1982-10-29 specialOctober 29, 1982 (Special Meeting)
447
Pursuant to the following waiver, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, met in special session at 3:00 P.M. on this date, in the County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia, with the following members present: Mr. James R. Butler,_ Mrs.
Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and
Miss Ellen V. Nash.
We, the undersigned, members of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, do hereby waive notice and special service thereof, of a.
meeting to be held at 3:00 P.M., on the 29th day of October, 1982, for the
purpose of discussing the acquisition of property for a future public water
supply impoundment on Buck Mountain Creek, and we do hereby consent to any
and all business and the ta~ing of such action at said meeting upon the
matters hereinabove mentioned as may be lawful, incident and necessary
thereto.
-James R. u le~
Patrici~ H~. Coo~ke--
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 3:04 P.M. by the Chairman,
Mr. Fisher said that when the BOard reenacted the "Buck Mountain Creek Ordinance" on
October 6, 1982, for another 36 days, it was done partially at the request of~the 5 C's
Committee who had asked for time in which they might formulate a compromise relative to
the financing of land to be purchased for a water supply impoundment on BuckMountain
Creek. That report entitled "Report of Buck Mountain Reservoir Study Group of Citizens
Committee for City-County Cooperation" dated October 22, 1982, has been received. This
Board meeting was called to consider the recommendations contained in the report (conclusions
and recommendations are set out below) in order that some resolution of the problem can
be made before the November ll, 1982 public hearing on the Ordinance. Mr. Fisher then
noted on behalf of the County deep appreciation for the work and efforts of the 5-C's
Committee. (Mr. Butler arrived at 3:07 P.M.)
"Conclusions
Based on the foregoing data and the views expressed by various members of
this Study Group and other concerned City and County citizens, we have
reached the following conclusions:
1. We accept the conclusion reached by the City and the County that the
proposed Buck Mountain Reservoir is the best and the most economical source
of water to accommodate Future needs for urban water in the area.
2. We believe that prompt acquisition of the land will be less costly
to the purchaser and less disruptive to the landowners concerned than
acquisition at some unspecified future date would be.
3. We have not questioned the cost estimates of $4-5 million for the land
as a realistic basis for projected financing.
4. We accept and agree with the philosophical concept that those who
will use and directly benefit from water facilities should bear the costs
thereof.
448
October 29, 1982 (Special Meeting)
5. We believe that the statistics presented in Sections C and ~D-2 represent
a reasonable basis for evaluating the equity of financing arrangements based
on user liability.
6. We agree that current users should not bear the entire cost of the
project. However, we do not feel it is at all inquitable to ask current
users to bear a portion of the cost, since, as explained in Section D-3,
they too will benefit from the project.
7. We conclude that future users should bear a portion of the cost,
but not the entire cost.
Based on these conclusions, the Study Group has reached a consensus on the
funding arrangement described in the next section. The recommended arrangement
involves a special surcharge for all future urban water users ~o connect on
to either the City or County Service Authority water distrib~t~6~' systems, and
charges the remaining costs to water users on a year-by-year basis. An
increasing proportion of these users will be County residents and businesses
over the 30-year period it will take to pay the debt incurred. The net
result is that, over that 30-year period, the City and County will pay
approximately the same total amount toward the debt service, although a larger
percentage of the County's portion will come from the special surcharge than
will be the case with the City."
"The Study Group Recommendation:
The Study Group recommends consideration of the following alternative:
Rivanna would fund the acquisition by means of a tax-exempt bond issue. Debt
service on these bonds, however, would be paid not just through user rates
but also by imposition of a 'Buck Mountain' connection surcharge for all
future service connections.
The following is an example of how this might work:
Assumptions: 1. 30-year $5,000,000 bond at 10%, with level annual debt
service, totalling $15,912,000 (interest and principal) over 30 years;
per year; and
400 County connections per year and 50 City connections
3. $200 average surcharge per connection (Actual amount to
be determined by the City and County.)
Total surcharge revenue for new connections:
x $200 x 30 years = $2,700,000
Net debt service to be paid by rate revenues:
$15,912,000 - 2,700,000 = $13,212,000
(400 County + 50 City)
Under these assumptions the total costs would be paid as follows over the
30-year period:
a) Connection. surcharges: $2,700,000 + $15,912,000
= 17.0%
b)
City residents and businesses:
(51% x $13,212,000) . $15,912,000
= 42.3%
c)
The University:
(13% X $13,212,000) + $15,912,000
= 10.8%
d)
County Service Authority urban area residents and businesses:
(36% x $13,212,000) + $15,912,000 = 29.9%
It is estimated that 90% of the connection surcharges would be paid by new
County Service Authority customers, or 15.3% of the total debt service. Thus,
only 1.7% of the total debt service would be paid through surcharges to new
City customers.
