Loading...
1982-09-16 adjSeptember 16, 1982 (Adjourned from September 15, 1982) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 16, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in Meeting Room #5, County Office Building, Charlottesville Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from September 15, 1982. Present: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 7:33 P.M.), Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (arrived at 7:35 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: Mr. James R. Butler. Officers Present: St. John. County Execu'tive; Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. Also present were members of Charlottesville City Council: Mr. Francis L. Buck, Mrs. Elizabeth Gleason, Mrs. Mary Alice Gunter, and Mr. John Conover. Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. by the Chairman, Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher noted that the County delegation had returned from a visit to the sister cities of Prato and Poggio a Caiano in Italy on last Sunday night. During the visit, the possibility of having a student exchange program was discussed as it has been discussed during past visits. Tentative plans call for twenty students from the Charlottesvill Albemarle area to go to Italy during June, 1983 for about thirty days, with a group of Italian students coming here in August, 1983, for a similar visit. Students would visit Rome, Venice, Pisa, and the Italian Riveria, in order to develop an awareness of how life is lived in'that part of Italy. Mr. Fisher said it will take a lot of work on the part of the school boards of the two communities in order to get this program started, and he would like to have comments from City Councilors. Miss Nash felt the program should be undertaken. She said it would be a marvelous experience for anyone to see the enthusiasm of the Italian people for the American visitors. Mrs. Cooke agreed and said that coupled with the beauty of the country, and the warmth of the hospitality, it would be a good experience for all of the students. Mrs. Cooke said she was willing to do whatever is necessary to get the program started. Mr. Fisher said he had talked with the American Counsel General in Florence and a briefing will be given to the American students as they arrive in Italy, and likewise for the Italian students as they leave the country, so the students will not experience a culture shock. Mayor Buck said it sounds like a good program but the idea will have to be discussed by various people in the two jurisdictions. Agenda Item No. 2. Mountain Creek Project. Discussion with City Council relative to ways of financing the Buck Mr. Fisher said he appreciated members of City Council coming tonight to discuss the Buck Mountain Creek reservoir project with the Board. The County ordinance restricting issuance of building permits in the Buck Mountain area was reenacted by the Board as an emergency measure for 60 days; same will expire in early October unless reenacted. The Board did not want to reenact the ordinance, but when no agreement as to the particulars of this project had been reached when the ordinance expired in August, the Board took this action. Mr. Fisher said he and the other Board members have felt from the beginning of these discussions that financing of the project would be handled through provisions in the Four-Party Agreement. Mr. Buck said City Council feels it is important to preserve the land needed for a public water supply for future generations. But, it is the opinion of Council and the City Attorney that although financing of the project could be accomplished through the Four-Party Agreement, that Agreement does not really control this situation. It is the opinion of CoUncil that the decision relative to financing should be based on information before both bodies today as to what is fair and equitable and that the financing should be through some reasonable and fair arrangement agreed to by both bodies. Mr. Conover concurred with Mr. Buck's statements, and said he finds it regretable that this problem comes up right at the final discision-making point. Mr. Conover said he feels that the cost of the project should somehow be shifted to the future consumers. Mr. Fisher asked if anyone had figured out a way to do that. Mr. Conover said City staff members have worked on this question. Mr. Robert Sheets, City Director of Finance, said he had worked out a number of different amortization schedules. Deferring principal payments into the future would increase the initial borrowing costs through the interest rate realized, also making the total amount of interest paid greater. He said that the staff could probably structure any kind of financing the Board and Council chooses. Mr. Lindstrom asked how far into the future payment of the principal could be deferred under current financing circumstance Mr. Sheets said the Rivanna Authority could sell revenue bonds and defer the principal payment until the year 2030. If such were done, the interest would be exhorbitant as would the interest rate.