that means. So, we don't have an answer. You
can talk to the town attorney, but the point is that's a little bit in flux and how if that
amendment gets adopted, it could have an impact on what we have been talking
about, if we wanted to do something we may be stopped from doing it because it
would be violating the state constitution. So, having said all that, one thing to keep in
mind ... it sounds pretty bad. The costs are large in some cases. But, when this area
redevelops, if we want to get greater density, the town most likely is going to have to
invest something. Again, the 1990 stormwater management plan only goes to the
quantity... it barely covers this area at all and it only goes towards quantity. It doesn't
talk about quality, which is a whole new issue that we have to deal with in planning.
Utility master plan, again, because we are looking at more of suburban area, it doesn't
deal with this a lot. If this started to re- develop, we could run into some of these
issues ... how do we deal with stormwater management. These are old lines through
here ... they not in necessarily the right place. Remember this, we have the Crescent
District Master Plan, which has more roads on it than we are actually showing here.
The Crescent District Master Plan, this landbay has another road. So, we actually
have got fewer roads here than our town plan. If somebody develops by- right, was we
have in the Meadowbrook case, as we have in the Fontaine property, we will raise the
fact that there are some roads in the town plan that they need to accommodate as part
of that redevelopment. So, it's just a reminder of the costs here. Our figures are large,
but at some point in time, the town is going to have to take a look at this area and
figure out how to do something until it's redeveloped and basically now having heard
all that, we are here to answer any questions you might have.
Martinez: I just find the cost daunting. I can't see how we can commit those kind of
resources to do this. I'm just going to have to think about it. I mean, they just ... just
feel kind of like dazed right now. I'll let Kevin take over.
Wright: You will find Kevin is not dazed. Do you have somewhere in there...
because I think as you were going through, you were talking about how the all in
cost ... and then the scenarios... one was kind of what the Crescent District Master plan
says, although we have cautioned throughout the process —the Crescent District
Master plan basically says the development will occur over time and that it would be
self - funded. We have always known and throughout the process of the form based
code, have warned that it probably is not going to work as good as it sounds and then
we got some more of this hybrid idea ... there are certain improvements that the town
will need to make to make this work. I think the core that you are highlighting is the
U and kind of bundled with the U, you are stating that traffic infrastructure, you are
dealing with the water and sewer infrastructure, and you are dealing with kind of the
stormwater management area. So, do you have a total cost of the U, if you will?
Boucher: The $7.7 million is everything but the land acquisition costs which can be
considerable and one of the reasons is, one of the things that's in the U is this
29 arc
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
particular... there are some building /business concerns. So, if you look at those, it's
not as simple as looking at estimated value...
Wright: So, the U could be in the $20 million range. If you do land acquisition plus
stormwater management...
Boucher: You would be safe to say....
Wright: Okay. And then, I guess when you look at this, what is different here than
normal by -right infill? A lot of things can happen in this area today by -right with infill
development. How many of these same problems ... how much of that $7 or $20
million price tag? I know the $2 million price tag is there no matter what because we
have a stormwater management problem today. How much of the rest of that price
tag comes by natural infill development?
Boucher: By -right natural infill? Well, one thing when building by- right, the good
thing is you don't have to go build everything. A guy says he wants to build the most
intense... let's say he wants to build a shopping center. If somebody wants to build a
shopping center up here, let's say where the trailer park was ... he has got to do certain
things ... he has to handle his stormwater management. He has got to do those things.
We don't have to upsize a line downstream because now he decided to do it.
Anytime they want to build by -right we have got to solve all the off -site problems for
them. If the question is what would we have to pay for in a by -right scenario, except
maybe dealing with stormwater management, which is kind of a longer issue. We
could say that these things need to be installed by by -right development over time.
What the impact would be most likely is you are not going to get the density. We
have been discussing that. So, what will happen is and why this really hasn't
redeveloped is there are these issues out there for this area. So, as close as it is to
downtown, Leesburg downtown, the reason it hasn't built is because you have these
infrastructure issues and so it just has not developed. If it did, because the costs are
expensive for private developers, the question is could they get more density under
form based code than they would get now? Would that make it more worthwhile to
do it? That is what the private sector has told you in a number of meetings is the
incentives are here and it would spur them to do that. But I would say under by- right,
so far recent history has shown it doesn't seem that the incentives are there.
Wright: Question for you ... talking about the roads ... one of the things that you said is
that there is no mechanism that exists to pull that money back. Now, I think you had
another adjective in there like viable, usable, or reasonable ... I guess the follow on is I
don't think we have got a pro -rata for roads, but I know the state code ... and you have
to jump over like 20 hurdles to do it but it has the ability to create an impact fee for
transportation. Why would that not be feasible under this idea since we are building
roads and transportation to jump those 20 hurdles for this particular district to create
that?
Boucher: I'm going to turn this over to somebody who might be....
301Pa,c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Wright: As everybody is pointing to other people!
Boucher: I think what the problem is ... when you look at those 20 hurdles and the
though was we weren't really sure that we could get an impact fee ... you have to do
study after study and you put a lot of money into it, but we were concerned that the
fee might be challenged.
Wright: The short answer is, it was considered but did not seem to be viable?
Boucher: Did not seem to be viable.
Wright: That's all I need for tonight, because I think... and I don't think anyone
knows this, I think in the state, there are only two or three jurisdictions that have
tried and I think only one that still has it.
Boucher: It's in our subdivision ordinance, if you want to look at it.
Ackman: It is. And the way it's written, it's a pro -rata, but the state code ... I believe
the way it's written is a developer has to build it and pay for it and then the town
manages the pay back on a very complicated schedule and formula.
Wright: Fair enough. Moving on from that, looking over at where the Barber and
Ross site is ... so we have an existing rezoning on that parcel anyway, which to some
extent, the overlay zoning... or not the overlay, but the form based code zoning would
not supersede their proffered rezoning?
Boucher: It would not. They would have to go through an amendment to their
existing rezoning basically extinguish their proffers.
Wright: So, today if we look at that L there, or whatever, they are building something
like ... the fictitious they, would build something like that if they developed under
some version of their current proffers.
Boucher: The actual existing concept plan does have this road going into here ... kind
of stops there and there is a connection to Industrial Court here.
Wright: Yeah, and they had some sort of green space...
Boucher: They do, they had a little green right there instead of an actual connection
across the W &OD trail and then they have a divided road ... very similar to what is in
the form based code.
Wright: So, how much of the $35 million or the $2 million for stormwater
management, so how much of that big number is associated with the Barber and Ross
parcel?
31 Pa L
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Boucher: We'd have to break down ... I'm sorry I don't have that...
Wright: Ball park.
Boucher: I hate when you say ball park because I was so absorbed in some of the
figures that I hadn't looked at it but...
Wright: I'd be interested in to get that off - line...
Boucher: It is in that large table, if you can figure it all out.
Reid: Kevin, would you mind me adding something? If I can add to that? It is my
understanding that the property has sold. I wasn't here for your presentation, I don't
know if you.. .
Boucher: The Barber and Ross property?
Reid: You didn't discuss that? Apparently it has been sold and I was talking to one
of the fellows involved... at least I think it's been sold. They would like to actually get
out from under the PRN and do form based code. So, that means they have to do an
amendment.
Boucher: Council Member, I think our understanding at the moment is ... we might
have been talking to these people ... that they had it under contract. Last time we
spoke, and it wasn't that long ago, I think they still had under contract. So, if it hasn't
actually been sold, it is certainly under contract.
Reid: If it is still under contract, then it's under contract. I'll take your word for it
that it has not been sold.
Irby: I can't confirm whether or not it's been sold. I do know that the bank released
any of its liens so that the deal could go forward; however, they did request to be
released from all of their proffers without Council action and they would just do the
form based code. That was a lot of proffer money that would be released. So, that
would be their intent. Not to pay the proffers.
Reid: But then they would do all those sewers and all that infrastructure.
Irby: Not necessarily. They are by -right then, so we can't make them do much of
anything.
Reid: Oh, I see.
Irby: Which is why they made that offer.
32 1 fl a c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Wright: It also relieves them ... I believe there is a capital contribution for schools in
those proffers as well.
Reid: We get a lot of proffers in that...
Wright: There is a reason they want those proffers gone.
Reid: Well, how can they build by -right without building the sewers and the other
stuff?
Irby: They can manage their own problem.
Reid: That takes a big chunk out of your cost, doesn't it?
Wright: They would have to develop differently, so there are things ... just like Brian
was saying, depending on how they develop and what they develop and what amount
of infrastructure they are willing to invest in, would to some extent dictate their
density. So, it's not that they could build to a certain level. and dump a bunch of
stormwater management that no one could deal with, but there are variables of how
well they could develop based on what infrastructure they are willing to pay for versus
what infrastructure exists.
Reid: And they may not be developing right away. It could be over a couple of years
too.
Wright: Got you up again! I'm up two for two.
Ackman: I am going to try to answer your question. If you were to take out what we
are calling Road A in your package, it would be this piece right here ... Al, A2. That
is roughly $4 million of the $25 million.
Wright: While you are up... one other question. Some of these roads, or portions of
them exist. So, like Road B1, is pretty much there, so I assume we didn't budget
rebuilding that road, or I guess we budgeted having to dig it up and put water and
sewer underneath of it.
Ackman: By the time you are done, you are totally rebuilding it because there is no
storm sewer whatsoever in that area. So by the time you put your storm sewer
outfalls down through there, you put your water, your sewer, you are pretty much
rebuilding it.
Wright: So, while you are up there, in general, whether we do form based code or
some other version of zoning in this area, and we talk about the other problem we
have with the water quality requirements, that $2 million I am going to spend at some
point in this area.
33�1'<�ne
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Ackman: If we do a regional approach, yeah. Otherwise, by -right everybody would
have to do it individually as they develop on their site.
Wright: Fair enough. Thank you. I have got a couple of other ones here. Brian, is a
lot of this driven by the prescribed roads. So, we have a regulating map that says the
roads will be here versus ... if we said pull the regulating map out and says this is the
form based code area and we have everything else that is prescribed, so the setbacks,
particular areas have particular requirements for the way frontage works... everything
else but the roads, does my $35 million problem go away? So, let me ask my second
question... so the follow on question is, what if we said stop. What is missing from
the zoning ordinance to accomplish the look and feel and the base intent, if you will,
of form based code?
Boucher: One of the things form based code wanted to do is achieve an urban kind of
look for this area. Similar to the downtown core. Take the existing zoning out
here ... it's kind of a conglomeration of various zonings. Outside the PRN, which at
least comes closest ... the planned development proffered comes close to it ... the rest of
it really is, I'll call it suburban commercial style development. It was supposed to
be ... really intended one story buildings with big parking lots. So, what we would
have to do is add things that countered that to the ordinance. The one issue that I
think is very tricky is density. You know, you can add elements to the ordinance that
gets some of the look. Pull the buildings up close to the road just like downtown.
Screen parking better than we do now. So instead of the parking all being in front like
down at Safeway, you kind of put it behind and that type of thing. You could
accomplish that with the ordinance. The issue would be density. The form based
code does give you additional density. The danger about putting density in the
ordinance, you know adding density without anything else is you still have these road
problems. If it is by -right it gets into the question, would we have to build any of this?