In summary, then, the total land acquisition costs over the 30-year period
would be borne as set forth below. Please note that the total costs would
be borne in approximately the same proportion as the percentages of water
use projected 'for the end of the 30-year period, and that the City and the
County users would pay approximately equal amounts over that 30 years.
City County University Total
Connection surcharge
Residential and business
water users
Total
1.7% 15.3% 0%* 17.0%
42.3 29.9 10.8 83.0%
· Z-g% lO.-g% lOO.O%
Projected water use at
end of 30-year period
(44%) (455) (11%)
*The University's proportion will not in fact be zero, but we had no accurate
projections for the number of new University connections over the next 30 years."
October 29, 1982 (Special Meeting)
"Further Considerations:
The preceding recommendation does not preclude either Jurisdiction from funding
a portion of the acquisition costs by other means and having Rivanna pay any
associated debt service costs. The advantage to Rivanna's two customers (the
City and the County Service Authority) would be the lower financing costs thereby
available to Rivanna."
Mr. Leigh Middleditch, Chairman of the Committee, was present. He said the Committee
feels that a reasonable compromise has been reached on the Buck Mountain Reservoir issue.
He noted that the Committee approached the matter as a community effort to assure both
City and County citizens of an adequate water supply. Mr. Middleditch then referred to
the plan as the "Gibson Plan" since~Mr. Joseph Gibson, former member of the Board of
Supervisors, was the author of the initial concept. The Committee has attempted to give
recognition to the Four-Party Agreement (initial agreement establishing the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority) and modified four power concept only to the extent of placing some
of the expense of land acquisition on future water users. Mr. Middleditch said the
Committee feels that there is room for negotiations within the proposal offered, particularly
methods of financing. Mr. Middleditch extended appreciation to the staffs of the City,
County, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and Albemarle County Service Authority for the
assistance they provided to the Committee. He then requested that Mr. George Palmer,
also a member of the Committee, be allowed the opportunity to make some remarks about the
proposal.
Mr. Palmer said as one of the people who originally worked out the Four-Party Agreement,
he apologized for neglecting, ten years ago, to purchase this land at that time. Mr.
Palmer said when the recommendation is reviewed and the percentage of the University is
separated from the City and shown in the County, there is only a small variation between
the City and County populations. (This was suggested by Peggy King.) Mr. palmer said
with the suggestion of Mr. Gibson to place a higher connection fee on future water users,
$2,700,000 out of the total~ection of $15,900,000 can be paid by these connection
fees. This fee is something that can be negotiated between the Albemarle County Service
Authority, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the City Public Works Division when the
four parties have agreed to a statement of intent. Mr. Palmer said he did not feel that
a supplemental agreementw~tdmi~anYw~a~ change the original Four-Party Agreement. With
this suggested supplemental agreement and the connection fee, there is no way to increase
the tax rate on any County user, but only passing onto the water users the cost of the
land being purchased.
Speaking next was Mr. Lane Kneedler, member of the Committee. Mr. Kneedler said,
separating the University's water use from the City's and the County's is important for
the purposes of a supplemental agreement since the projections made by the staff of the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority show that when the bond issue expires in the year 2012,
the percentage of use between the City and County will be approximately the same or 45%
County, 44% City and ll% for the University. Mr. Kneedler said there have been two
competing approaches, l) to have the present users absorb the costs of the purchase of
the land, and 2) to postpone that so that future users would absorb the costs of the
purchase of the land. Mr. Kneedler said the Committee feels the proposal comes very
close to meeting both of the goals and achieving something else as well. The proposal of
the Committee would have about 80% of the costs being paid for in the ways spelled out in
the Four-Party Agreement which is on a year-by-year basis by the current users, and 20%
of the total cost would be borne by new users in the form of a higher connection fee.
With the projections being used by the County in the updated Comprehensive Plan, these
would be approximately four hundred new connections per year, with only fifty in the
City. Therefore, a higher proportion of the connection surcharge would be borne by new
County users. Mr. Kneedler said in conclusion, the total amount paid over the thirty
years will be approximately the same for the City and County, and will approximate what
the water use will be at the end of the thirty years.