~ He would question the complete marketability of such an instrument. If the Board and Council decided to do something more creative and sold a general obligation issue, the interest rate would be better and the principal payments could be deferred, however, the longer the deferral, the more interest that is paid, Mr. Lindstrom asked what percent the cost of land is compared to the total project cost of the reservoir. Mr. George Williams said if the estimated project cost of $28 million is accurate, cost of land would be about one-sixth of the total project cost. Mr, Lindstrom said the cost of the project will be borne by City and County users proportioned on the basis of the population in each jurisdiction in the future. Mr. Williams said that under the terms of the Four-Party Agreement, that is true. Mr. Henley said that is one aspect he does not feel City Council has taken into consideration. It might be more agreeable for the County to buy the land for the project now and let the City build the September 16, 1982 (Adjourned from September 1~, reservoir when it is needed. Mr. Henley said he lives in a part of the county where the citizens will never use a drop of public water, and it makes no sense whatsoever to think that he, as a taxpayer, should help to pay for this project. Mr. Buck could not see the logic of Mr. Henley's statement since the People who live in the two localities today will realize no benefit from the purchase of the land at this time. Mr. Henley said if one hundred percent of the people in the county used public water, as they do in the City, it would be a different proposition. Mr. Buck said when the actual facility is built, it is projected that there will be an equal number of consumers in the City and County. He, personally, is not concerned about whether City users, or County users pay the co'sts; only that the facility is paid for by the people who will be using it at the time. Mr. Henley said the major costs will come when the reservoir itself is built, and at that time, there will be more County consumers than City consUmers. Mr. Buck said that at the present, there are more consumers in the City than in the~County, but in reality the issue is one of who pays the costs today - present users who will not get any benefit, or future users. Those ~ seem to be the options. Can it be said that this project is something that benefits the entire area regardless of usage and then find some formula whereby the costs would be paid by all the citizens? Mr. Fisher said the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was established as a joint venture ten years ago to provide the water and sewer service needed by the community. Built into that agreement (Four-Party Agreement) was a mechanism for providing various things. It is the feeling of the Board that the Agreement directly addresses the question of funding, and the Board is stunned that after two years of working to find alternatives for future water needs, and spending over $200,000 for an investigation, City Council does not feel the Agreement covers this situation. Mr. Fisher said he feels this may be such a retractable problem, that the Buck Mountain project will have to be dropped entirely at this time. Mr. Buck said that in actuality, the issue of financing a project had not been mentioned until this summer. Mr. Fisher said the Board thought financing was covered by the Four-Party Agreement. Mr. Buck said the study conducted by the Rivanna Authority was for location of a water supply impoundment only, the issue of financing of any project was not mentioned until the beginning of this summer. In fact, at one of the early meetings this summer between Board and Council members, Mr. Conover had broUght up the issue of deferring payments costs into the future, and he himself had felt that the issue of how much land area should be purchased should be settled before discussing the financial aspects. He did not feel that there has been any attempt to mislead the Board. Mr. Fisher said he thought the issue was settled ten years ago. Mr. Buck said he has talked with people who were involved in setting up the Rivanna Authority and drafting the Four-Party Agreement, and these people do not feel this particular type of issue was ever discussed. The Agreement speaks about facilities in terms of providing a present commodity. The Buck Mountain project is not a "present commodity" but is putting property "in the bank" and preserving it for future generations. Mr. Buck said he feels the Board and Council should find an equitable way of buying the land. Mr. Henley said the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir watershed takes in almost all of the White Hall District, and Buck Mountain Creek is in White Hall District, therefore, the people in his district have experienced a building standstill for a number of months. Mr. Henley said he has voted for all the controls enacted to protect the South Fork Reservoir, even though the people in his district think he has let them down by doing so. Mr. Henley said no one in Albemarle County has been affected as much as he has, and he feels the City should go ahead and "bite the bUllet'' like he had to do. Mr. Lindstrom Said that in trying to protect the Rivanna Reservoir (where seventy-eight percent of the benefit is presently received by City consumers), County officials and County citizens have been made defendants in many law suits. Not once has City Council offered to pay a penny to share in the cost of these law suits. County citizens have also had to take the brunt of all regulations adopted to protect the reservoir. Citizens in the Buck Mountain area have had a building permit moratorium in effect on their lands for over two years. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought the Board and Council were finally going to do something right by anticipating future water supply problems and by planning ahead would save a substantial amount of money. But, while trying to save the present consumers a little money, the Agreement is being given an extreme interpretation with which Mr. Lindstrom disagrees. Mr. Lindstrom said he finds this to be self-serving and appalling at this late date. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not believe financing was discussed earlier because everyone, at least the County Board, thought financing was covered by the Four-Party Agreement. Mr. Lindstrom said that City mayors have come to Board meetings many times and asked the Board to adopt regulations protecting the water supply, but he has never seen any money come from the City. The Board continually faces crowds of people who are opposed to what it is trying to do to protect the public water supply. The City got involved in this situation in the first place by not obtaining adequate land for the reservoir. Because of that fact the users have not paid the cost as they should, but County citizens have paid the bill for trying to accomplish with regulations what could have been accomplished by having a meaningful amount of land. Miss Nash noted that the County will lose substantial tax revenues when the Buck Mountain Creek ~land is removed from the tax rolls. Mr. Fisher said the Buck Mountain project will also force people to leave the land they don't want to leave. Mrs. Gunter asked what options there are for financing other than the City users paying seventy-two percent of the costs and the County users paying twenty-eight percent. Mr. Fisher said that each year the number of water users in the County increases. If thirty year bonds were used for financing, each year during that period of time the percentage of water users in the County as a percentage of the total water users in the urban area, will increase. The Four-Party Agreement clearly states that there shall be a uniform wholesale rate for all water users. As the number of water users in the County increases, the County users will be paying a bigger share of the cost of the project; actually, the land purchase is only a small fraction of the total cost of the entire project. When the dam is actually built, the cost will be paid by the consumers, the largest percentage of which will be County consumers. In the meantime, the County has been the defendant in a number of lawsuits concerning the regulations in place for protection of all the watersheds. There has been no estimata of the tax loss that will be sustained when the Buck Mountain lands are purchased and removed fr_om the tax rolls, and no estimate has been made of the staff time spent in dealing with the regulations already in place. Mr. Fisher said if City Council does not like the present Four-Party Agreement, then he feels the two bodies should start over, and the County would then want to put into the wholesale water rate the costs of all reservoir protection measures. Mr. Buck felt the City would want to include all the revenues that are generated in the County by virtue of having an adequate public water supply. September 16, 1982 (Adjourned from September 15, 1982) Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to give an example of a cost that has never been calculated. Two years ago, for protection of the watershed, the Board removed from County land use plans an urban area of the County where utilities were already in place, and where the land was zoned for high and medium density use. Plans had already been formulated for this land. The County has lost the revenues from the growth that would have occurred on that land. Miss Nash said that at the time the Board was contemplating that particular action, two members of City Council came to her office and asked her to vote for the change saying that the land should be deleted from the urban area land use plans for the good of the City. Mr. Conover said he has been listening to both sides of this issue for two years, and although the County has had out-of-pocket costs, there does not seem to have been any calcu- lation of those costs. Mr. Conover said he accepts the principle put forth by Mr. Buck that this project is a general government action that will benefit the citizens of both localities. Although the water user gets the biggest benefit, other citizens also receive a benefit. It is just a matter of looking at all the pieces and trying to find an equitable distribution of the costs; the costs associated with this project are different from the actual operating costs of the Rivanna Authority which change from year to year and at this time are seventy- two percent City and twenty-eight percent County. Mr. Buck said he agrees with Mr. Conover that the County Board has done a good job of planning, but planning is an issue separate from finding an equitable solution for paying the costs of this project. Mr. Buck said he does not feel the Board's suggested manner of financing is fair and equitable. Mr. Agnor asked if Mr. Buck has that feeling because of the seventy-two, twenty-eight