On -site, they have to build things. If the town plan shows a road, we are going to tell
them you either need to build it or accommodate for it. The problem is when you get
off -site. When the traffic starts bunching up in other areas, you are going to get into
public cost. That would be our situation to deal with in a by -right development.
Wright: John, what can we afford and when? I warned him I was going to ask this
question like a month and a half ago.
Dunn: Keep in mind, I am willing to suggest the Council start candy bar sales,
wrapping paper. Maybe a bake sale.
Wells: Based on the Council's direction and adoption of your plan for 2007, you
have no provision to add that in without having an impact on the tax rate, as it is
identified through 2007.
Wright: In addition to the tax rate impact, I know we have our debt ceiling ... our
borrowing ceiling, if you will. Does that kick in?
34��'. �t
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Wells: Your underneath is ... in your first, through 2017, you are close to the ... you
are bumping your head up against ... well your head ... you will be bumping my head
up to the debt ceiling in the first two or three years.
Wright: So, not only would it impact the tax rate, but it may also impact how we
would prioritize capital projects?
Wells: I think that's the key point. The issue is going to need to be one of
prioritization. At this point, you have a plan that is laid out through 2017 that does
allow for some reduction away from the debt capacity as identified by your fiscal
policies. As you get into the final two to three years; however, to work what we did
on the tax rate, that's also when you have the larger...
Wright: Balloon payment that's coming up.
Wells: That's correct. So, you have got to look at prioritization of your existing
projects as you look past 2017, there are a number of projects that are in your CIP as
potential future projects that haven't been programmed in prior to 2017, so you are
going to need to look at that list to see how does this fit against that first, and then the
question is are there options you would want to trade off within the five or six year
period. As we look at the final couple of years of the CIP, there is not a lot new in
there. Most of it is clean up of things that have already started. So, is there capacity,
yes, as you get into the later years. If we want to look at your direction on the tax
rate, you don't have flexibility.
Wright: I don't have revenue capacity.
Wells: That's correct. You don't have revenue capacity and then you have choices
beyond 2017.
Wright: Then, from a return on investment... so if we were to ... I think Brian was
describing that U as almost an investment to feed investment. From a return on
investment standpoint what do you need to make a $15/$20 million investment
balance?
Wells: If you take the highest number that we had and then we can step backwards
from that, the initial number we talked about was ... I think $35 million was all in,
everything all at one time. If you look at putting debt service on that and spreading it
out over a 20 year period and not getting creative in terms of declining principal but
just did a flat amount, you are in the $2 to $2.5 million range in terms of annual debt
service over a 20 year period.
Wright: So, how much property value do I need to pay for that?
Wells: That's a big number.
351P<��
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Wright: It's a number that would probably not occur from the adjacent parcels?
Wells: Probably not. Again, you have to look at... if you look at the taxes that a
property will pay, the majority of it is on the county tax rate, whereas the town's is a
smaller fraction. So, to generate the type of numbers you are looking at... admittedly
there are other revenues that would come into the town, but this is going to be... some
of this you are going to have to look at as an investment in the community as opposed
to a straight rate.
Wright: Three questions left for you, Brian. What specifically is ... consider what you
have told us and tell us what to do ... it's dangerously broad because we could ... I
mean there is lots of things that we have wanted to tell you to do for a while... So, I
am going to ask all three of them at the same time. What is the ask, what is next, and
hypothetically, if Council were to say something like "well, we still really like the
concept of form based code, keep going" and we don't address ... and we will figure
the infrastructure cost out later, what bad happens?
Boucher: What staff really asked was ... given that there is substantial infrastructure
investment here, is the Council interested in doing that. If so, what would that
investment be. What would you want staff to pursue? A little bit more in
whatever way we could to determine the costs, etc. It is really the major asks. I think
the answer to the first question is, we are not interested in doing it. Then, okay we
have that. There is a broader question which is the form based code. We have a lot
of things in play here. I think we have to determine how do you want us to proceed
with the form based code.
Wright: Okay. I'm going to leave the how do we want to proceed with form based
code because I don't want to steal Tom's opportunity to say what he's itching to say.
Dunn: I'm wasting my time.
Wright: Some of the points that he has brought up in the past, talking about not
addressing the roads but addressing the design elements and some of the other
elements. I'll leave that, because I am sure you have a lot more. Thank you very
much.
Hammler: That's exactly how I was going to open up my short statement which was
I was going to leave plenty of time for Tom to cover form based lite, but a couple of
comments. First of all, thank you very much to all of staff because I know you have
been having to prioritize your time to ultimately dig into this overall analysis. One of
the first things that popped into my head when you started discussing the time and
effort that you were going through was in fact the big unknown about joint house
resolution 693 and what the impact of it was going to be this year as it relates to
passage of eminent domain constitutional amendment will drive up economic
development costs in all the state let alone what we are trying to do here in a very
innovative way. This is, to me, something very visionary. What comes to my mind is
361 P it c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
what would Steve Jobs do? Here is a man who did incredible innovative things. If
you read about what he accomplished, he essentially decided that design was more
important than function and he had a vision for what the design of technology, in this
case, and how it would impact consumers and he made it happen. The technology
already existed. I feel like tonight, we pretty much got into the weeds, if you will, in
terms of Steve Jobs probably didn't want to know how the computer was made. If he
was going to the moon, you know, he probably wouldn't have spent many, many
days understanding the nuances of how the battleship got there, but he was a
visionary and he really changed the world. I think it's a lot for this council tonight to
take what we know is a vision for our community and determine what our tactical
steps, as leaders that we can take to get there. You know, Tom will have some good
ideas as relates to form based lite. What I am convinced, though, is that we don't
give up. That we look at, and I know just as a specific example, I had teed up the
question because I saw Dieter Meyer the other day and he had just been to a
conference and said he had met a municipal leader in Iowa and this leader had been
able to generate an enormous amount of grant money from the federal government
for what they were doing in their community, not dissimilar to this vision, so I'd ask
could we get specifics from that community? How did they get that level of grant
money from a non -local source to really achieve something big? I would be curious to
know and get details on something like that. I do think it's going to be critical for us
to get creative about asking different sorts of questions, such as okay if this is a great
baseline presentation. We know what the costs are. How do we look at creating
incentives for business partners for help us get where we collectively want to go?
What comes to mind is a Jan Zacharisse and his vision, which we share in so many
ways. We have been able to make specific steps as it relates to height issues, you
know, tactically on a building by building basis have been able to help them achieve
pro - formas. I think at some point, we need to look at creative ways to ask the
incentive question as it relates to business partners that might help us achieve what is
a very, very big issue. Tonight, I guess I am going to leave my comments at a pretty
high level in as much as I think we do need to figure out what our objective steps that
we can take given that we obviously know that we are not going to come up with $32
million and raise the tax rate to get there when in fact there really is no arguable way
to articulate a return on investment. But I do think that it is an important vision and
it is something that we do need to find a way to articulate in a creative way so we can
make measured progress.
Butler: I don't think ... I mean the $32 million nobody is talking about anything close
to $32 million because I think there never was an intention for Council to go and
build all this and say "fine, come on and get a free ride, all you businesses ". So, we
are talking somewhere maybe a little bit north of $10 million. I mean form based
code or not, you can talk about form based code and form based code lite, but that's
not the issue. The issue is we want all these roads. These are a whole bunch of
different roads. I mean ... John, what's it going to cost for that one stretch of
Battlefield Parkway?
Wells: You mean the one across Meadowbrook?
37 a e
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Butler: Yeah.
Wells: I think that's $10 million without the land.
Butler: That's still in our CIP, right?
Wells: That's not in the CIP. That was anticipated to be paid for by the state, which
they are now doing.
Butler: So, the total with the land acquisition was somewhere between $12 -14
million. It's a nice road, relatively small stretch of road. So, if we want to start
building extra roads all through the town to create a grid, that's expensive. Form
based code or not form based code, that's where all the money is, is in these roads.
So, this is not a discussion about form based code at all. I think it's a discussion about
how and when we build a grid system. From my standpoint, I don't think I have any
intention to just going out and saying and writing out a check for a U and saying let's
go build a U and see what happens. I would want to see a couple of property owners
there. Wait and have them come to us and say, "hey, it's time now. We think the
form based code is great. We want to go and do something and here's our plan and
we are going to go and acquire six of those properties, or something like that" and
then we all get together with them and we figure something out. Because a $10
million investment to build some roads, may very well be worth it, and it may very
well have a direct return on investment, but even if it doesn't directly, that's not how
we necessarily need to be measured. We need to look at what's the ancillary
advantages to doing this. If it's going to bring people downtown, it's going to
generate many more millions of dollars worth of business for all the businesses... all
the businesses around there and you know we got BPOL taxes and all kinds of things.
If it's a net /net benefit for the town, then it's okay. So, the $32 million is not the right
number and form based code is not even the right subject. Really, it's do we want to
pay for those roads and is that going to have ... by having two or three times the
frontage for businesses, is that going to generate enough income to pay for the roads.
All right, I'm done.
Reid: Well, vision is nice but $32 million is going to break the bank with this vision.
Butler: But we are not talking $32 million. I just told you that, so why bring it up?
Reid: Well, how many million are we talking about at a minimum?
Butler: Somewhere north of ten, he said.
Reid: It's still going to break the bank. It's still fiscally irresponsible and because of
this, we have ignored the H -2 and the H -2 guidelines and I ... we ... I would hope that
the Council would pull the plug on this as quickly as possible and not have staff go
forward with anymore regulation writing and so forth. At a minimum, cancel the
38 1 c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
directive to the Planning Commission to look at the larger form based code, because
they don't even want to look at the larger form based code. It would be interesting to
see what happens with a developer if they come in with a proposal for the Barber and
Ross site. But again, with so many other CIP projects that are sitting there just
waiting and residents want them, I think again it's just irresponsible to go any further
with this. Thank you.
Dunn: I'm going to carry on with what Dave was saying. I think you are right,
Dave, that we need to look at what is the right subject. I don't really look at this
as ... form based code is not a subject about roads, form based code is about how our
town is going to look. That's the purpose of form based code. That's why it's called
the form. What is the form that your town is going to have. Unfortunately, as I have
beat this dead horse a number of times ... in my view we have gone about this the
wrong way and here we are now, we are at the wall. We have just hit the wall and
this wall is going to say, as Ken just put... are we really going to forward with this, or
not? The pocketbook says no. While Dave aptly pointed out that it's not $32 million
completely from the town, the estimates from staff that this is going to cost you $32
million from somewhere and it's going to be a joint venture between the town and the
public sector... private sector, thank you. If we split that in half, it's $16 million, not
$10 million. Ten million is just one part that starts the ball rolling, but we are
probably looking at $16. I know that there are other projects we have had on our CIP
over the years that are higher up the list of need, one being a $35 million intersection
at Edwards Ferry Road and the Rt. 15 bypass. That's one that I would like to see and
it also has a walking trail so people can get across there safely. I don't know folks,
this is ... we have gone on for six years to my estimate. About six years since Form
based code first blew across the bow of the Leesburg ship. Here we are now, are we
going to continue this voyage or not? Based on what I am seeing tonight, we are
about ready to sink this and it's a shame because we could have taken form based
code and had an impact across our whole town over the six years from what we
started to today because we are no closer to seeing this happening than waiting
another, probably six years, yet we could have implemented portions of form based
code and I just made a real quick list... and staff I know you can come up with a
longer one ... Rt. 15 bypass and Battlefield Parkway. There was a building that got put
up there. We had no impact on it based on form based code. Edwards Ferry and
Route 15 bypass. McDonald's right now. How much impact are we having on what
McDonald's is going to look like, Brian?
