1982-11-11 adjNovember 11, 1982 (Adjomrned from November t0, 1982)
485
An adjourned meeting of th~ Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on November 11,1982, at 7:30 P.M. in Meeting Room No. 5, County Office Building, Charlottes-
ville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from NOvember 10, 1982.
Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher,
Joseph T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom, and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: None.
Officers Present:
Tucker, Jr.
County Attorney, George R. St. John, and County Planner, Robert W.
Also present were members of Charlottesville City Council: Messrs. Francis Buck and
John Conover and Mrs. Elizabeth Gleason, Mrs. Mary Alice Gunter, and City Manager,
Mr. Cole Hendrix.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:38 P.M. by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2. Presentation of Runoff Control Ordinance Administrative Procedures.
Mr. Fisher said he had requested the staff to explain the differences between the Stormwater
Detention Ordinance and the Runoff Control Ordinance so that City Council members could better
understand what is being required and why. He explained that the Stormwater Detention
Ordinance requires a structure designed to reduce the rate of runoff from a property, but is
not concerned with the quality of that runoff. The Runoff Control Ordinance is aimed at
controlling the quality of water as it comes off a property so that the runoff is of a better
quality than it would have been had it runoff of undeveloped property.
Mr. Tucker said he would explain about the three environmental ordinances--soil erosion,
stormwater detention and runoff control. The soil erosion ordinance applies to the entire
County and is calculated to protect land, water and other natural resources from land-disturbin
activities. The ordinance goes into effect when the land to be disturbed exceeds 10,000
square feet. The soil erosion ordinance is administered by the zoning administrator.
The Stormwater Detention Ordinance applies mainly in the urban growth areas. The purpose
of the ordinance is to control the quantity of stormwater leaving a particular site so that
the rate of runoff is not greater after development than it was before development. This
ordinance is administered by the County Engineer.
The Runoff Control Ordinance is applicable to all lands in public drinking water supply
impoundment watersheds. The purpose of the ordinance is to protect against and minimize
eutrophication and pollution of the public drinking water supply impoundments. The regulations
are designed to control both the quantity and the quality of the water leaving the site.
Applications are necessary when five-percent impervious cover is to be installed.
Mr. Buck said enforcement of the Runoff Control Ordinance seems to be analogous to the
private road maintenance agreements required by the County. He asked if it is not similar,
and if not, why not? Mr. St. John said private roads are allowed only where they do not
carry through traffic so the public has no interest in the roads. If the road should fall
into disrepair, the homeowners must repair the road or not. In the case of the Runoff Control
Ordinance, the public does have an interest in seeing that the structures and devices required
0y the ordinance are maintained. Mr. St. John said he and his staff have searched for some
legal authority by which a homeowners agreement could be enforced by the County, and no way
has been found. Mr. Fisher said there is also no motivation, in most cases, for the homeowners
association to maintain the required structures. He asked Mr. Tucker to explain how an
applicant obtains approval of a runoff control measure.
Mr. Tucker said when a request for a subdivision is received, a preliminary review of
the subdivision is made by the County Engineer. That review can determine if Runoff Control
Ordinance provisions will be triggered. A plan for control of runoff would then have to be
prepared and submitted by the applicant to the County Engineer for review before approval of
a runoff control permit. This process can also come into play when a building permit is
applied for.
Mrs. Gleason asked what would happen if it were found that after construction a structure
did not work as contemplated. Mr. Tucker said it would be up to the County to correct the
situation or let the problem stand. Mr. Fisher said he felt Mrs. Gleason's question was
broader; basically, if there is an existing development where no runoff control procedures
are in effect, and a pollution problem is found, does the runoff control ordinance apply to
the situation. Mr. Tucker said no, this ordinance is triggered by the request for some type
of development.
Mr. Buck asked if easements are being reserved so the County can go on properties to
make repairs if it should be found that same are needed. Mr. St. John said the ordinance
carries a provision for notifying a developer of any deficiency, giving the developer a
specified time in which to make the necessary repair, and if he does not, then the Runoff
Control Official can cause the necessary measures to be taken and the cost recovered from the
owner of the land.