split or because the consumers of today will pay a debt which will reduce the cost to the consumer of the future. Mr. Buck said his concern is mainly for the consumer of today. Mrs. Cooke said she feels that the consumers of today have a moral obligation to see that there is a decent water supply for the consumers of tomorrow. Mr. Conover agreed and said he feels that most citizens in the community should be investing for future generations. Mrs. Cooke noted that she had used the word "consumers". Mr. Conover repeated that he had said "citizens". Mr. Conover said if the citizens were asked if they wanted to buy the land for the Buck Mountain project the answer would probably be "no". Mr. Fisher said the Board and City Council were elected to make the tough decisions and the toughest decision facing the Board 'is to decide whether the building permit moratorium should be continued. Mr. Fisher said that unless this problem is resolved on the basis of the Four-Party Agreement or something ~d~-n~a~ar~.~it~he will not vote to extend the moratorium. Miss Nash inquired as to the increase in the wholesale water rate for this project. Mr. Hendrix said it has been calculated to be 11.85 per 1,000 gallons. Mr. Agnor said this increased cost would be passed directly to each customer. Miss Nash asked how much of an increase this would be on a residential bill. Mr. Conover said that in the City it would amount to about $1.50 a month. Mr. Fisher said he felt the increase would be only about 855. Mr. Conover said the largest consumer in the City is the University of Virginia which has a ninety-nine year contract for water service. Essentially, all the other users in the City are carrying the University account. This is all part of a contract that was signed in 1920 when people could not see how the world would be in the future. Mr. Henley suggested that City Council spend some time in court on that contract. Mr. Buck said Council did go to court at one point and although there was some improvement, the University does not pay its share of the costs of service. Mr. Fisher said he did not know where this discussion was headed, but the Board has a decision to make on October 6 about prolonging the agony of the people who live in the Buck Mountain area. He said he does not believe City Council has ever read the Four-Party Agreement and now is faced with having to agree to something that has been underway for years. After encouraging the Rivanna Authority to look for future water supplies for the whole community, Mr. Fisher said he is stunned at the City's interpretation. Mr. Buck reiterated that the question of financing had not been mentioned earlier in this process. Mr. Buck said that the question he has is this - knowing that this project will benefit the entire community, why is the project not a general government obligation? Why should it be the responsibility of the consumer of today to Pay for land that will not be developed for thirty or forty years? Mr. Fisher said when the Sugar Hollow Reservoir was built, the City did not have that many consumers, but the users of the system at that time had to pay for the capacity in that reservoir which was to serve the needs of the City for thirty years or longer. .The same is true of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir; it was built for a capacity far beyond what was needed to serve the consumers in 1966. Mr. Fisher said he does not see any difference it is all future capacity. Mrs. Gunter asked Mr. Fisher the meaning of the words "something durn near it". Mr. Fishe: said there are a number of issues rattling around concerning reservoir protection which have never been resolved. One item is the inspection and maintenance of structures and devices required by the County's Runoff Control Ordinance. Although there have been committees composed of Board and Council members to discuss this item, and the County has repeatedly asked, the City has never taken any financial responsibility for any part of reservoir protection. Mr. Buck did not feel that statement was accurate. He asked how much the County had spent on inspection and maintenance of these facilities. Mr. Fisher said the County has made no inspections, other than the initial inspection at construction, because these devices are new and have been in place only a few years. Mrs. Gunter suggested that this might be a point for bargaining. Mr. Fisher said he would like to see the cost associated with this inspection as part of the wholesale water rate and if the Four-Party Agreement is opened for renegotiation, he will ask that these costs be included. Mr. Buck said that when Mr. Fisher came to a City Council meeting with a request concernin these devices, the Council could make no commitment because the County had not incurred any costs for the devices, and the Council would not enter into an open-ended agreement. Mr. Buck said much has been made of the fact that the County Board has had, and does have, the burden of decision. That is true, and the Board has carried out its authority well, but the Board also has the power and right to make the decisions. Saying the City should pay because the County Board has had to adopt some planning and zoning measures is like wanting to abdicate responsibility for land use control in the County. Mr. Fisher said a future