Boucher: Eventually, if the connection was built, it would change your current
access.
Dunn: How McDonald's is looking right now today? They are redeveloping the
McDonalds. How much impact do we have on the way it is going to look.
Boucher: If this was adopted?
39
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Dunn: No, right now today. How much impact does the Town of Leesburg have on
the way McDonald's is going to finish up. The way they look? They are
redeveloping.
Boucher: The one on Market Street?
Dunn: The one on the 15 bypass. They are always interrupting me.
Boucher: The one that's right there by Sheetz. No control? With form based code,
we could have. Market Street McDonald's, that one, no real impact on it.
Boucher: We had special exception in the H -2, but it changed it somewhat.
Dunn: Hotels on Edwards Ferry. No real control. TD Bank. Chick- fil -A. Looks like
very Chick -fil -A that I have seen. We have had the opportunity, folks, to make
Leesburg look special and other than our downtown, because we have not used this,
we are turning into everywhere USA and it's a shame. We had an opportunity and
we let that cup pass before us. So, I just... literally I don't even know what to say
about this, other than the fact that we have all recognized we don't have the funds to
pay for this. We'd have to really decide are we going to step out on faith and believe
that if we throw in $7 million plus are we going to have developers coming forward? I
don't know if we will. By the way, I believe Brian, you mentioned economic
development for eminent domain. I believe the supreme court did say that economic
development is a reason that a town can use eminent domain for...
Irby: Well, no, no, they did. The problem is, of course, the constitutional
amendment shifts the burden to the town to prove that it's for a public purpose. So, if
the constitutional amendment as proposed passes, then we would have very limited
authority to condemn for anything other than strictly a public purpose and then it
becomes a factual question and an analysis that we would have to do. Is this road for
a public purpose or is it to spur economic development? And many times, they are
related. I mean, why would you improve the road unless you wanted some type of
economic development.
Dunn: Anyway, just to disagree with Ken, I would love to see us move forward with
a lighter version of form based code that we could actually have an impact on the way
some of these buildings are being built. Chick -fil -A for example, since I mentioned it
last, I'll finish with that. I provided an email that you all, any of you decide to take a
trip down to Fairfax Circle and if you know Fairfax Circle, it's pretty much an area
that has developed like the way our Catoctin Circle was. A lot of car dealerships and
so forth. But right off of Fairfax Circle is what looks like a very federal looking
building and oh my goodness, it's a Chick -fil -A and I don't know if they have form
based code there. I don't know who on their planning got them to do that, or if
Chick -fil -A did it on their own, but it was nice to see that it doesn't have to look like
every other Chick -fil -A in the country. We let that pass before us because we decided
to go down the path of form based heavy in a small area and now we can't afford it.
40 1 Pa c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Now, I guess I would end up saying that we can't afford not to have form based light
where we can implement it otherwise we are destined to look like everywhere USA
outside of our downtown.
Mayor: I just ... I know how much form based code meant to most of the Council and
I appreciate how shocking the numbers are, but I really appreciate staff bringing the
numbers forward. I was not in favor of this to begin with because of the density issues
and the potential cost to the town. But, what I am hearing around the table tonight is
shared concern about the cost, even though I know for some it's a huge
disappointment how expensive it looks like it will be. I do think that one of us raised
the question of what do we tell the Planning Commission. I think at the moment, we
maybe tell them not to do anything on this until we make a decision... a more formal
decision. They have been willing to look at the smaller geographic area for form
based code. They were very reluctant to go to the larger area, but I think we do have
to think about what we want to tell them and just in defense, because it's my
husband's favorite restaurant, in defense of McDonald's, I think their design on
Market Street is very attractive and when I drove by the one by Sheetz, it looks like
they are doing some sort of stone work in the front. I don't know if they are getting
competitive with the one on Market Street, but I wouldn't give up on them yet.
Dunn: Oh no, I visit there often, as you can tell.
Mayor: The Vice Mayor has had a very good idea, which is this presentation
probably needs to be given to the Planning Commission as well in one form or
another. But I appreciate what I have heard around the table.
Hammler: If I may, Madam Mayor. I'll just follow -up a couple of thoughts as I was
listening to the other council members, one not only the planning commission, but I
know that there were a lot of people involved in the committee for form based code. l
think as part of this process, we need to communicate back to everybody who has
been involved and get their feet wet. Obviously, it's a budget question that comes
back to Council. You raised an interesting point, John, when you mentioned earlier
when asked by Kevin about the straight numbers. I am curious, when you bring back
your analysis about city status, if you are going to base it on the premise that the
majority of our tax dollars go to the county and arguably quite a bit doesn't come
back. So, if we look at the vision for what may be a city... and I know there is a lot of
hurdles, but just conceptually how this might tie into our vision for how the future of
Leesburg and it's form takes and how the numbers play out when we have more
control about a city budget. The other I think element really was something that was
triggered, once again, by Tom's key point, which is you know what we have all been
trying to figure out how to achieve which is how do we extend the character of the
downtown given what we love about our core, about what we know as the jewel of
our town and the fact that we don't want to be everywhere USA and how do we
avoid that where we have the powers of Council to do so. I think an element of that
has to continue to be and there is no easy fix when you are talking about education
and behavior, but clearly that being part of our economic development methods,
41 1 i' it c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
which is bringing forward the ability to communicate succinctly about the urban land
institute and about how private employers and business developers would find it in
their best interest to get involved and not being part of an everywhere USA design.
But the most important, I guess point that I would like to wrap up with in terms of an
action step is Tom, if we would work with you to get more tactical and bring forward
what exactly it is that we do to take steps on form based code lite, I would like to
support figuring out what that is. Figuring out what does come to Council. How do
we make that happen? The time is now. I think we have to not just talk about it. I
think, okay, so we know what didn't happen, what do we do now?
Reid: I think I can answer that. You can come up with design elements for the town.
You know, I wanted to reform the H -2. I wanted to narrow the boundaries. Mr.
Dunn wanted to get rid of it. We never even issued any kind of new guidelines or any
direction to staff to do that. I don't know why. But we had a whole H -2 committee.
This form based code thing has completely dominated the agenda for the last couple
of years. There have been other things that we have done, like the sign ordinance. I
am not denigrating staff. I think staff has done a yeoman's work on this, but I think
it's time to put this on the shelf.
Hammler: Be specific. So, you are suggesting a design element?
Reid: What I am suggesting is just put this on the shelf until the economy resumes.
Direct the planning commission that we are not going to have a larger form based
code study area. If you want to direct staff to come up with design guidelines for the
H -2 that are a little bit more modern, that's one place to start.
Hammler: Madam Mayor, could I get Council Member Dunn's perspective.
Mayor: Well, wait a minute because Jeanette wants to give some legal advice. Let
Ken finish, then Jeanette, then Dave and then Tom.
Reid: I am pretty much done. If you want to put an item on the agenda, but I think
that you first have to pull the plug on this or at least put it on the shelf until the
economy resumes so that means no more rule making, no more changes to the code.
You have the form based code, but staff had to go through a whole rigamarole to
change the DCSM and other stuff. Just put that on hold and move more towards
design guidelines.
Irby: To Mr. Reid's point and to other points. We just can't put it on hold and deal
with the problem later. The reason why staff is here is for you all to make a decision
with respect to how to make form based code successful, but a certain point in time,
next March, if Council does not repeal form based code, rights are going to vest in
these property owners, which gives them more density. Staff and I have talked about
a concern if any one of those parcels develops and let's say puts another, not a
Wegman's but a Trader Joes or something and they do it by right and they just deal
with the problems on their site and it starts pushing the pain to other property owners,
421Pa�c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Council will have to step in and do something, so the thought behind staff's
presentation this evening is when it develops piecemeal, as it will, as Council knows,
as other property owners have complained about development, we have had to go in
later and fix it to deal with the ramifications of that development. So, this isn't a kick
the can exercise. If Council wants to go forward with Form based code, then let staff
know how they want to go forward with it. If they don't want to put any money right
now with respect to infrastructure investment, that's fine, but at some point Council is
going to feel that pain. It was staff's thought that you should be prepared for that and
if it's Council's position that you don't want to do that, you just can't shelve it. You
will have to actually repeal it prior to the March implementation date otherwise these
property owners in the form based code are going to have vested rights with respect to
the increased density.
Butler: And I agree, which is why we shouldn't shelve it. We should allow staff to go
and finish what they set out to do, but I wouldn't spend a dime at this point. There is
not necessarily any reason to spend a dime until we get some input from some
property owners that says they are interested in doing something. They won't be
interested in doing something until the economy recovers, I get that, but we have
plenty of time to work with them later, so we certainly can kick the can down the
road and it doesn't necessarily mean that we are going to have to spend anything
because if somebody comes in and wants to buy all those properties, we don't spend
any money. So, there is no point in putting anything on the shelf or stopping what we
are doing at this point. We want that area and we want it to be in the downtown.
Simply coming out with design guidelines, isn't going to fix it. Now, I am not
adverse, I have never said that I was against the idea of expanding the H -2 to be the
entire town and changing the design guidelines so that it included more form based
code elements. That's something that we could do and it is completely independent
of this. It's not an either or, it's completely independent. If we want to do that, it's
not an issue. Council just so far has chosen not to do that, but we could do that at
any point. But it doesn't mean that it has anything to do with this, so I don't
understand why we have to do anything at this point at all.
Dunn: Very briefly ... the zone 1 design elements of buildings, zone 2 design elements
and some streetscape, zone 3 which is here, that's design elements, streetscape and
grid network. We could opt ... this one is for you staff, what if we were willing to go
ahead instead of zone 3, zone 4 or form based heavy, which is what this is ... this is the
max in form based code. What if we decided that we will do form based code zone 2
which is design elements and streetscape and leave the infrastructure off of it as far as
the grid network. That changes what this is going to look like but then it brings into
the possibility of maybe the developers being more actively involved with grid
network if that's where we want to go with it, but we just say you know what, the grid
aspect of this, the infrastructure is just too expensive. Maybe we need to take a lighter
look at this and still keep the elements of form based code here but maybe not look so
heavy at the infrastructure. Maybe that's an option that can be looked at. That's
really what the ideas of form based code were as far as lite. It's saying that we have
got different zones. We building block up to the heavy and we have an opportunity to
43 a
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
see how this is actually implemented over the years and to get to the final stage, not
start it here. By the way, planning commission was opposed to going form based
heavy throughout which is because this is what was delivered to them. We started off
heavy in saying oh, now go take this heavy approach and do it throughout town.
Well, I don't want to do that, as the planning commission and that's not what I am
suggesting. That never was a suggestion. So, is that ... we are in a work session,
Brian, here you go. This is time to dance. Is there a possibility, staff, of taking a
lighter infrastructure look at the Catoctin district that doesn't have so much money
involved in it and it is more of a design and streetscape rather than a heavy
infrastructure?