Next to speak was Mrs. Treva Cromwell. Mrs. Cromwell, along with members of the
League of Women Voters put together figures in the report with the assistance of Mr.
George Williams, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, and Mr. W.
S. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mrs. Cromwell
said the 5-C's report is a compromise between what the City wanted in terms of future
users paying their share and in terms of the Board of Supervisors desiring to have the
Four-Party Agreement used as the mechauism to collect the revenues. Mrs. Cromwell said
funding alternatives were previously discussed in these meetings but were not found to be
equitable. In particular, using tax monies, would place a burden on County users who can
never use the water, and this also would not produce any income from University users who
do not pay any taxes. Mrs. Cromwell felt a part of the problem resulted from the fact
that in the Four-Party Agreement, there is a list of facilities which were to be constructed
by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and a Buck Mountain Reservoir was not included
on that tax. The Four-Party Agreement specifically stated that among facilities that
would be considered were water impoundments but a question arose as to whether this
included purchase of land. The Committee felt that not specifically stating purchase of
land created a gray area. Mrs. Cromwell said based on the above statements, she felt it
important that the City and County recognize that their particular stance toward the
proposal can affect the other. Mrs. Cromwell stated concern that this proposal will
simply fall to the wayside because the method of purchase cannot be agreed upon. She
personally feels the 5-C's proposal is sound and a good proposal and she hoped the Board
would agree.
Mr. Fisher then asked if using this proposal by the 5 C's Committee would cause the
wholesale water rate to both the Albemarle County Service Authority and the City to
increase the same amount as it would have increased using the Board's original interpretation
of the Four-Party Agreement. Mrs. Cromwell said yes, after deduction of the surcharge.
Mr. Fisher asked if the surcharge would then be considered a separate flow of money from
the Albemarle County Service Authority and from the City to the Rivanna Water and Sewer
450
October 29, 1982 (Special Meeting)
Authority, so the wholesale rate would increase but not as much as originally thought.
Mr. George Williams was present and said that was correct. Mr. Fisher asked if this
increased connection fee is not collected, if the Rivanna Authority will have to increase
its wholesale rate annually to provide for the debt service of the bonds. Mr. Williams
said the total amount of the debt service, over a thirty-year period, for a five million
dollar investment is fifteen million dollars. This amount would be reduced by $2,700,000
from the connection surcharge with 80% being financed through the wholesale rate structure.
Mr. Fisher asked how the 5 C's proposal would be put into effect. Mr. Middleditch
said the Committee contemplated that there would be a supplemental agreement signed by
the signatures to the Four-Party Agreement. He said that the Albemarle County Service
Authority Board of Directors has met to discuss this concept and he understands that by a
vote of four to one approved the concept as stated in the report.
Mr. Harry Marshall, attorney for the Rivanna Water and Sewer 'Authority, said he had
discussed with the Authority's bond counsel financing as suggested by the 5 C's. Mr.
Marshall said these collections can be pledged against bond issues, but the Rivanna
Authority still retains authority to collect what the Authority must collect to service
the bonds and has the duty to do so. Mr. Marshall felt a supplemental addendum would be
worthwhile to the Four-Party Agreement signed by all four parties indicating the County's
concurrence in the acquisition and the steps being taken, even though the agencies bound
by the agreement would be the Albemarle County Service Authority, the City and Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority.
Mr. L. A. Lacy, Chairman of the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors,
was present and said the whole Authority Board agrees with the concept of the surcharge
with one disssenting member, subject to approval of a satisfactory contract with the City
to outline how the surcharge would be arrived at and subject to approval of the Albemarle
County Service Authority's bondholders for this type of agreement. Mr. Lacy felt the
reluctance was based on the fact that the Authority's current connection fee of $'400
needs to be increased now just to cover costs and there was reluctance to add additional
amounts for small residential connections.
Mr. Fisher asked if this proposal would apply to connections made in Crozet and
Scottsville. Mr. Palmer said no, only to connections made in the City and urban area of
the County.
A brief discussion followed on the University's usage of water. Mr. Henley said the
Board was informed at an earlier meeting that the University had a very iow rate which
was guaranteed by a contract with the City which runs for 99 years. Mr. Palmer said the
University has a new agreement with the City and the University pays the based wholesale
rate the same as the City and the Albemarle County Service Authority, plus a surcharge to
the City. Mr. Fisher said at earlier meetings statements were made that this would not
be the case and the City residents would continue to subsidize the University's water
use. Mr. Fisher said that does not now appear to be the case.