board of superviso: may change all of the land use plans presently in existence in the County. Right now there is a relatively abnormal situation where a minority of the people in the County are using public water, and the Board has exerted political force to protect the public water supply. Mr. Fisher said he and Mr. Henley have been through a number of battles on this issue, sometimes together and sometimes on opposite sides, but all the time trying to do what is best for the entire community. The Board has not received any cooperation from the City September 16, 1982 (Adjourned from September 15, 1982) Council. Now the Board and Council are at the point of planning for the future, and Council wants the taxpayers to pay the costs. Mr. Fisher said he has had about enough. Mr. Conover asked if there is anyway to outline what is involved in protecting these structures. At the time this proposal was brought to Council, the idea was rejected because there were no present costs and it was felt that there would not be any costs for a few years. Council did agree to pay one-half of the salary and expenses of the watershed official, but the rest was really not a concrete proposal. Mr. Buck said Mr. Lindstrom has argued that the County Board has gone through hard times to protect the water supply. Now, Mr. Fisher says that within a few years all of that could change. If the Council did agree to a financial arrangement that put the burden on the present consumers, is there anyway the Board can give the City users assurance that the water supplies will be protected. Mr. Fisher said he did not know how this could be guaranteed but at this time, nobody is responsible for maintaining what has been built thus far. He asked how many structures have actually been built. Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, said there are twelve to fifteen structures, but there are also a lot of land use patterns which have been set up to cover the entire drainage area. Mr. Buck asked for a description of the structures. Mr. Elrod said these are mainly detention basins; reservoirs which fill up and alloW sediment to settle out. Mr. Fisher said there are also grassy swales; public structures required by the County as a condition of development, and there is no one to inspect and make sure the structures are still in place. Miss Nash said that the Four-Party Agreement, as it exists at this time, is not ambiguous. She does not remember ever going outside of the pages of a contract to see what the contract means if it is not ambiguous. Mr. Buck said he does not think the Agreement is ambiguous; it just does not address this situation. Mr. Fisher asked if someone in the room had a copy of the Agreement. Mr. St. John had a copy and said that the Four-Party Agreement, between the City, the County, the Rivanna Authority, and the Albemarle County Service Authority, was signed in 1973. Section 4.3 reads: "In the event that the City or the Service Authority determines the need for additional water impoundments, Rivanna shall provide the requested facilities at the sole. cost of the City or Service Authority, as the case may be." Mr. St. John said that the County is not listed as being responsible for any of these costs, and that was not an oversight, but was written that way on purpose. Mr. St. John said he agrees that the ...... .~r four parties to the agreement could sit down and renegotiate the agreement, but as long as the four parties live under the agreement, there is no ambiguity to the agreement. Mr. St. John said he thinks that it is envi-sioned in the Agreement that for this very kind of a project, that the users are to pay for the project. He cannot quite follow the argument that it is inequitable for the present users to pay for water for future users, and at the same time say that it is equitable for the present taxpayers to pay for future water. If the present water users should not be paying for future facilities, then general County taxpayers certainly should not. Mr. St. John said he does not follow that logic, but, in his opinion, it is not contemplated in the Four-Party Agreement that County taxpayers should be in any way become involved in paying for this project. Mr. Wiley said the Mayor had stated the City's legal view of the Agreement at the beginning of the meeting hut he will restate. Mr. Wiley said that no one has suggested that the~gr~ement~'be~ scrHpped. The Agreement does say that if one or the other of the two bodies determines that an additional facility is needed and asks the Rivanna to pay for the facility, that the facility is then paid for at the sole cost of the requesting party. The next paragraph states that if there is a joint request to the Rivanna for the facility, then the Rivanna pays for the facility and raises the wholesale water rate to cover the cost of same. Council does not disagree with these statements, but does not feel it is equitable to request the Buck Mountain facility on this basis. There is nothing in the Agreement that obligates the City to request this facility on that basis. Mr. Lindstrom said that after all the joint meetings between this Board and Council, the requests made for studies of future water supply sources, the $200,000+ spent by the Rivanna Authority, and the building permit moratorium imposed by the County, for the City