Boucher: Council Member, I will say this. In form based code lite, you were joking
earlier about where have I heard that before. Well, we have heard that and one of the
things we have been looking at is let's just say we don't have a regulating plan because
the thing here that is the most problematic is the regulating plan. That's what is
unique about this from a zoning standpoint... relatively unique. So, if you take away
the regulating plan, what do you have? The thing about form based code, we build in
a number of design criteria. So we have been looking at the possible application of
some of those into our conventional zoning districts as design elements. So, I would
say that's one thing we are actually looking at. The town attorney is concerned about
density. The one thing that is not part of that, though, you can add design elements.
You can add streetscapes and things and what they look like and kind of make them
uniform through town. We already do that already with the design and construction
standards manual. We have some things in the zoning ordinance related to it, but we
think there are certain design elements that we could actually incorporate into the
code so we have been looking at that. It hasn't been a major focus because we have
been dealing with what you call form based code heavy, but it is something we
certainly have been looking at and could report back to Council on. Ideas of what
those design elements that could be developed as part of the form based code would
be and how we could utilize them.
Dunn: In other words, if we took the existing road network throughout and said that
we want to have redevelopment, you have got to have certain design standards. We
have already got those laid out for you. If you want to do a road network, how can
we incorporate that within our existing zoning and how we do our current road
networks? Again, it's guys ... there was something that you said, Brian, was ... you said
something about how it was written. It isn't written that way. Well, guys we are the
authors. We can do anything we want. The state, thank goodness, gave us the
opportunity to do what we want to do. Here we are, we have gotten six years and
ready to can it. Say, let's just go back to the old way have been doing it and get the
same results we have been getting. Yet ... this isn't like Pharoah, let it be written, let it
be done. We are writing it. So, if this isn't going to work for us, let's go back and see
how we can re -write this so it does do what we want to do and maybe doesn't cost as
much money. We are writing the book.
44111agt
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Wright: So to follow on with Tom's point, I guess what I have ... and I know we have
asked this several times. But I guess what I would want to see is ... take the form
based code that we have today that's drafted. Take the regulating map out and set it
aside. Now there is a couple of things that happen with that. The road network
comes out of the zoning regulations. The other things are still there. Let's talk about
the pros and cons of that. The other thing that is still there is the Town Plan which
actually has more roads. At some point, we might want to sync that up.
Boucher: Right, and I would say knowing that you are going to have to do that.
Wright: But, that I think is kind of what ... sort of if we downshift a little bit, being
you take the roads out. Because the roads have been the headache throughout this
process because we have worked on roads. I mean, that's one of the reasons this
shrunk is we couldn't figure out how to make the roads work in the bigger area. If
you take the roads out, what happens? I think that's the answer that we are looking
for because, Tom's saying look at the current zoning ordinance, how can we take the
aspects of... and it may not be Tom saying it, it may have been you saying it, but what
you were saying is let's take what we have learned from form based code and put it
into the current zoning ordinance. I think what I am saying, is let's take what we
have learned from form based code and throw out the old zoning ordinance and put
form based code in there less the regulating map that's dictating the roads that are
causing the problem.
Dunn: By the way, Kevin, we also write the Town Plan too.
Wright: So, I guess from a path forward standpoint, how long would it take to
answer ... give us a memo to answer those kind of questions from Tom and questions
from me?
Boucher: I think it depends on how much detail you want on it. But certainly we
have given some thought to it already on what those elements would be.
Berry -Hill: When we thought you might be concerned with some of the figures you
were handed here tonight. We were trying to start figuring out what is it that Council
really wants to grab onto out form based code. We have heard that design is one
aspect that you really want to try to carry forward into our zoning ordinance.
Streetscape? Is that another item that you feel passionately about? In which case, we
can try to figure out a way in which to bring that forth into the existing zoning. Site
planning is another one.
Wright: So, let me throw out my list and we will go ... so it's design, streetscape, the
focus on look versus use so the flexibility of use and mixed use within the parcels.
For me the focus is still trying to accomplish the core of form based code does less the
street pattern. So, kind of that core principle that form based code says is lets focus on
the form versus what's happening inside the form. That's what I still want to
accomplish.
451Pa,e
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Berry -Hill: One of those things is bringing buildings up to the street front, putting the
parking in the back so it's not the prominent use. So, if you were to look at that the
consideration is do we change the building setback line to building minimum lines.
Do we do that in just the B -2 district or do we do that in all our...
Butler: I am sorry to interrupt, but I am confused. Based on what Council Member
Wright just said, I don't know why you have to figure all that out already. You have
already figured it all out. We have been looking at it for six years, what all these
design guidelines are. If you take the form based code, you are going to replace the
current zoning with the form based code. You just take out the new streets that we
put in there. I am failing to see why that's difficult.
Boucher: I would say another thing, there is a great density change in the form based
code because the elements that are in the form based code design way beyond ... you
may hear from some project developers that the cost then becomes very expensive
given the density that...
Butler: No, it's not the existing zoning. We are changing the zoning to form based
code. You are changing everything. You are keeping everything you are working on.
You are continuing to forward march and doing...
Boucher: Does that include the densities?
Butler: Absolutely. Keep everything except you don't add the roads.
Wright: Remember, the roads are still in the town plan, which is one of the things
you are going to have to address in the memo.
Boucher: But remember, there are lawsuits about roads that are in the comprehensive
plan, but again if somebody gets a density up here and something is not working, we
are probably going to be on the hook to fix that.
Reid: If I may say, that's a reasonable approach Kevin and Tom. Maybe you two
could knock heads. But you know something, I still believe that we are focusing too
much energy on this one area, which is brownfields, and I don't believe that most of
the property owners there are looking to develop the form based code. I think that
you have to look at the inventory of the land and what is buildable in and what is
viable in the market place. That was my big concern that I raised during the
discussion is that I don't believe that this regulatory regime is going to encourage
development, it will discourage it. So, I really believe that we have spent too much
time on this one area and if you want to spend your time on form, design, like you are
suggesting Kevin, look at other areas of town, but this area ... I think we are just
beating a dead horse and to go forward with rule making under the guise that maybe
somebody is going to have increased density, I think that Catoctin Circle is going to
forever ... at least for many years is going to be a strip commercial environment and
461E'ar;e
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
people are not going to redevelop the wrecking yard and these other areas and that the
Barber and Ross site, they have to submit a plan amendment to get out of the PRN
anyway and that gives the Council an opportunity to deal with it at that time, so I like
your approach, Kevin. I like your's, Tom. I won't be here to probably have a vote on
it, but let's just really put the lid on this.
Ackman: One of the things that I just wanted to ... this being a work session, one of
the things that differential between a by right whether it's by right today or by right
form based code, the state code only gives us very limited authority in what we can
require a developer to build. So, if we gave extra density in these areas, the only thing
we could require them to do is accommodate this grid system by right. So, at some
point, they could basically accommodate a through lane in that area that's not a
public road and at some point in the future, the town would have to step in and
condemn that road for future access if a neighboring parcel were to want to come in
and use that as part of their road network. That's kind of the thing that gets a little
challenging for staff. One of the great powers that this body has is the rezoning
process and I know that one of the things we are trying to accommodate is trying to
help the developers get something done quicker and I acknowledge that, but
sometimes the powers that this body has are good for the town because when you
hear ... now I'm talking about the road network, I'm not talking about what it looks
like, but through a rezoning application you can get the developer to do some off -site
things. You can get them to build portions of road that otherwise they only have to
accommodate or build a half section of. I just wanted to get that out there just so that
there is no misunderstanding that just because you have a form based code you can
make them build these roads, that's a misconception.
Dunn: Could we not write that into our new form based code zoning?
Ackman: We don't have the authority. State code doesn't allow it.
Irby: And we ran into that with Meadowbrook because we had in our town plan that
any development had to consider the interconnectivity of roads and how they all
worked and we have been challenged on that. Fortunately, we have settled a couple
of lawsuits with respect to that issue, so that is still an unanswered question. So, it is
by no means settled that we can even require them to accommodate the road on a
plan.
Butler: But that's what the regulating map is. Is to require them to build the roads.
Ackman: But we can't do it by right. The state code does not allow it.
Butler: But that's the whole idea of form based code.
Irby: but in exchange for that, they were going to get the increased density. So, if you
are taking the regulating plan off and giving them the density, there is absolutely
47 a g
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
nothing to compel them to do any type of improvement... either to improve the roads
as they exist today or how we want them to look in the future.
Ackman: Some of the seminars that we have listened to over the course of the past
year ... I asked this specific question to one of the gurus out in Colorado, and he was
one of the authors of form based code in today's world. The question that I asked
was how do you do this in a brownfield situation. He said better planning up front.
And I said what do you mean by that? Essentially the answer was in order to make it
work in an ideal situation, you need the grid pattern. Whether it's having the right of
way there available for future developers to build within or whether it's building the
infrastructure. So, that's the key component that we don't have in this part of town.
We don't have the grid system in place.
Reid: And the grid system is more expensive to build.
Mayor: Guys, Marty hasn't had a chance to say anything. Please take your chance
now, Marty.
Martinez: All right. First off, my first comment was that number was daunting, but
as we have been going through this discussion, I know that we are not going to invest
$32 -36 million on this project. What I would be interested in knowing and I think it's
something that we could do ... is one, I am not against us moving forward in a limited
way. I think that we have invested enough time and effort that we probably could
find a way to get this to work. What I would be interested in is we keep talking about
this thing and it all goes back to the saying ... how do you eat an elephant? One bite at
a time. How do we take this elephant one bite at a time? How can we phase what we
can do today and get it done versus what we can do in five or ten years. What kind of
time line are we looking at? Is this so urgent that we have to make a decision on how
we are going to finance and do it tomorrow, or is it something that can be a work in
progress that as we phase it, as we look at what we can do today versus what we may
want to accomplish in 10 years or maybe put something on standby until the
economy picks up and then we can move forward on it. What do we really need to
invest between now and say two or three years down the road? So, for me and I don't
want an answer right now. I don't want ... what I am saying is that those are things
we need to look at if we are going to make a decision. Maybe Tom's suggestion of
maybe doing a form based code lite as a start up ... what we can do to move forward.
What I don't want to do is give up on the plan because I think it's a good one. I want
to say how can we get it down in phases ... the big thing I want to know what can we
do today to get the ball rolling that's not going to cause us to go pale when we get the
price tag?
Hammler: I felt like we were starting to get something concrete that we could have
worked with to bring back, to Marty's point, so that we felt like we were heading in
the direction, which I am hearing, we want to go in. Because we had some very good
suggestions as it relates to specific things such as design and streetscape. Bill was
answering a question about the impact of Dave's point about densities and then we
48�Par ,, c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
kind of now are back in this ... this is where I am getting a little frustrated ... I know it's
big and it's very hard. It's difficult and it has obviously very specific numbers
attached to it. But instead of just saying okay we know the situation with Richmond.
We know our limited capabilities as relates to by right versus rezoning opportunities.
Okay, so is the recommendation therefore don't include densities? Is it okay we add
something to our legislative agenda immediately for Richmond as it relates to what
we are trying to accomplish which I think would be good for all of the commonwealth
and how do we work within the state to be the leaders in a regional effort? In other
words, let's figure out instead of why we can't do it, what are we doing next. So,
what I think I am hearing is that we can come back with some kind of specific
recommendations as it relates to Tom and Kevin's direction with design and
streetscapes. Essentially pulling out, taking out the streets. But, if that could come
back to Council, I would appreciate it and then we can determine if and what action
we need to take at the planning commission. How that impacts the March decision,
but I feel like we need to get specific.