Mr. Joe Gibson, member of the 5-C's Committee, was present. He said since it appears
to be the consensus that the land should be acquired, this proposal appears to be an
equitable approach to distribute the costs to both the present users who have a risk to
be protected and to charge a surcharge to the future users who will put a burden on the
water supply. In conclusion, he hoped that both the City and County would see some merit
in the proposal.
Mr. Marry Altschul from the University asked if the University is being excluded
from the negotiations of this matter. Mr. Williams said the 5-C's Committee did not
intend to alter any agreement between the City and the University.
Mr. Fisher said there is some unfinished business that the Board has with the reservoir
protection plans and he had asked the staff to produce some history on the question since
a supplemental agreement may be necessary. He said if there is to be a supplemental
agreement, these are issues which may need to be considered by the County and the City to
achieve equity in the protection of the water system. He then requested Mr. Agnor to
report on the staff's findings.
Mr. Agnor then presented the following memorandum:
"DATE:
SUBJECT:
October 29, 1982
Watershed Management Program Costs
The staff has been requested to summarize the history of the County's efforts
to reach an agreement on the financing of the costs associated with the
protection of the quality of water in the South Rivanna reservoir, to
update those costs, and to recommend a solution to the matter. The following
attachments (on file in Clerk's Office) are a response to this request:
1. Attachment A is a sequence of City/County actions, some being requests
and resolutions initiated by the City Council, some being Joint actions of
the Council and Board, and the balance being Rlvanna Authority actions,
representing the County and City jointly. Please note that of the 16 events
listed, five are Council requests for reservoir protection measures.
October~!29, 1982 (Special Meeting)
2. Attachment B is a sequence of County actions (moratorium, ordinances,
rezonings) which were singular due to jurisdictional factors. Many were
results of the Board's recognition of the water quality protection measures
that were needed, and were also responses to the Council's requests.
3. Attachment C is an analysis of the costs associated with watershed
management, a significant one being the administration of the Runoff
Control Ordinance. An effort has been made to estimate the recurring
annual present day costs, and relate these costs to the urban area water
rate of the Rivanna Authority.
4. Attachment D is a copy of a resolution adopted by the Board in
September, 1980 and presented to the City Council for their Joint approval,
requesting the completion of several efforts to finance the administration
of the Runoff Control Ordinance. The Council took the request under
advisement and no further action on the matter has followed.
The staff is of the opinion that the resolution of the burden of costs
associated with protection of the quality of the water supply that serves
the City and the urban area of the County has remained undecided for too long
a time. The staff is of the further opinion that if a supplementary agreement
to the Four-Party contract is to be considered as a solution to the financing
of the Buck Mountain Reservoir project, the approval of that supplementary
agreement should include some statement of intent by the City Council to resolve
the financing of the costs related to the watershed management program. Equity
being the issue raised by the City on financing the Buck Mountain project,
it is not equitable for the City to expect the County's General Fund to
continually finance the costs related to protecting a water supply that serves
both localities. The minutes of the Board of Supervisors record the City
Council's recommendation that implementation of protective measures to assure
water quality be accomplished through the Rivanna Authority so that 'the people
who use the reservoir will be the ones paying for it'. That recommendation,
presented in June 1977 and adopted by the Board of Supervisors, has not been
approved by the very body that made it.
The staff recommends that the resolution of September 1980 adopted by the
Board and presented to the Council, be a consideration in any decision to
reach a compromise on the financing of the Buck Mountain Reservoir project.
The staff also recommends that the administrative costs of the Watershed
Management Plan (Watershed Management office budget), the local funding
of watershed improvement programs, and the out-of-pocket costs for outside
attorney assistance on legal matters, be financed by the Rivanna Authority
budget to insure that the users of the reservoir will pay the costs through
the Rivanna Authority rate structure. Such financing can be handled as
reimbursements to the County budget on a quarterly basis. Lastly, the staff
recommends that the Board again request that the legal staff of the City
assist the County's legal staff in preparing defenses of suits involved with
watershed protection issues."
"Attachment C - Estimated County Costs of Watershed Management
1. Administration of Runoff Control Ordinance
The Runoff Control Ordinance is administered by the Department of Engineering.