Council to say there has been no request by the City for any of this is baloney. Mr. Buck said the Council agrees there is a need for the facility, but the parties have to agree to the method of financing the facility. He feels that the facilities talked about in the Four-Party Agreement are those facilities that would be providing a commodity in the near future. Mr. Lindstlrom said he has been concerned about growth in Albemarle County since he was elected. It pushes him pretty far to not only have to except the idea of a reservoir which will create more growth (while the City gets 105 on every County tax dollar and provides no services), and in addition, be expected to ask his constituents, and Mr. Henley's constituents, to pay for the facility. Mr. Lindstrom said that at least some of the people in the Jack Jouett District use the water. He has never heard any of them complain about water, and feels they are willing to pay for it. Mr. Buck said that the people using the water today will not benefit from buying the land at this time for the Buck Mountain project. Mr. Lindstro said he feels it would be fine to just forget the whole project. He feels the citizens residing in the County now will be a lot better off without the growth that this proposed facility will create. Studies have shown that growth costs more than it generates. After all, it is the City that will get revenues from any growth in the County. The County does not benefit from the growth. Mr. Buck said he had heard this ad nauseum for about a year during negotiations on the Revenue Sharing Agreement, but that Agreement was the cost the County had to pay for being protected from annexation. That was the County's choice. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Buck had missed the point. This reservoir will permit growth which the current County-taxpayers will have to pay the cost of, and the City will get a direct, clear and free - no strings attached, revenue increase because of that growth. That benefit will go to all of the people who live in the City, all of whom are water users. Mr. Conover said that no positive proof can be offered that growth in Albemarle County will not have an impact on the City. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels the Buck Mountain project will directly benefit the City more than the County in terms of pure revenues. Mr. Buck said that statement was ridicu- lous since the overwhelming majority of revenues will go into County coffers. Although it is correct to say that the County will have costs associated with increased growth, Mr. Lindstrom seems to be asserting that the cost will be greater than the benefits. Mr. Lindstrom said that is the conclusion reached in many stddies about the cost of growth. Mr. Buck said that other studies have also shown that increased suburban growth substantially increases costs in the adjoining city. September 16, 19~2 (Adjourned from September 15, 19~2) Mr. Fisher said that if the Four-Party Agreement is opened for re~egotiations, he would expect to add at least one-half million dollars per year to the wholesale water rate for expenses incurred by the County in protecting the public water supply.l Mr. Buck asked what items that cost would cover. Mr. Fisher said he did not have an itemized list and the cost might not be that amount, but if Council does not make a decision by O~tober 6 to accept the method of financing proposed, he feels the whole reservoir project is Off. Mr. Fisher said he feels the City Council will be a lot better off to leave the Four-Party Agreement as written today; bite the bullet and go ahead with the project. Mr. Buck said he did not believe Mr. Fisher had considered in his cost estimates the benefit tol the County from ~ having a public wa~er supply available. Mr. Buck said he thinks City ~ouncil is committed to reserving the land for a reservoir impoundment. The question that has not been answered by any member of the Board (putting aside the Four-Party Agreement, and leaving out legal issues), is why it is wrong to say that this project is a general costi of the government for benefit of all of its citizens, and not just the water consumers. Mr.iFisher said it is a deep, ingrained part of the County's philosophy about utilities that aL1 costs associated with same shall be borne by the users. That philosophy was establishe~ in the 1960's when the Board created the Albemarle County Service Authority as a separatel governmental entity to handle utilities so the cost of same would never be commingled withi taxes. The initial amount of monies used to start the Albemarle County Service Authority have been returned. Mr. Henley said he would like for somebody to mention the name of a person living in the City who pays for water and sewage disposal who is not a user of the systems. Mr. Buck said nobody had asserted that. It is a difference of opinion stemming fromi the fact that this proposed facility will serve no present production need. Mr. Fisher falt that if the City Council does not want to buy the land at this time in order to save th~ present users money, then the whole idea should be set aside until the project is needed, and at that time, pay the costs associated with same. I Mr. Conover said that there was one thing that convinced him to 10ok outside of the Agreement for a method