Mayor: Okay, staff. We are hearing different approaches but one of them is drag it
out. My understanding is March is our deadline and if we don't revoke it, it goes into
place so developers by right have the right to put density and we have to pay for the
roads and etc.
Wright: Hang on! John is going to answer the question. Let him answer it.
Wells: I think I can... in answering I think several questions get to the point that you
are raising. The intention was not to get a vote tomorrow night. The idea was let's
put the issues on the table and see wherever the conversation took us. We have
anticipated several different scenarios, one of which is the potential of looking at
something less than that whole plan. We can bring something back in two weeks that
can answer most of the questions, if not all of the questions you have asked. Maybe
not in the nth level of detail, but I think there has been enough work, and I was
checking with Susan before I spoke up. We can bring something back that can
address the version that does ... what I am hearing at the broadest level is how can we
take form based code, implement it, but not have to bring forward the infrastructure
costs of the full grid system at this time. There are probably variations on that, but at
the biggest level, it's how do we keep basic components and I know there are different
levels. I will go back and get all the details, but what I am trying to express is I think
we can answer ... I think you have given us enough direction to bring something back
in a couple of weeks that can address... There is a lot of similarity in what is being
stated which is the costs are too big to write a check right now. We may not want to
do the whole road network now, but we may want to keep those options available.
Let's look and see what we have in terms of how we can implement it, answering the
positive, which is what can we do and look at options and how to address those
things that maybe create financial challenges either through the town plan or other
components. I am now at the end of what I can say in terms of the technical end.
But I think in summary, we can bring something back based on what I have heard in
two weeks.
491Pa c°
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Wright: So, call time out to the work session.
Butler: First, I have got to tell you, I am a little disappointed in staff in the way that
they presented this implying that we have to spend any money at all. I want to make
it very clear to Council that we do not have to spend any money. Not now, maybe
not ever. Okay? We do not have to write out a big check for a U in order to kick off
Form based code. That is ... if anybody got that impression, that is a complete fallacy.
Staff is saying that if we went and spent $12 -15 million or whatever it is, it might be
better down the road. There are risks if we don't spend it, but we don't have to spend
it and we don't have to spend it now and we don't have to spend it maybe for five
years if none of these property owners want to move to form based code. Okay? This
is not something that we have to worry about now or probably in the next year, but
what the risk is is we are going to torpedo a six year effort and end up with something
that is not going to achieve the goals that we originally put...
Wells: Let me go back, if I may, Council Member Butler, because at the very outset,
we didn't say that you had to write the big check.
Butler: No, but that's the impression that people are getting.
Wells: That might be the impression you are getting, but that's not what was stated.
What was stated is there are different ways that can be funded. There are some that
are more likely than the other policy question you have is at what pace do you want
to see the development. If you are comfortable with a long term plan, you don't have
to write a check. That was stated at the very outset. You can go back to the chart.
We are not pushing you into that number, but if you are trying to achieve something
that might occur sooner rather than later, the issue is do want to incentivize it. That's
a policy question for you.
Butler: Right, but you stated it much better than how it came across originally,
because if you polled all the Council Members, six of them probably would have
thought that we need to go and figure out how to write a check and the numbers scare
me and 14 other things that they said. I just want to make it clear...
Wells: Let me go back. There was an important thing that was learned over time.
That is when we develop based on piecemeal issues are going to come back to
Council later on. I am not disagreeing but what I am saying is your scenario of taking
a long term approach may compel the Council to act in some areas if you are not
comfortable with how the development plan goes. An example would be the
sidewalk on Market Street. We have talked about having a grid system in the
sidewalks around town. The development isn't happening across the street from the
County building. At some point, we may want to do something that is going to have
a big price tag on it. We couldn't wait over on Edwards Ferry Road down by the
Sheetz so we actually spent money and built some frontage for somebody that may
come in. So, I am not disagreeing but what I am saying is even under your scenario
50�i'arie
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
where we don't pay anything, the honest point that you have to put on the table is if
the network doesn't fit... Battlefield Parkway. A lot of Battlefield Parkway has been
built by the state or been built by developers, but there is some connections that just
aren't going to happen quick enough based on what the Council would like to see
from a policy perspective. That puts pressure on you to spend that money. So, we
can say we are not going to spend the money, but I think we have got to look at the
past and say that puts the pressure on Council if it develops over a 15 -20 year period
and you have got gaps. The pressure is going to be on to finish those networks and
that's a price that then has to come back to the town.
Butler: Absolutely agree, but I think right at the beginning we talk about this as being
a 25 -30 year plan. And sure, if we end up with something that a developer or... a
developer builds this section of the road and then there is this section of the road and
there is a gap in between, sure Council is going to fill in, but that's not a $15 million
gap.
Wells: That's why I am saying it. It's not an all or nothing scenario. That's why you
have three scenarios at the beginning. Council doesn't pay anything, the town pays it
all, or the likely scenario is that it is a shared cost. The impact of hearing the big
number is what drives the train, but the reality of the likely scenario wasn't that the
private sector would do it all and the likely scenario, and that's what we had on the
charts ... the likely scenario wasn't the town would do it all, but the likely scenario is
that something in between. Your order of magnitude is something down from $35
million, but it's not likely to be zero.
Butler: Right, but $35 million is if the town pays for everything.
Wells: We said at the outset that is not likely.
Butler: Right, but I just heard at least three Council Members throw out the $35
million, so maybe it's bad Council Members. But still, that's not even a discussion.
Even if we ended up spending $10 -12 million, that would be spent over maybe 30
years as opposed to building a U, like right now. So, I don't want Council Members
to get to leave here and say, gee we had to torpedo the whole thing or if we go
forward and march, we are going to have to write out a check for $10 million. That's
just not the case. We don't have to write out a check for anything. Zero dollars. We
can go forward to March. We can set this up and say this is how it goes. Then, if we
find out from developers that a) this is just not going to work and we need to modify it
later, great! We modify it later. If we have to end up write out a check for a little bit
of stormwater management around the corner, okay, then we can make that decision
at that time, but this is not an all or nothing, $10 or $15 million thing. There is no
reason to stop anything.
Wells: I think that is the policy question that I am hearing among Council Members
is do you want to take an approach that might have more likely development earlier
that doesn't carry the larger infrastructure development?
51�F'��gc
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Butler: But the problem ... of course, then we'd know the problems. If we don't do
this, we are going to get less density. We are going to get less tax revenue. We are
going to get less of everything and it's not going to look nearly as much as downtown.
We are going to have bigger blocks, which is against the focus that we are trying to
get.
Wells: Totally agree. And that's the policy. If you set everything aside, your
question up front was the correct one, which is what are those elements. It's not just
about form based code, it's what do you want the community to be and how are you
going to get there. This is a tool in part to get there and how you use elements of that
to incentivize or try to move them there. It's what's important to Council. Are the
road grids important? Is that grid network important to have right away? Those are
all part and parcel to what we are learning based on how far we have developed this
at this point.
Butler: But either way, we don't have to write out any checks.
Dunn: I'll be very quick because I think it's the other side of Dave's coin, which was
we have a town plan. Town plan has much of this in there as far as grid network.
How much is that going to cost? Same amount?
Wells: Depending on what happens and at what pace development goes.
Dunn: So, basically if we weren't doing form based code at all, and we just went by
the town plan, which is basically this, then we still have the $35 million? It's just up
to who's going to pay for it. It's probably a little less than that. Maybe that can come
back in two weeks, but in essence there was a price tag to that too. If you can let us
know what that was.
Wells: I think, again, that's part of...we can report back.
Hammler: I am probably just going to debrief with John after the fact. I tend to agree
with some of Dave's core points, but what I did appreciate is how you summed it up
and what is coming back. I think we learned a lot from a really engaging discussion
and I would appreciate though if you would focus on the scenarios because I don't
think that was presented in a way that enabled us to figure out how to take it to the
next step, although we finally got there. Whether it's tactical... what do we do for
legislative agendas as necessary. What do we do given the reality of where we face in
terms of some of the things that need to be modified to create incentives for densities
so that we are able to get rezonings in this game that we play in order to pay for
infrastructure. They are complex things, but I think we have got to start digging at
that level.
C. Utility Rate Advisory Committee Verbal Update
52 Panc
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Dan Connolly: Just a review of.. it's been a while since we came here. Back in May,
we gave a recommendation to the Council based on the previous rate structure. We
came to Council, gave a recommendation and after that we have been back in
June to go ahead and work with Council with no specific policy guidance to forward
a rate structure to Council. That is what we are in the process of doing. We do have
a plan of action. Essentially basically identify, prioritize concerns of the Council to
summarize the make sure you guys are and basically recommend principles
and general rate structure that addresses those. Presumably, those would be taken
and provided with the budget and used to come up with a finalized rate structure. A
while ago we sent out a questionnaire and we have received, to date, five of those
surveys back. Just real quick, we are seeing revenue ... I'm assuming... one thing
that I wanted to make clear, is I think it's kind of a misconception ... it may be how we
presented the information earlier. The current rate structure isn't in the red. It had
been in the red but with scheduled rate increases, things are starting in to the black.
So, if everything stays as it is, it would be in the black.
Butler: What date is that as of?
Connolly: It is within the ...I couldn't tell you that. It's in the black.
Butler: Because I am interested in seeing what's happening after the third quarter
bills, because I am expecting a significant shortfall.
Connolly: My last discussion with Norm seemed to indicate we were pretty close on
target.
Butler: Yeah, I understand, but we will get the chance to talk about that a little later
anyway.
Connolly: The main issues are the sewer and water charge is still 1:1. I know that is
a concern. That repeatedly was brought up. High use threshold being applied to 100
percent of the bill. Perception of unfairness, I presume this is for the surcharge and
the high use threshold. We can take care of both of those, we will take care of that
concern too. One of the concerns was excessive . I don't know if there is much
we can do about that. These are some of the same concerns that have been brought
up historically and certainly will resurface again when summer rolls around. We
know that we are going to take that. URAC wants to be proactive and handle that
relatively quick. One of the things we just want to make clear, there have been some
concerns that generate income. It seems like there is a general consensus that some of
these activities are unfair, but they still generate income. When we address those,
eventually, that will place a burden on other portions of your user base. Some of the
additional comments on our survey ... there seems to be strong support for an
increased fixed rate. There is certainly a lot of support for a peer rate structure, which
would address the high use surcharge and conservation. There is support for winter
billing of x gallons or having a flat rate. Moving forward, we will continue with
outreach. We are providing you with information and getting feedback from you on
53 <t c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
our general principles and rate structure. Again, presumably this will be reviewed by
consultants. Once they are established, all the URAC would like to work with the
consultants as they go through and flesh out numbers. That's it.