Mr. Fisher noted that Section 19.1.9(a) of the ordinance states that the Runoff Control
Official shall have the right to enter upon the property at all reasonable times for purposes
of monitoring surface water~ runoff, etc. If there were some mechanism in effect to handle
the maintenance of the structures, the ordinance could be amended to allow that work to be
done. Mr. Buck said the section read implies to him that the County has the power to require
the owners to correct any problem found. Mr. St. John said this has been discussed, but the
ultimate remedy under the ordinance is to cause a foreclosure of the property, a judicial
sale of the property. If the developer had completed the subdivision and was no longer
involved, and there were a massive wash-out of a facility that the developer had built, and
the County told the homeowners association to fix the structure or the individual properties
would be sold, who would buy the properties under these circumstances? Is this a realistic,
practical remedy?
November 11, 1982 (Adjourned from November t0, 1982)
Mr. Buck asked if the County has considered having the developer proVide a bond that
would stay in effect after the subdivision were completed. Mr. St. John said this had been
discussed, but he does not think that Virginia law will allow the County to require a bond in.
perpetuity. Mr. Buck said he was thinking more about something like a construction bond.
Mr. Fisher said the idea has been discussed, but no legal or moral way has been found to
provide perpetual care for the structures required by the ordinance. The County considers
these structures to be similar to roads which are built to a certain standard and then
accepted by the public for maintenance. If no mechanism can be found to maintain these
structures, then the County should not be forcing people to spend money to build them; it is
an imposition.
Mr. Conover said he could not understand the Board's position; is the County not able to
shift the burden for continuing maintenance of these facilities to the people who cause the
need. Mr. Fisher said that in most cases, these people are not even users of the public
water system. The problem began when the City built the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.
Mr. Henley said he felt the conversation was straying from the reason this meeting had been
called for tonight; is the City willing to help solve the problem of maintenance of these
facilities?
Mr. Conover said the answer to Mr. Henley's question is yes, but he would like to explore
some way to shift the costs to the Rivanna Authority if it is agreed that this can be done
legally and in a way that makes reasonable political sense. Mr. Fisher said he feels that
when the structures and devices that are required by the Runoff Control Ordinance have been
constructed, that puts an end to the private responsibility. There must be an institutional
mechanism set up to take care of these structures from that day forward on the assumption
that the reservoir being protected is there to provide water for the entire community. If no
mechanism is found by which to do this, it will not be done by any homeowners association
which governs itself. These structures and devices are not even being inspected at this
time.
Mr. Henley said he did not think the Board and Council will find a way to solve this
problem tonight, but he feels the Board needs the assurance of City Council that the City
will help pay for whatever mechanism is found. Mr. Henley said he, as a general taxpayer of
the County, is now paying for enforcement of these regulations and he does not use a drop of
the water. He thinks the actual users of the water supply should pay the costs. Mr. Fisher
said he would like to take the list of options prepared by Mr. Agnor for the committee to
study and use that list as a basis for discussion tonight.
Agenda Item No. 3. Discussion of Sharing Cost of Watershed Management Program.
Mr. Buck said the Council has deliberately not taken any action. Different members of
Council have made different statements. Council comes as a group with open minds and would
be interested in looking at the list prepared by Mr. Agnor. Mr. Buck said he feels that if
City people are being asked to pick up some of the cost of maintaining these structures and
devices which are beneficial to the entire community, it is incumbent on Council to ask
fundamental questions about the ordinance and why certain things are not done. Mr. Buck said
he realizes that certainmembers of the Board went through anguish to arrive at and adopt
these regulations, but if the City is being asked to share in the responsibility for these
structures and devices, then Council has the responsibility to go through the same rational
process that the Board members went through before adopting the ordinance. City Council is
not here tonight to "nit-pick".
Mr. Conover said since this process cannot possibly be completed tonight, would it be
possible to obtain further information as to what is legally achievable in the way of bonding
for these structures, and devices, etc.
Mr. Fisher said the Board members have not discussed Mr. Agnor's recommendations and
referred those persons present to No. 5. Loss of Property Tax Revenues. "Buck Mountain
project property tax revenues in tax year ~983 equal $29,200. No estimate is made for future
value or loss of revenue." Recommendation: "County revenue losses should be treated similarly
to Ivy Landfill, AirPort, Joint Security Complex, Vo-Tech School, Health Department, Juvenile
Court and Library. No~ recovery is recommended." Mr. Fisher said he had asked Mr. Agnor to
include this figure, but the paragraph is actually nullified by the recommendation.