It includes review of Engineering calculations for permits and inspection of
construction in the field. Since September, 1977, 1,235 projects have been
reviewed, 52 permits were required, 45 permits were issued, with 15 projects
requiring basins and tanks. The estimated annual costs for the administration
of the ordinance in FY 82-83 is $25,440 of a total Departmental Budget of
$160,500, which is 15.85%. Future costs will depend upon inflationary factors.
2. Maintenance of Runoff Control Facilities
Facilities include grass swales, sediment ponds, and storage tanks.
Maintenance of sediment ponds and storage tanks is estimated to cost $1,000/
facility/year. With 15 projects in five years requiring basins and tanks, the
FY 82-83 costs are estimated to be $15,000, with average annual additions of
three projects per year, or an additional future cost of $3,000 per year.
3. Administration of Watershed Management Plan
The Watershed Management Official's office costs are borne equally by the
County and the City from their respective general funds. These office costs
in the first year of operation (80-81) were $17,000, in the second year were
$20,000, and in the current year (82-83) are $25,000.
The funding of watershed improvement programs such as the 208 Study to monitor
the Rivanna Reservoir (1979-82) and the 314 Project to improve agricultural
practices in the Mechums River Basin (1981-86) have varying local costs which
have been borne by the Rivanna Authority. Most of these local costs represent
in-kind services of the Watershed Management Office and the laboratories of the
Rivanna Authority.
4. Legal Defenses
Legal defenses of the County ordinances, both staff and outside attorneys, have
been borne entirely by the County general fund. Since 1977 the primary source
of County litigation has been the defense of the County's land use decisions
in the reservoir areas. These defenses have been a major part of the costs
associated with the annual operating budget of the County Attorney's Office.
452.
October 29, 1982 (Special Meeting)
The FY 82-83 budget of the County Attorney is $118,867. No estimate of the
percentage of this budget for reservoir related defenses is available. The
costs of outside attorneys since 1977 has been $22,700.
5. Real Estate Tax Losses
Reductions in revenues resulting from changes in zoning to restrictive
classifications is an unknown quantity.
6. Private Property Values
Property owners who were assured by the City in the 1960's that the development
of the Rivanna Reservoir would enhance the value of their property have learned
in the 1970's that this assurance was incorrect. Reductions in property values
from watershed management ordinances is an unknown quantity."
.Mr. Fisher said in reviewing Attachment C regarding the costs for the watershed
management program for FY 82-83, he noticed that no costs are shown for legal defenses
and he felt some estimate should be made and included. Mr. St. John said costs of litigation
are unpredictable but he would attempt to provide some estimate.
Mr. Fisher said the resolution adopted by the Board on September 10, 1980, covers
only part of the costs, but certainly not all of them. That resolution requests only
that the City jointly request that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority initiate and
proceed with a program for the_periodic inspection and maintenance of runoff control
devices required by the Runoff Control Ordinance. That was a relatively small expenditure,
so even if that resolution were agreed to today, it would not cover the other costs
associated with the watershed management and set out in Attachment C. Mr. Agnor said
that is the reason for the staff's recommendations in the last paragraph of the memorandum
set out above. Mr. Fisher also noted that no loss of real estate taxes are factored into
the annual costs of this program. Mr. Agnor said that was correct. Mr. Agnor noted that
the staff can prove that of the $160,500 budget for the Engineering Department of the
County, $25,440 is being spent on administration of the Runoff Control Ordinance alone.
These funds come entirely from the County's General Fund, however, the Runoff Control
Ordinance is strictly for water quality management to' protect the quality of the water in
current reservoirs. Mr. Agnor said he had been queried as to whether it was the intent
of the memorandum for the County to retrieve past costs. He said that was not the staff's
intent, but rather to receive some sharing of the costs, in the future for the watershed
program.
Mr. Fisher asked the amount of property taxes which will be lost on properties to be
purchased for the Buck Mountain project. Mr. Agnor said the staff did not have time to
do calculations for this report today. Mr. Agnor said that until the actual purchase is
made, it will be difficult to make such a determination. Mr. Fisher felt some estimate
should be made of the minimum loss.
Mr. George Williams said the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act is very specific
about what the Authority is allowed to do and he does not believe the Authority is allowed
to inspect and maintain the runoff control devices. Mr. Marshall agreed.
Mrs. Opal David, member of the 5-C's Committee, was present. She felt the Committee
has addressed the question of an equitable way to finance the purchase of land for a
reservoir on Buck Mountain Creek. She felt that if the Board now attempts to bring all
of the matters being discussed into a a supplemental agreement, then the Board is saying
that the County does not really want to buy the land for the reservoir project on Buck.