Reid: I would just like to say that during ... that as the new supervisor for the Leesburg
District, I would like very much to ensure that we don't have the same kind of
problems that we had with the last board and with our members of the General
Assembly. I think that ... I really would encourage the Council because I am not going
to be around to do this, I don't believe ... to really reconsider the URAC
recommendations. Or at least what Dave proposed back in June, which is kind of a
back of the envelope thing. I think that it would really go a long way toward ... not
just the political situation but really we have a lot of in -town residents who are still
very upset with the water and sewer rates and those are our first priority. I really
believe that we spent a lot of money on a tiered rate system, it is really going to come
down to whether the Council wants to make that political decision whereas what the
URAC recommended I think could be implemented right now for next summer's bills
and I think would go a long way toward helping our residents. I really do. And also
with ensuring the fund has a constant stream because Dave just mentioned he is
concerned that we are going to lose money because of the fact we had a lot of rain this
summer. That's what URAC found out ... that our fixed charge really needs some
adjusting, so I would strongly encourage my colleagues to take a look at their
recommendations again. Thank you for your report.
Butler: I applaud the URAC and I know this is not the easiest problem to get your
arms around and solve, but one of my concerns in the beginning with any kind of
tiered rate structure is any kind of change in structure, there is going to be some group
or groups that are going to be helped and some group or groups that are going to be
hurt. Is it clear from the survey results that there may appear to be a reasonable
opportunity for a consensus hurting some group or groups.
Connolly: There is not a consensus of hurt, but there is a consensus to eliminate a
threshold. But I understand that part is true .... and that's why I wanted to present that
to you and make that clear. There has to be an understanding that if we do invest the
time and move forward and put forth recommendations to address those concerns,
other people are going to carry that burden.
Butler: Yeah, absolutely. And so it's easy for politicians to say, "Oh great, we can
make things better for this group or that group ", but there has to be a zero sum gain.
So, we make things better for one group or groups, it's going to get worse for some
other groups. There is just no other way to slice it. My concern is, if Council is not
going to be happy knowing to vote for anything that hurts some group or groups, then
there is no point in going through the exercises. And, if there is other information
that you need from Council, you know, to help with that because I don't want to see
you go through another six months or something, completely waste your time, come
up with some reasonable plan for a tiered rate structure and then have Council
54 a c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
chicken out at the last minute which is exactly what happened four or five months
ago.
Connolly: Well, we talked about this at length at the URAC and we are going to put
together a diagram moving forward... a video before we move forward and you can
potentially decide if you like it or not. It will pretty much lay out what is going to
happen if you do this ... this is going to happen.
Butler: Well, four or five months ago exactly what you presented wasn't something I
could buy into, but a modification of that ... you know I could have bought in without
a problem.
Connolly: We can look at the overall rate structure. There is a chance
maybe ... maybe isn't the right word ... so the perception....
Butler: I understand. Four or five months ago was a chance to steadily increase the
bill for everybody, which is about the least painful way that we can do rate
increases....
Reid: Then you have a regular revenue stream.
Butler: Well, we talked about ... yeah, I can wait for more discussion on the letter E.
Other than that, I have bought in and look forward to seeing more.
Hammler: Thank you very much to everybody involved. I know Terry is here also
from the committee. I just want to say thank you all for being there. In the first slide,
did you specifically mention when you would be getting that further recommendation
based on the consensus input...
Connolly: from what I understand. The basic principles, we talked about this
numerous times ... We don't have a time frame. We just know that this is going to be
an issue that resurfaces so we won't act quickly.
Hammler: So, do we need to direct ... it requires Council action to direct it?
Wells: At the last meeting that you provided direction to URAC, there was a two
phase recommendation. Only one of those phases was taken. First phase was to
identify a framework under which the Council or a majority of the Council wanted to
move forward. Second, would be to then engage the consultant to work on that.
Council decided to just do the first part which is to have the Utility Rate Advisory
Committee bring back that framework and then once there is the agreement around
that framework, or the majority agreement around that framework, then Council
would direct the consultant. We are not in a position to work with the consultant
pending Council vote. But, your focus at this point is to hear back from URAC as to
what that framework would be.
55 1P- i,,,
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Hammler: And back to your point about the politicizing a decision. I would support
moving forward with the consultant based on public input, all the great work of the
committee with the Council and an expert consultant to help drive us towards a
rational, fair set of rates moving forward. I guess I have a slightly different view on a
couple of basic points about the idea of a zero sum game. I think we need to look at
the basic priorities relative to ... call it a philosophy that we would be encouraging
conservation, as an example, and rewarding users who conserve versus those who
ultimately do not. So, I don't think it's zero sum in that sense. It's a question of
adhering to those principles. The other key point is certainly over the last couple of
meetings when we have either been discussing the Raspberry Falls situation or any
related topics dealing with water, clearly the municipal water in Leesburg is of
tremendous value. It's one of the best services we provide as a municipal
government. So, we keep talking about everybody being penalized, but it's a
tremendous value. I think that's just a point that we all need to keep in mind as we
are working toward setting the best and fair rates moving forward to ensure that we
are in the black and provide the fairest rates.
Wright: Thank you very much for your continued hard work. I appreciate it. I kind
of picture your reaction as you were going through the survey results and going "oh
this should be fun". The one thing I wanted to highlight and I think you hit on this at
this point, so I can help you with ... to sell it better. The concern that I had was the
proposal you guys brought back last time, you answered the question that was asked.
Unfortunately, we didn't like it because it wasn't an easy answer. You were supposed
to bring back an easy answer. It's not my fault one doesn't exist, but that only solved
one of our like three or four issues with the rate structure. So, the challenge that I had
with that is okay, I'm going to fix this one problem that addresses one group of
customers and impacts the entire customer base and leave the balance of the issue still
on the table whereas the reason I support this process is we are going to take a look at
everything even at the overall principles and address all of the overall rate structure
and at one time address and provide this is our rate structure, this is a consensus
approach supported by the committee, the community, all of it. That's why I support
the way that we are moving forward and encourage you on your continued efforts.
Martinez: I think everyone has pretty much addressed a lot of my concerns. I do
wonder, as we get closer to a decision, what kind of resident input are you going to
have? Are you going to have a resident survey to gauge their... or are you guys pretty
much going to...
Connolly: A resident survey? Is not something you consider. I think part of the
mentality is trying to figure out what you guys are going to agree to.
Martinez: I would just be kind of curious to get a pulse on some of the fears that we
are talking about. It is going to affect ... I do know that's a lot of work and I know that
you need to come up with recommendations ... I'll just leave it at that.
Mayor: Thank you very much. Did we get you out of here fast enough, Terry?
56 a c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
d. Battlefield Parkway Speed Limits
Calvin Grow: Madam Mayor and Members of Council, the Virginia Assembly
enacted an ordinance or a section change of the Code of Virginia that went into effect
July I" of this year. The change allows municipalities that maintain their own roads
to increase the speed limit above the current maximum speed limit of 35 miles per
hour in accordance with a traffic engineering study. The Public Works has
investigated Battlefield Parkway at a request from Council ... had a request from
Council to investigate Battlefield Parkway from Route 7 and Evergreen Mill Road
(Route 62 1) to look at raising the speed limit on this section of roadway. Town staff
conducted a traffic investigation along this section. What we did was we divided that
into two sections. Section IV being the section between Rt. 621 and Kincaid
Boulevard and Section III being Kincaid to Route 7. Section IV, staff recommends
because of the school, that it's on Tavistock Drive, Cool Springs Elementary and the
speed limit currently for the school zone. We are recommending that the speed limit
remain on Section IV between Kincaid and Route 621 remain at 35 miles an hour.
The section of Battlefield Parkway from Kincaid to Route 7, we are recommending
that Council increases that section of Battlefield Parkway from 35 miles an hour to 40
miles an hour. We have attached a resolution to the memo according to that
recommendation. I would be glad to answer any questions you might have.
Martinez: I am not in favor of raising the speed limit anywhere within town... and the
reason I'm really not in favor of this is because of the schools and if there was a
natural divide like Rt. 7, I would, but there is not. You have Sycolin Road, but before
Sycolin Road, you have got Cool Springs Elementary School. What I don't want is
somebody going 40 to 45 miles an hour, not seeing the speed limit change and
going ... now, it needs to be consistent from Rt. 7 all the way to at least Sycolin Road,
to Evergreen Mill at 35 miles an hour. I don't want to put in a speed trap, because
essentially that's what people will take it as. You go 40 miles an hour, then boom,
you are at 35 miles an hour. And guess what? We have a cop sitting right there at the
line getting people because it's hard enough when you are driving... it's hard in that
area there. I could not be in favor. I would rather just go ahead and leave it 35 miles
an hour.
Wright: Yeah.
Reid: Yeah? What does that mean?
Wright: I tend to agree with Marty. Because the bottom line is you raise the speed
limit there. People will not slow down for the next area and the other thing, which is
going to be very similar to what happened on Catoctin Circle ... there is a period of
time where Catoctin Circle rotated between 25 and 35 mile per hour speed limits. As
development and infill occurred over time, it dropped down to 25 across the board
and there are still those folks that believe those sections that were 35 are still 35 and
you can't get them back down. I see no reason in changing the precedent and
57 P
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
creating the confusion for such a narrow section of the roadway. I don't see the
benefit.
Hammler: I know that Ken feels passionately about raising the limit and I am
looking forward to hearing his comments. I tend to agree, as it relates to what seems
to be driver behavior, which is typically drivers seem to drive five miles over the speed
limit so if we raise it to 34, what we are really doing is raising it to 40. People might
be going as high as 45 as it relates to the other key point, which is the issue that we are
trying to battle the traffic calming town -wide and it sends, I think, a counterintuitive
signal before we bring this entire traffic calming plan back, which incidentally is going
to be dealing with the serious issue we are having on the other side of Battlefield
where Marty and I live, but I am looking forward to Ken's comments.
Butler: But first, you get to suffer through mine. I am pretty much aligned with
Ken's. Between Kincaid Boulevard and Route 7, I would be in favor of raising the
speed limit to 45 because what we have now is when people leave Kincaid Boulevard,
when they go down to Route 7, the road goes down. I swear to God, you have to put
the brakes on the entire route because the whole car wants to go faster than 35 miles
an hour. Yes, we already have a speed trap there. Eight days out of nine, I see
Leesburg police right there so people are crowding each other and practically running
up each other's bumpers to slow down because they know so many people have
gotten nailed on that stretch. It's not going to be developed. There is nothing there to
develop, at least in the short term.
Reid: There is commercial development. No residential.
Butler: Certainly no residential, so it's very hard to keep the car from going faster
than 35 on that stretch. When you are coming back, you are not going to continue at
the same rate to go to Cool Spring because the road, it comes up the hill, and there are
at least two lights before you get to Cool Spring, so you are already slowed way
down. I mean I go on that stretch 10 times a week, minimum. Every day I have
heard from so many people that live in Tavistock and Kincaid and Stratford and
Oaklawn, that why, in God's name is this stretch of road only 35 miles an hour. It
looks and acts like a 55 mile an hour road, if you go down there. I would suggest
everybody that you go down that road and start out from Sycolin and go right on
down to Route 7 and tell me that it's a 35 mile an hour road.