Mr. Fisher then noted No. 1. Administration of Runoff Control Ordinance. "The ordinance
was adopted in September, 1977; 1,235 projects had been reviewed through September, 1982; 52
Runoff Control permits have been required; 45 permits have been issued. Administration is
by the Engineering Department and includes plan review to determine if a permit is required,
review of engineering calculations when a permit is required, approval and issuance of a
permit, inspection of the construction to insure compliance with design. Estimated FY 1982-83
costs of $25,440 equals 15.85 percent of the total Engineering Department budget. No system
is presently being used to log staff time." Recommendation: "The costs of administering
the Runoff Control ordinance should be funded by the Rivanna Water ad Sewer Authority begin-
ning January l, 1983, from the Rivanna's Urban Water Reserve Funds until July l, 1983, and
from the Wholesale Water'rate beginning in FY 1983-84. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
would be billed quarterly recovering costs from Engineering Department cost records; records
to be available for review by the Rivanna Authority staff and the City's staff."
Mr. Fisher read No. 2. Maintenance of Runoff Control Facilities. The facilities are
presently on private properties. No dedication has been made to a public agency. No assurance
have been made that the faciliteis will be inspected, maintained, or will continue to function
as designed. The Board of Supervisors, by resolution dated September 10, 1980, requested
the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to initiate a program of inspection and maintenance.
City Council took the resolution under advisement. The estimated cost of inspection and
maintenance of these facilities is $1,000/facility/year. Of the forty-five permits issued
since 1979, fifteen contained ponds or tanks, and the remainder had grassy swales and control
ditches. Estimated FY 198283 costs equal $15,000 for fifteen facilities; no estimate is made
for maintenance of the grass since most of the grass is in private yards." Recommendation:
i["Runoff control facilities should be dedicated to Albemarle County beginning on January l, 1983
The County should inspect and make provisions for maintenance as needed, the costs to be
accounted for and recovered quarterly from the Rivanna Authority's Urban Water Reserve Fund
from January through June, 1983; and from the Rivanna's Urban Water Wholesale rate beginning
with FY 1983-84."
~ovem~er ii, ±9~ ~A~journed ~'rom November 10, 19~2]
Mr. Fisher continued by reading No. 3. Administration (Overview) of Watershed Management
Plan. "The Watershed Management Official's budget for FY 1980-81 was approximately $17,000;
for FY 1981-82 was approximately $22,000; and for FY 1982-83 is budgeted for approximately
$25,000. This expense is currently funded fifty/fifty from County and City general funds.
A problem arises by the fact that general fund revenues do not include water utility revenues.
The major revenue source for the general fund are property taxes. Property taxpayers and
water users in the City are almost synonymous. Property ~axpayers and water users in the
County are not equatable." Recommendation: "The budget of the Watershed Management Official
should be funded by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority beginning January 1, 1983, from
Rivanna's Reserve Funds, and from the Wholesale Water rate beginning FY 1983-84."
Mr. Fisher continued w~th No. 4. Legal Costs. Costs of the County Attorney's Office
are related to staff activities associated with drafting reservoir protection ordinances,
advising the staff, the Board of Suprvisors, etc. The major part of the costs related to
the watershed management program have been in preparing defenses for suits filed by the
developers of Panorama, Evergreen, and the Garlick property. Outside attorneys are infrequentl
involved; only $22,700 has been spent for outside attorneys since 1977. The estimated FY
1982-83 costs for legal services involved in this program are $27,750 of the total County
Attorney's budget of $118,867. No logging system is currently maintained to substantiate
these costs." Recommendation: "Legal costs, in-house and outside, should be funded by the
Rivanna Authority beginning on January 1, 1983. The staff of the City Attorney should be
available to the County Attorney if needed, upon request. Both staffs should establish an
accounting system to record these costs. The Rivanna Authority should be billed quarterly
by both the City and the County, from departmental cost records to recover costs. The
Rivanna Authority should fu~d these costs from Reserve Funds from January through June, 1983,
and from the Wholesale Water rate beginning with FY 1983-84. The premium cost of the County's
liability insurance to provide protection against any ~award resulting from a suit should be
recovered from the Rivanna Authority."