of financing. The Crozet Interceptor was not au existing facility at the time the Agreement was drafted, but was contemplated as part of a major expansion. The existence of the Crozet Interceptor project seems to be the result of bargaining and the City representatives apparently agreed to share a certain portion of the costs, but there is no explicit mention in the Agreement of future reservoirs. Mr. Conove? also mentioned that there was no credit given to the City for any of the reservoirs, including the South Fork Rivanna, which is still wholly owned by the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Conover felt that if the Board of Supervisors draws up a list of costs incurred while protecting the water supply, and asks that these costs be included in the Four-Party Agreement, the City might want the value of the South Fork Reservoir recognized and then have that facility passed to the Rivanna Authority. Mr. Fisher said he did know why that reservoir!was not a part of the original agreement. Mr. Conover said it was supposedly retained for potential recreational use. Mr. Henley said the City got the Rivanna facility pretty cheap and Buck Mountain is pretty cheap now, but it won't be thirty or forty years from now. Mr. Fisher said he could not see any resolution to the problem coming from this discussio~ so he would like to say for himself that if there is no resolution by October 6, he will not vote to extend the building permit moratorium. Mr. Buck said he takesl that statement to mean "you play by the way I see the game or the heck with the future g~nerations." Mr. Fisher ~'~d he thinks the answer is simple and straightforward. It is City COuncil that has dragged its feet all the way through these discussions. Mr. Fisher said he had pr~edicted that this would happen. Mr. Buck said he did not know how the City Council had dragged its feet since this issue was just brought up this summer. Mr. Fisher said it has been going on for two and one-half years. Mr. Buck said that was a study for location and other items, but had nothing to do with the financing of any such project. Mr. Fisher said the Four-Party Agreement has been in existence for a long time. Mr. Agnor said the Agreement mentions "additional water impoundments". The Agreement does not distinguish as to whether just land is being purchased, or the actual facility is being built. Mr. Lindstrom asked who would be responsible for the facility if it were built today. Mr. Conover said building a facility now would seem to be foolish public policy. Mr. Buck said without a need for the facility, nobody is going to request a facility. Mr. Lindstrom said it is hard for him to understand how the matter could have gone this far without the expectation that the next step would be to acquire the property. Mr. LindStrom said that acquisition of the land is an intrinsic part of any impoundment so he does not understand at what point the language of the Agreement stops covering this situation. Mr. Conover said he does not think the question is clearly answered by the Agreement. Mr. Lindstrom said at the beginning of this project, the two governing bodies jointly.requested that studies be made and money was spent based upon those requests. The Board then adopted an ordinance imposing a moratorium on the issuance of building permits in the study area. He felt the ordinance was clearly imposed with the idea that there would be acquistion of the property when a. specific location was determined. The moratorium was then extended while the boundaries of such an impoundment were studied. The acquisition of the land is surely an intrinsic part of the whole impoundment situation, and Mr. Lindstrom said he does not see why the Agreement no longer covers the situation. Miss Nash said when the study was presented to the Board and Council earlier this year, Mr. Williams discussed what this facility would cost the users. Mr. Lindstrom said there was a specific breakdown of costs given at that time. Mr.. ConoYer said the cost at that time was not of the magnitude that it is now. Mr. Fisher said the issue that must be decided at this time is whether or not to buy the land. Mr. St. John said there is some history attached to the Four-Party Agreement that should be brought out at this time. He does not believe there would have been public support in the County in 1973 to form the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority if county taxpayers had thought they would ever be called on to make expenditures for any utility. The taxpayers were called on to lend money to get the Albemarle County Service Authority started, but that was with the assurance that the money would be repaid. The whole idea behind a service authority in a county that is part rural and part urban is that the users of the utilities will pay for the utilities, and the rural people will not be asked to make any expenditures for such services. Before Albemarle had a service authority, there was a sanitary district set up just for the purpose of separating utility costs and making them payable by the users of those utilities as opposed to the taxpayers at large. Mr. St. John said he did not think it is arbitrary or unreasonable to abide by the Four-Party Agreement because it was written in a certain way in order that the board of supervisors at that