Reid: Folks, we've got the legislative authority. A lot of people in this town really,
really want to see that speed limit raised, especially in the southeast part of town. But
Dave and I were talking earlier. We would like to see at least a 40 mph speed limit
between Sycolin and the Greenway, as well. If you want to put this off for two weeks
to think about it, we could do that. But a lot of folks are getting caught on that hill. A
lot of folks are getting caught in Oaklawn, where you have again all commercial
development. The design speed, as the staff report said, is for 45. Now, I am not
going as far as Dave for 45, but I do believe we should go for 40 as the staff
recommended also between Sycolin and the Greenway going west. Not the section
58 a c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
between Sycolin and Kincaid. You have Cool Spring and several residential
developments right along there, so I would not recommend that at all.
Hammler: So, you would change the speed limit several times?
Reid: Again, I would recommend that we go with 40 mph as staff recommended
from Kincaid Boulevard to Route 7, both ways east and west.
Hammler: Then slow down again the next section. Then you are suggesting another
speed increase?
Reid: Yes, at Sycolin Road to the Greenway. Just to the Greenway, not to Evergreen
Mill Road because you have a two lane stretch there.
Dunn: You want that 40?
Reid: 40, both 40.
Mayor: Even though you have townhomes in Stratford... or Oaklawn in that area?
Reid: They are not directly on Battlefield.
Mayor: Right, okay.
Reid: And Dave, you would support that too? Right? The Oaklawn section.
Butler: Yes. Eventually the Greenway to Evergreen will be four lanes.
Reid: A lot of folks are getting stopped there by state police.
Dunn: Well, I'm driving a pretty old car these days, so I can only push it about 10
mph. Well I have actually, when Ken brought it to my attention, I did go from the
light at Kincaid, gave it a little bit of gas, put it in neutral and I never did coast up to
40 mph. Maybe it's my bad brakes were dragging or something, who knows? But I
never did get above 40. But I will agree, at a minimum I would suggest ... what are we
calling that east or northbound heading towards Route 7? I would recommend at a
minimum that be 40 and you could probably go 35 going up the hill. You don't have
to make it 40 on both sides?
Grow: I would recommend you do it to be consistent.
Dunn: I'm just saying if you are going up the hill you are going to be really working
hard to have to go 40 mph. That area there is nothing there. It is just a bridge. If you
got to have 40 mph going up the hill, go for it, I guess, but I don't know if I would
agree with going 40 mph, although I travel it quite a bit too, Ken, that stretch from
Sycolin to Evergreen... not Evergreen... but the Greenway. You do have a childcare
591Pa e
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
center there. You have a bank there. You have more amenities ... I don't know if I
would push the 40 around there. I do agree with making it 40 from Kincaid to Route
7. There is just a bridge there.
Martinez: The comment I want to make is Battlefield Parkway is designed ... and you
know I would tell you that if I was back in Council understanding what is going
on ... Battlefield Parkway is designed not to be a 35 mph road, it is designed to be a 45
mph road to handle that kind of traffic but it's not. It's not a bypass. It is a town
road. It is in the town limits. It goes by schools. I am sorry, but it's not up to me to
regulate how you put your foot on the gas. You have to control your car. You have
to go 35 mph. If you are going downhill, put on the brakes. I do not want to see a car
coming down that hill seeing 40 mph and all of sudden he is going 50 and boom, he
hits a light. Yeah, there is nothing there. The problem with that stretch is because
there is nothing there, it gives people a false sense that guess what, it's going to be this
way all the way through and it's not. I don't ... you may get people mad because it's
not 40 or 45 mph but I'm going to tell you, they are going to be madder when they are
coming down 40 -45 mph down that bridge. I don't care about going up, because they
are going away from the school, but coming down that bridge doing 40 -45 mph and
getting a ticket. They are going to be mad at getting the ticket. Because they are
going to speed, just like you are speeding now. Human nature. You give them five
mph, they are going to take that five plus some more.
Dunn: Marty, not to be argumentative, although I do so enjoy it, you said that it's
not you to regulate, but as Calvin pointed out and Ken did, the state did give us the
ability to regulate it so we could do it.
Martinez: I know we can ... I'm just saying it's a town road, it's in the town. It's
going by schools. Yeah, for me, the best sense is if we are going to keep that
road ... it's a Battlefield Parkway, it's 35 mph from US 15 to US 15 or to Evergreen
Mill. To have spots where oh you can speed up here, you gotta go back down, speed
up here, go back... not very consistent.
Dunn: It's really just that one area, right?
Martinez: No, two areas.
Reid: I'm talking about Oaklawn area as well because again, Ashburn Farm Parkway
is 40. There are numerous residences. That's more residential than Oaklawn.
Martinez: Ashburn Farms? Is that in Leesburg?
Reid: Marty!
Martinez: I am talking about Leesburg and Leesburg town roads.
60 Pit c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Reid: You know this was the big conflict. I mean Dave Gear (sp ?) transportation
specialist for Parsons Brinkenhoff can't believe that we have to get legislation done.
Martinez: I'm trying to remember where Ashburn Farm is. I don't see any schools
coming right off of Ashburn Farms.
Dunn: Oh, Ashburn Farm Road, oh yeah.
Butler: Churches, schools and it's 40 the whole way, 45 in stretches.
Dunn: What if we went with ... would we have enough to get just the section of the
bridge? Are we willing to do just the bridge, Marty?
Mayor: That's all that's being proposed, I think, by staff tonight. Everything else
would remain the same.
Hammler: Let's listen to the mayor. How does she feel about it?
Mayor: I am actually leaning strongly toward Dave and Ken and Tom's position
because I agree. I think it was Dave who said when you are headed towards Cool
Spring, you are going up hill which will tend to slow you down anyway and then
you've got the two lights and I have heard from a lot of people in Ken's neighborhood
who really would like to see it at 40.
Reid: When would this take effect, then?
Grow: It would take us about two weeks to change ... once the resolution is approved
it takes about two weeks to get the signs up.
Reid: So, we don't have to put that in the resolution.
Mayor: As far as the section from Sycolin to the Greenway, I'm not sure I would
vote to raise the limit there because, as Marty said, I think, you have got daycare.
You have got homes right there.
Reid: You have a lot of people stopped by those speed traps. State police is there.
Town. Our resources are being ... Dave and I talked about this is the resources are
being applied on the downhill and on Oaklawn, where have folks in this town who
are desperate like in Edwards Landing and Balls Bluff area. They would love to have
the speed limit on Battlefield lowered. Lowered.
Mayor: I think Katie made a very good point, which is you have speeding all over
town. Marty may have said, you raise it to 40, they are going to go 50. I think those
are valid points. Yeah, a lot of people in town would like higher speed limits, that
doesn't mean that makes it safer.
61 a
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Hammler: What I do think is an interesting point for us to look at is actually looking
at what and how the police are enforcing and where. How is the police force
prioritizing it's monitoring of traffic where and is it by what should be the safety issue
quadrants of town. Certainly what we hear over where we live is where are the cops
when these people are going 45 mph leaving downtown Leesburg and /or coming into
the town and practically bumping into the car in front of them. I mentioned already
three times tonight, it's just shocking. We could probably look at where are fines
being issued. My red flag was raised the other night when I realized the cop had
tracked down some truck that had five pounds too much of whatever it had on the
back. Where was he when he could have been monitoring traffic on the bypass going
from Edwards Ferry to the next light, you have got cars going 80 mph in a 45 mph
zone on that bypass.
Reid: Those cops are still going to enforce Oaklawn.
Hammler: I mean if we could actually look at the statistics. Where are we issuing
citations. Where and how is it prioritized by some these high safety issues.
Martinez: Hopefully this is the last part of this discussion so we can move on. One of
the things we talked about on the SRTC is the feedback signs are a great deterrent.
What we need to do is have staff identify hot spots where we can rotate feedback
signs in and out on a rotational basis so people can keep track. Apparently those do
work. The other thing that works even better is enforcement.
Hammler: In all fairness if they are going too slow, going up that hill, we need to tell
them they are going too slow.
Reid: That's a good point, Marty. I think we have got to take it off Consent because
I don't think we are going to get ... we have got to take it off Consent. We will have to
have a discussion. But I will offer an amendment to have a driver feedback sign on
the Oaklawn section if we can go to 40.
Martinez: My personal feeling is if is on consent and we have a majority anyway, I'm
not going to sit there and fight it.
Reid: Kevin is not in favor of it, so...
Mayor: Just take it off consent then everybody can vote their conscience.
e. Initiate Amendment to Chapter 34 Article II and III Revising Various
Utility Fees
Aref Etemadi: What you have before you all tonight is a request for initiating some
changes to Chapter 34 of the Utilities town code section in regards to some of the fees
that are currently in place and some that are not currently in place. In discussions we
have had with the town's finance department... they are the ones that basically enforce
and implement all of these changes that we are requesting. A couple of changes here
62 Pit c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
are regarding clarification to some sections. Some establish some new fees. The
experiences we have had with some customers are ... there are customers that we
routine call for _. Right now, we have no fees. This will discourage people from
calling in to ask for the meters to be checked for leakage. One of the new items we
are establishing is a fee to discourage customers for repeatedly asking.
Hammler: So could you be specific as to what you are suggesting, then?
Etemadi: We have customers that come in and request that their meters to be
checked for accuracy.
Hammler: I understand, but what specific fee. Is it like the third time they call in and
how much would it be?
Etemadi: The first time, if the meter is inaccurate then of course there is no charge. If
the meter is correct, there will be a charge assessed to that. So some of the specific
issues concern other jurisdictions as far as what other jurisdictions have in place for
time and services. Is it the first time, second time, third time. Those are the details
that we will bring back to you all in the public hearing process. For example,
resumption of water service, changed from $20 to $30. Service charge for new
accounts from $20 to $30. Clarification of some of the deposits that are currently
being assessed to accounts. Right now, if two people submit for one address, that
counts as only one person's name and one person has paid a deposit on the service, if
those two people separate for unforeseen reasons, the second person also has to
establish a deposit for the second person because they have never established a history
with the town. For example, if I separate from my wife, that counts against her if I
have paid the deposit, I have established the account and the account is under my
name. If my wife comes in and wants to open an account this is going to require and
need a deposit from that second person to be paid on the account because they don't
have any history, any credit history with the town. That's one of the things that we
are considering. Unauthorized use of services ... you know if there are tampering that
occurs with the meters, damages to the meter or meter assembly. We are trying to
establish some fees for those. There are maybe a few other items that will be added to
the list as we go through the entire section. We expect that these additional fees may
net the utility department anywhere between $40- 60,000 roughly in new revenues.
With that, I'll open it up for questions.
Martinez: No questions.
Wright: And John, you may have to provide back up on this. Were these addressed
in the fee study that we did and this is just further initiation?
Wells: These are things we have identified as gaps in terms of areas where... some of
the items we do have fees for and some we don't. As our experience has developed in
terms of tracking what's occurring, the cost of dealing with these items are becoming
63 a
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
greater than what the recovery is. So, these are options for the Council to consider
either now or at some later point.
Wright: At this point, all we would be doing is initiating and this would come back
with a more comprehensive presentation of the Pros and Cons and all that?
Wells: That's correct.
Hammler: I appreciate your staying so late, Are£ Just some things that came to my
mind were obviously these things like tampering, which seems reasonable. But I
would be very careful when we are listing things out. Just look at the mood, in terms
of the bank raising fees... particularly given our PR issues with our overall utility
system. I think we need to be careful about the timing and I understand the point
about recouping some of these costs, but to the extent that it could be looked at with
this larger consulting study and the system as a whole, I think that is something I
would consider thinking about initiating.