Mr. St. John said there could be an addition made to No. 5 from the standpoint of both
the County and the owner's of property in the Buck Mountain Creek watershed. There is a cost
already being borne because of the new zoning ordinance in that the density permissible in
this area has been diminished by both zoning and runoff control provisions. That is a
substantial cost that has not even been mentioned. Mr. Buck asked if there is any way of
assessing the value by which land in the urban area is enhanced because there will be a
public water supply available for those properties in future years. Mr. St. John said no;
he feels that property values will be enhanced across the board, and for a larger group of
people than just the ones bearing this diminishment. Mrs. Gunter said it is fortunate that
the Board and Council do not have to debate that issue tonight because it is ephemeral, and
since it is not listed in Mr. Agnor's recommendations, ~she felt the conversation should~ be
kept to just those listed items.
Mr. Buck asked if the Board would like to state which of the listed items should be
considered. He said the Council is already committed to No. 3 relative to the Watershed
Management Official's office. He has questions about No. 1 and No. 4. He said that both of
these are of benefit to City people and to the consumers of the water, but if there were no
City consumers affected by the reservoir, he feels the County would still be incurring these
expenses because residents of the County use the water and the County has a growing population.
Mr. Buck said the City~ does several things which benefit the County, such as public housing
projects, many things through City social programs, and the City has not asked the County to
share in these costs. Relative to No. 2 concerning maintenance of the runoff control facilitie
he would be willing for the City to share in the cost of inspection of these facilities
already in place. As far as future devices are concerned, he feels that if the City is to
share in the cost of maintaining the facilities, the City should have some part in the
decision-making process. Mr. Buck said the County is doing a good job of enforcing the
runoff ordinance and a good Job with the requirements put on developers, but he would prefer
that the financial responsibility be shared on the basis of population. Mr. Buck said that
he and Mr. Henley have a fundamental disagreement; because Mr. Henley does not use public
water, he does not want to ~ay any of the costs, but, Mr. Buck said he thinks that ha~ing a
public water supply available benefits everyone living in the City and County whether they
use the water or not° Even though public water may not be available for use by citizens in
White Hall District, it does have an effect on the type of development taking place there
because the County is able to say that scattered urban-type development cannot occur all
over the County. In relation to costs of legal suits, it is difficult to distinguish whether
a law suit is the result purely of protecting the water supply or extemporaneous factors.
Mr. Buck said that from his perspective, two of the items can be studied; to continue sharing
the cost of the Watershed Management Official's office, and sharing in the cost of inspection
and maintenance of runoff control structures and devices, but calculating the shares for
both of these items on the basis of population. Mr. Buck said it would make sense to have
the inspections performed by the Rivanna Authority since they may have the greatest interest
in whether the structures are working as they should work. He, personally, has no problem
with the Watershed Management Official becoming a part of the Rivanna Authority, however, if
this position is moved to the Rivanna Authority offices, he thinks the monies to pay for
operations of same should continue to come from the City and County. Mr. Buck said he also
feels that the cost of the acquisition of property for the Buck Mountain Creek project
should be borne by the County and City based on population.
Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Buck were rejecting No. 4 completely. Mr. Buck said yes and he
also re~jects No. 1. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Buck rejects the mechanism for funding of No. 2.
Mr. Buck said yes, and also for No. 3. Mr. Fisher said that does not leave much for discussion
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that the County Executive's recommendations are pretty
fair. He understands the concerns the City Council may have about programs initiated in the
City which also benefit County citizens, but none of those programs have the direct, specific
benefit that this project does. Mr. Lindstrom said he can understand Mr. Buck's feeling that
all residents of the City and County benefit from having a public water supply but, he feels
that the~City benefits from the County's efforts to maintain the rural character because that
character draws people to this area. It is not necessarily fair to say that because Mr. Henley
has a farm he has to pay the cost of protecting the reservoir. In order to preserve the rUral
character of the County, the County has deferred many dollars in land use taxes, and not one
cent of that money comes from the City. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels strongly that the water
users should bear the costs of this project. Mr. Lindstrom said he does recognize the City's
concern that whatever is done should be reasonable and responsible and he has no objection to
working out some mechanism if it won't take a long time.
November 11, 1982 (Adjmmrned from November 10, 1982)
Mr. Buck said in reference to No. 4, he would be in favor of the City Attorney partici-
pating in litigation in which the County becomes involved in protecting the watershed.