Mountain. Mr. Fisher said that is not the case. The Board has been stating during these
discussions that the Buck Mountain project is fully covered by the existing Four-Party
Agreement and if there are to be any changes in that Agreement, then the costs of the
watershed management program should be considered as part of the changes. Mrs. David
said what is being discussed is a supplementary contract rather than a supplementary
agreement. Mrs. David also felt that if the County starts bringing up all these additional
points, the City will remind the County that the City paid for all of the reservoirs in
the urban area and will ask for repayment on these reservoirs. If that happens, then the
land for the Buck Mountain project will not be purchased.
~Mr. Henley said he was irritated because when the County mentions items which have
cost the County money, it is being pushed aside as simple and not worthwhile discussing.
However, when the City objects to having the present City water users pay a little more
to buy something that the future water users will benefit from, that is terrible and "the
County should not make the City do that". Mr. Henley said he is "sticking" with the
Four-Party Agreement. If this project cannot b~e handled in the way set out in the agreement
then the project should be dropped and when it is time to build the dam, fair market
value can be paid for whatever has occurred on the land in the interim.
Mr. Laurence BruntOn, former City Mayor, was present. He said if this matter were
researched a little with the City, he felt an equitable way of doing this could be found.
Mr. Fisher said that there was a committee which worked with City Council for two years
before the resolution of September~1980 was adopted and sent to Council. The County
representatives could not get the City representatives to agree to anything.
Mr. Lindstrom said there are only ten or eleven days left before the expiration of
the Buck Mountain moratorium. There are a lot of property owners in the Buck Mountain
area waiting to see what the Board's resolution of this matter will be. Mr. Lindstrom
felt the report from the 5-C's Committee contains a proposal which merits serious consideratio
by the City and County. In conclusion, Mr. Lindstrom felt some agreement should be
reached with City Council at least in spirit by November 10.
October 29, 1982 (Special Meeting)
45.3
Mr. Henley felt the Board should inform City COuncil that the Board intends to stay
with its interpretation of the Four-Party Agreement. He said the City Council has not
recognized anything that the Board has done to protect the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir
nor the fact that the property owners along the Buck Mountain Creek have been waiting for
some resolution of this matter for over two years.
Mr. Butler felt this impoundment will be very important to the County, as well as to
the City, for future water use, and something needs to be done now.
Mr. Lindstrom then asked if the subject of land acquisition for this project would
be a legitimate matter for an executive session. Mr. St. John said that what is being
discussed is how to pay for the land and not the acquisition of land itself, therefore,
is not a legitimate matter for an executive session.
Mr. Middleditch said the 5 C's Committee will appear before City Council next Monday
to make this same presentation. He feels that the Committee will hear much the same
story that has been heard today, but from a different perspective. Mr. Middleditch said
if there is anyway to put aside the frustrations of past negotiations with the City on
this question, then he felt the matter could be resolved. Mr. Fisher did not feel there
was any way to come up with a supplemental agreement to cover new costs when matters
concerning old costs have never been covered.
Mr. Lindstrom said based on Mr. St. John's opinion, he would like to state that
given the increase in costs of land in the past, the County would be "cutting it's own
throat" if some way is not found, to acquire the land. Mr. Lindstrom said he is appalled
that the one bit of truly good planning by the City and County has gotten hung up over
these perspectives. He feels some reasonable solution needs to be worked out with the
City. He feels the City is being hard nosed about a position that he did not agree with
from the beginning, but at the same time he feels both entities have a responsibility to
future citizens.
Mr. Fisher agreed and said ?.? that is the reason he has been encouraging the Rivanna
Authority for the last few years to get this planning underway. He said that if the
costs of the watershed protection program are not shared and the costs come close to
$100,000 a year, which it appears they might, that is approximately the cost of paying
off the debt service on an entire new school which the County cannot afford. Mr. Fisher
said he feels the Board has to look at the cost of this program and the equity of same.
He then asked if the Board members would like to meet November 3, 1982, at 3:00 P.M. with
the City Council. The majority of the Board members felt the meeting should not include
the City Council.
At 4:35 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adjourn
to November 3, 1982, at 3:00 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, to continue the discussion of the
Buck Mountain Creek project with figures being provided as requested on legal costs and
the loss of tax revenues. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
CHAIRMAN