time could sign the Agreement with the support of their constituents. Mr. St. John said he feels it would be a radical departure from policy, and a breach of faith with the taxpayers of the County, if the Board did not stick with the Agreement at this time. 401 September 16, 1982 (Adjourned from September 15, 1982) Mr. Buck said that from his conversations with people who negotiated the Four-Party Agreement for the City, he gets the impression that this situation was not contemplated. In answer to Mr. Lindstrom's question, he feels it would make sense to find and protect a site for a future water supply impoundment, even without the Four-Party Agreement. He had decided to vote for the study in the first place because he felt the study was in the best interest of the total community. Mrs. Gunter said that now that everyone has aired his views, it might be well to consider this question for a week and set another meeting of Board and Council members prior to October 6. Mr. Hendrix said he was involved with the original negotiations for the Four-Party Agreement, but he did not think that repeating that history would improve the discussion this evening. He said that if the Board of Supervisors is willing to say there is some room for movement or modification of its point of view, and City Council is willing to say the same thing, then he and Mr. Agnor could get together sometime next week and try to draft a list of options to be discussed at the next meeting. If neither side is willing to budge, then it would not be a productive use of staff time. Mr. Lindstrom said it appears that in order to accommodate the City's position in any way the Board will have to give up the agreement. Mr. Hendrix said the Agreement would not necessarily have to be changed. There are some middle grounds available without touching the Agreement. Mr. Henley said if the Agreement has to be tampered with, the City might as well "kiss the reservoir goodbye". Mrs. Gunter suggested that Mr. Hendrix and Mr. Agnor talk and bring back a list of options so the Board and Council would have something concrete to discuss. She did not think the sides need to agree to budge at this time. Mr. Hendrix said he feels it is important that there be some good faith willingness to budge or there is no use doing all that work. Mr. Fisher did not know if the work would be worthwhile. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be willing to look at any available options that are consistent with the Agreement. Mr. Roger Wiley said he felt the only way to accomplish what Mr. Hendrix is talking about would be to defer payments on a portion of the financing. Mr. Hendrix agreed. Mr. Lindstrom said if there is some way to place a portion of the costs on the future users who will benefit from the water, that would be the fair way to assess the costs. Mr. Fisher felt that if this deferral substantially increased the interest rates, it might not be a viable solution. Mr. Lindstrom said it certainly will not be possible if the general county citizenry is requested to help pay for this facility. Mr. Hendrix said if the Board of Supervisors is not willing to finance this facility with any kind of county long-term obligation, and that is a hard and ~fast position, it should be so stated tonight. Mr. Fisher said he will make that statement right now. Mr. Agnor said that has been the County's position for many years. Mr. Lindstrom said he knows that the Board and City Council interpret the Agreement differently, but he does not feel that just because the two bodies have differing opinions, that everyone should just give up. He would like to state that he personally does not feel there is another solution that is more equitable. Mr. Henley said if the Agreement can be changed so that he has to help buy the land, it can be changed so he will have to help build the dam, and he will not vote for the project. Mr. Fisher suggested that another meeting be set for next week. Mr. Buck said he feels there is some room for compromise, and suggested that the meeting be held September 23. Mr. Buck asked if the Board felt that arbitration and mediation would be appropriate. Mr. Fisher ~&~ no. Mr. Buck asked if the Board was fearful that if someone who is objective looked at the problem that there might be a different result. Mr. Fisher said the Board members do not think there is another objective position. Mrs. Gunter asked if Mr. Hendrix and Mr. Agnor were being directed to draw up a list of options. Mr. Buck said that would be his request. Mr. St. John said that Jim Murray, Jr. was present and knows of a way to finance this project. Mr. Murray said he had spoken with four investment bankers (New York, Baltimore, Lynchburg and Atlanta) during the last few weeks, who have all issued municipal deep discount, or zero coupon bonds. He said that is the only form of creative financing that could be used to finance this project. Mr. Buck said he felt that until the City and County staff people have time to investigate this idea, there is nothing to discuss. Agenda Item No. 3. With no further business to transact, at 9:50 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adjourn this meeting until September 23, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. in Meeting Room # 5. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Butler.