Mrs. Gunter said she believes the City must help share the costs of watershed management.
She feels that some of these issues will have to be worked out over a period of time during'
consolidation discussions, particularly the question about the way in which the inspection'of
these facilities would take place. She feels that the legal cooperation may be fine, but she
needs to know more about what is entailed. Mr. Fish~er said he thought City Council discussed
this memorandum last Monday night. Mrs. Gunter said she had not seen this information before
tonight.
Mr. Fisher asked if City Council could give the Board any idea as to when there might be
an answer ready on this question. He said the request for.the City to participate in the cost
of inspection and maintenance of the runoff control devices has been awaiting an answer for
quite a long time, and his frustration is rather severe at this point. Mr. Henley said the
City Council did not even answer the Board's letter. Mr. Buck said he did not think there
ever was a letter. Mr. Fisher made a presentation to Council in September, 1980 right in the
middle of annexation proceedings, and it was hard for Council to respond at that time.
Mrs. Gleason said there seems to be a beginning for discussions in Nos. 2 and 3; she
feels that everyone present has indicated a willingness to discuss these items.
Mr. Conover said his first preference would be to try and recapture some of the needed
funds from the runoff control permit application that is required for No. 1. He feels that
the cost of this item should become a part of the cost of the housing unit itself. He is
concerned about putting the administration of these regulations totally in the hands of the
County if the City is to help pay the costs. He said he would like to insure that a good
job is done, and although he has no qualms about the job the County is doing at this time,
he might have some qualms in a few years. The structures to protect the water supply should
be governed as the Rivanna Authority is governed; both communities would then have a say in
the quality of the water. Although, that might be difficult to set up legally, how else
could Council guarantee the city water users quality of the water. As to maintenance of the
runoff control facilities, although it is not much money, if the Rivanna Authority were to
take over the responsibility for these facilities, the Rivanna Authority would need the
power to inspect the facilities, and enforce regulations; not just be billed for the cost.
If these structures have not been inspected for two years, Mr. Conover said he did think
they should be inspected and he is really surprised that the Watershed Official has not been
inspecting same. Mr. Conover said the budget of the Watershed Management Official is not a
huge amount of money and he would prefer that the operation be left as it is. Mr. Conover
said he would be agreeable to sharing legitimate legal costs, but this is a hard item to agree
to in advance of need. He did not know how any agreement could be written to bind the City
to participating in attorney's fees, much less judgments.
Miss Nash said she felt the Board and Council were present tonight to discuss whether
the two bodies could come to some agreement on sharing of these costs so the Board would
know whether to reenact the building permit moratorium which expires tonight. Miss Nash
said she agrees with Mrs. Gunter that there will be no agreement made tonight, but there
must be some way to get a commitment from City Council that Council will negotiate on these
things in good faith. Prior councils have not negotiated any agreements. Ail of the items
listed in Mr. Agnor's memorandum cost the County taxpayers money. If the Board could get a
firm resolution from Council that it would negotiate in good faith, Miss Nash said she would
be willing to go ahead. Mr. Buck said there is no question that the Council will agree to
negotiate and go ahead in good faith. There are obviously a variety of opinions on the
subject. If the Board would like to set up some mechanism for solving this problem such as
setting another meeting of the two bodies or appointing a committee, he feels Council would
be willing to agree to that, but just setting down and negotiating does not guarantee any
results.
Mr. Fisher said the items discussed tonight are Mr. Agnor's recommendations. He asked
if Council would like to come back with some counterproposal; specific ways of dealing with
the kinds of problems and issues which have been presented tonight. Mr. Fisher said the
County has spent a good deal of staff time addressing these issues since the Runoff Control
Ordinance was adopted; what has been presented tonight is not just something that came out
of the air as a simple expediency. Mr. Conover asked if the County had files that could be
checked. Mr. Fisher said that a lot of papers have been generated. Mr. St. John said that
the City/County Committee that met to discuss this subject several years ago should have
files. Mr. Fisher said that committee met with City representatives in 1979 and 1980 trying
to come to some resolution on this question. Mr. St. John said he did not have any files,
but had some research materials on which he had based his legal opinions. Mr. Fisher thought
the City Attorney should have some materials since he was involved in the investigation at
the time.