Butler: This doesn't have anything to do with the rates?
Wells: That's correct. It does nothing to the rates, either the base rate or any of the
things that the utility rate commission is looking at right now. These are separate.
These are service fees for various....
Butler: Alright, but a little on my question from earlier in the evening... at what point
would we be able to get a new estimate of where we are in the utility fund?
Wells: You should have something within two weeks. I have something right now
that ties back to budget and we are tracking it now. We have developed a new report
that tracks on a monthly basis the revenue and expenditure and the usage for water
and sewer. We are taking that back, and we have got the budget comparison. We
want to check that against the overall rate stuff to make ... because that's really the
controlling factor, if you will, over time.
Butler: Those are assumptions?
Wells: That's correct. I can share with you tomorrow where we are at compared to
budget but I need to take that and compare....
Butler: I'm thinking our third quarter...
Wells: That's where we need to look at the third quarter. As we sit today, we are
ahead on revenue. We are not expending the full budget. We have produced slightly
more water and we have more product going through the sewer lines. But, I think to
your point, Dave, we need to be able to look at where that take us at against the rate
study because that again is what those estimates are what was used long term and
while the budget is fairly, I suspect, close to that we need to look at this. This is also
641Pa c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
the first time we have ever broken down our costs and estimates by month. So, it's a
bit of a new experience for us, but I think it's something that basically the staff worked
at this point and I'd be happy to share with you. I think we can clean it up in two
weeks. But what we have right now, again I can show you right now but that
wouldn't be the full answer to your question.
Butler: I would just be very surprised if our third quarter didn't come in less...
Wells: I think we are all curious to see what is going to happen.
Reid: I support this. Again, thank you for staying late and Dan, from URAC as well.
Thank you for staying late.
Dunn: Do I get a credit for not tampering with my meter? No, I haven't so I feel like
if you are going to tax somebody for tampering, I should get a credit for leaving it
alone. Seriously, I'm not really in favor of this. If we are trying to dissuade people
from calling and asking for meter checks, I would rather just say hey you can have
three over a year period or something like that. It seems like a small amount, that as
Katie put, the $40,000 for potential ... we aren't even sure it would be that much, that
it may not be worth the public hear this Council goes again with Utility rates. They
aren't going to hear fees, they are going to say rates, so I would almost rather just say
hey the better part of valor is to pass on this. Anyway, I'd still want my credit.
f. Unfunded Mandates
Mayor: There is a memo in your packet. Any questions for Betsy on it?
Reid: I don't see anything in the law enforcement area. Is there anything that the
police have to go through hoops that we need to consider? I guess all the departments
were polled, but I just want to make sure Police were polled.
Fields: Most of the unfunded mandates that they found were not things that they
thought we should not be doing.
Reid: How about DCSM, other than what you have here? Is there anything in the
DCSM that's a mandate that puts an extended time on site plans and whatever for the
private sector?
Wells: What we have is what we are recommending.
Reid: That's what you are recommending? And what about utility relocation. Is that
just a utility problem or is also a state mandate for how we deal with those guys?
Irby: That was not a state mandate.
Reid: There is nothing that mandates... okay, just wanted to check. Thanks.
m
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Butler: I really like Number 1. We talked about that when we had the original
TMDL discussion that if the county is going to have to spend a zillion dollars for
something and if we are also going to have to spend something less than a zillion
dollars, I don't want to get my county taxes going up because of their zillion because I
am already paying for my own. So, this would basically say the county handles it and
pays for all of it and the town is not involved. So, that seems to me a lot fairer.
Reid: Well I support all of this.
Butler: Number 5 is one I got a little bit of heartburn. The red light cameras, I have
seen too many studies that find the red light cameras don't work. They don't stop
people and in fact there has been a whole lot of tickets thrown out because unless the
red light cameras ... they found legal issues with the way the red light cameras are set
up and everything else.
Fields: I don't believe this is saying that we will definitely use them it's just
saying ... it's just laying out the locality has a better handle on where those red light
cameras should go rather than having to go through the hoops of getting VDOT
approval.
Butler: Right, but I think I'm fine with the VDOT approval because at least it allows
a larger agency to do a sanity check on where we are going to put red light cameras
although I am happy we haven't put them anywhere yet. That's all.
Hammler: Thank you for the report, Betsy and for staying late.
Wright: I'm good with this, thank you very much.
Martinez: I'm good with it.
Dunn: Well, unfunded mandates. Thank you, Richmond, may I have another?
2. Additions to Future Council Meetings
Martinez: Nothing at this time, but I will voice an opinion on the Holiday Parade.
Too many people are saying its way too early and they will not come to the parade.
Even if they do, they are going to leave again. They like and there is no surprise that
at my poker game there was about seven or eight of them saying they like the idea of
the parade followed by the tree lighting.
Mayor: So, they like it ... do they prefer it in the evening. So, when you say they are
saying it's too early, was it time of day or was it too early in the month as well.
Martinez: Time of day.
Hammler: How late or far into the poker game are we talking so we can gauge...
66 1 P a c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Reid: It's too late to change it though?
Martinez: Because it was in the paper ... they go what is this with the naming? Why
do you have this time so early, it's ridiculous.
Reid: I thought that staff was looking at another time?
Martinez: What has happened is they had a pilot for three years to do the parade
to...
Mayor: Kara has had it. She is leaving.
Martinez: The parks and rec was going to run the parade either two or three years in
the morning...
Wells: This is our last year of that experiment.
Wright: Because we were previously yelled at for having it at night.
Wells: That's right.
Reid: I wanted it at 4 o'clock ... a compromise.
Martinez: Early evening, when it's still light. By the time the parade is over with, we
can move right onto the tree lighting ceremony.
Reid: We can't change it as a Council?
Wright: We have already advertised it.
Reid: Big deal. Readvertise it!
Wright: Just one clarification, I didn't see in the charter language. Since our
elections are non - partisan, that was previously dealt with by the code when they
moved. Do we need to make sure that's included in the Charter language.
Irby: Yes, when you move your election to November, the long standing tradition of
a non - partisan election no longer applies and the election can become partisan unless
your charter specifically says that the election is non - partisan, so that would need to
be added to the charter change.
Reid: Well let's do that.
Butler: We had the option of making it partisan?
Irby: It will be partisan if you don't put in your charter that it is not.
67 t c
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Dunn: We might as well call it for what it really is.
Butler: All it really means is that everybody shows up with an I by their name, right?
Irby: There is a specific way that it is put on the ballot. One is with an I, if you have
a partisan election. We also get into Hatch Act issues with respect to who is qualified
to run for Council. We do not have the exemption that Loudoun County currently
has and we would have to work with the Federal government and I'm not sure how
that process works to make sure that we are not subject to that if we have a partisan
election.
Hammler: Can you advise us what that is?
Irby: I don't know what it is. I know that it is under the federal register, Volume 62,
Number 121, under proposed rules. I mean it's pretty detailed.
Wright: If you are a federal employee, you cannot be a member of a party, so if it's a
partisan election you could not participate unless...
Butler: You can't fund it or put money directly towards...
Irby: Right, and there are exemptions to be had and Loudoun has one.
Wright: If we keep our elections non - partisan, then our problems are solved.
Butler: If we are partisan, then we end up with primaries and all that.
Irby: That's a possibility. Yes.
Reid: We don't want that.
Wright: If we could incorporate that. The other thing, the Art Commission, if we
could bring this forward. I don't think it needs a work session, so just as a resolution
next go around. They want to establish a non - profit group so similar to the Friends of
Balch, a Friends of Art that would help facilitate funding of public art. In conjunction
with that, there is a proposal that now that I have brought this up ... your Art
Commissioners will be reaching out to you about to do an Art Festival. It would be
produced by a group that actually does them, so there would not be a risk financially
as far as production value, but would return some revenue. More detail on that in the
actual staff report, but I would like both of those.
Hammler: I don't know if you were planning to do this, Madam Mayor, but the
whole issue of the special election. Were you going to mention it?
68 Pa e
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Mayor: Jeanette started to get into it. But, yes, I asked Jeanette to give us a short
briefing of what we should be putting on future Council agendas that will have to deal
with the charter amendment and other aspects as well.
Irby: Right, so when I get the research done, I will send something out to Council,
but certainly up for discussion... not at tomorrow's Council meeting, but the Council
meeting two weeks hence, so that you guys can direct me on what you want me to do
with respect to the special election process. It is determinate on when Mr. Reid
submits his resignation, so I was going to have that discussion...
Wright: Ken is quitting?
Irby: Rumor has it.
Reid: I don't know. Maybe I will change my mind.
Butler: You never impressed me as a quitter. I just had one comment... especially if
we understood all the potential options, if any for the special election if it where held
at the same time as the regular election...
Reid: Or April, you have to do one or the other, right?
Irby: May is out because of the primaries.
Reid: No, the primaries are March 6.
Irby: But there is one that when I talked to the Board of Elections today... although is
not officially... they haven't officially reserved the date, they are thinking that there
will be a primary election for the senate seats in Virginia, so that knocked out a few
more dates.
Butler: Right now, the way you have described it, it appears it would be really
confusing especially for candidates if we held them all on the same day in November.
Irby: Well, it's interesting how that would work, if you want to know how it would
work.
Reid: The problem is...
Irby: It's actually a separate election.
Reid: The problem is you have a presidential primary March 6, and now you are
saying there is going to be a US Senate primary in May...
Irby: No, June.
691Panc
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Reid: June?
Wright: Couldn't we qualify under the general in May? Because that's classified as a
general?
Irby: We no longer have that general election date, once we receive our preclearance,
our general election will be November, so we lose the May date.
Wright: Fascinating.
Irby: Yes.
Dunn: Maybe we should have a special election to decide when to have the special
election. We will just keep voting every month.
Reid: I think we are going to have to advertise for an SRTC person because I have
not been able to find somebody and I have an appointment to that. Also, Holiday
Parking, John is that going to come...
Wells: It happens automatically.
Butler: How is he allowed to have things on future Council meetings?
Mayor: That's true...
Reid: We were supposed to have an input session on the Wirt Street at night parking.
We haven't had that yet. And then also the URAC ... I would like to put forward
some facet of the URAC recommendations for work session discussion at next
meeting and then on the...
Wells: I think they want to bring a recommendation to you ... are you suggesting...
Reid: Go back to what they recommended in June.
Wright: No, I don't think we should undercut them again.
Hammler: This council is moving forward.
Reid: What are they doing?
Wells: They are bringing forward...
Hammler: Could you do this after the meeting... because it came forward first...
Reid: Adjusting the thing... adjust the fixed charge upward and then...
70 Pa
Council Work Session November 14, 2011
Butler: That was the URAC's proposal from June.
Reid: Modified URAC ... winter plus...
Wells: I think I am looking for direction on that one. They are coming forward with
something.
Reid: When?
Wells: As soon as they can get it done. I can't tell you when.
Reid: I'll have to talk to you off line about this, then.
Dunn: I think we should have the Holiday parade in the morning and the Christmas
parade in the evening. I think the Holiday hoods should be shaped like Christmas
trees. See what you can do about that, John.
Wells: I'll get right on that.
3. Adjournment
The,1&eting was adjourned at 11:22 p.m.
Clerk of C u it
2011 tcwsmin11
71