Mr. Buck said if the Board would like a counterproposal, he did not disagree with that
idea. Mrs. Gunter said this would also give two concrete proposals to look at so the Board
and Council would not get lost in arguing.
Mr. Fisher said the Board members do not feel that general County taxpayers should have
to bear the full cost of protecting the reservoir, and the Board would like some help. Miss
Nash asked if it would not be up to the Rivanna Authority to police the land they will take
for the Buck Mountain project. Mr. Fisher said he presumes that is true; the Rivanna Authority
will buy the Buck Mountain land and whatever they propose to do on that land will still have
to meet County ordinances. Mr. St. John said that was correct.
Mrs. Cooke said she has no problems with the recommendations of the County Executive.
Until such time as better and fairer recommendations are made, she will support what has
been presented to the Board tonight.
Mr. Butler said he cannot vote for anything that will put an additional financial
burden on the taxpayers in the County. He feels the water users should pay the costs. The
general taxpayers share-.enough of the burden. He hoped that details can be worked out so
the Buck Mountain project can be moved forward, and he has every confidence that somehow it
will be worked out.
November 11, 1982 (Adjourned from November I0, 1982)
489
Mr. Buck said he would anticipate having a report back to the Board within thirty days.
Miss Nash said she would like to repeat what Mr. Butler said about the general taxpayers of
the County not paying these costs when these taxpayers do not have anything to do with the
water.
At 9:10 P.M. the Board recessed, and reconvened at 9:25 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 4. Ordinance: Section 5-3.1 of the County Code restricting issuance of
certain building permits (Buck Mountain Ordinance). This item was deferred from the meeting
of November 10, 1983, for a final decision.
Mr. Fisher said the ordinance and the moratoriUm imposed by same expires at midnight
tonight. Mr. Lindstrom said he believes that by now all the Board members know how they are
going to vote and he could see no reason to waste time. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion
to ask the Albemarle County Service Authority (he understood that the ACSA had already
approved the compromise funding proposal recommended by the 5 C's Committee) to request the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, in :conjunction with the City, to begin acquisition of the
land that has been outlined by City Council and the Board for the Buck Mountain Creek reservoir
project; and to readopt Section 5-3.1 of the County Code for the time necessary to acquire
that land. Mr. St. John said it would be better to do these things in two motions. Mr. Lindst:
then amended his motion to just readopt Section 5-3.1 of the County Code restricting the
issuance of certain building permits for a sufficient amount of time. Mr. St. John said a
specific date would need to be included in the wording of the ordinance.
Mr. Lindstrom said that in order to let everyone vote this matter logically, he would
make a substitute motion to adopt a resolution endorsing in principal the proposed compromise
made by the 5 C's Committee; and asking the Albemarle County Service Authority and the
Board's own staff to_proceed to finalize the agreement that is necessary to put that compromise
proposal into effeot.
Mr. Fisher asked if this meant to accept the 5 C's proposal in principal as a' mechanism
for funding the Buck Mountain Creek reservoir project. Mr. Lindstrom said that was right.
The motion was seconded by Miss Nash.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that whether or not the Board agrees to go ahead with the
Buck Mountain project, the Board will still have to negotiate these other items with the
City. He does not believe the County's position will be enhanced or diminished by refusing
to proceed to acquire the Buck Mountain property. He believes the City will negotiate in
good faith. Mr. Lindstrom said he also does not believe that deferring action on this
matter any longer will change the City's position. Mr. Lindstrom said the acquisition of
the property at this time is more important to him and to the ~County than resolving the
question of the costs which have been borne thus far for management of the reservoir. Mr.
Lindstrom said he also believes that if the Board does not take action tonight to extend the
moratorium, that within a period of one month, the cost of acquiring the land will go up.
During that period of time, the properties in question will be under a cloud and he feels
that the people living in that area are entitled to some certainty about their futur.e.
Mr. Lindstrom said that whether the City and County resolve the question of watershed manage-
ment costs, this reservoir will be needed because it will allow the County to follow the
recommendations set out in the Comprehensive Plan and will also make water available to a
vast majority of citizens who will live in the County in the future. It will be like throwing
money "down a hole" if the property is not acquired now, and he does not think that holding
off will enhance the County's position with City Council.
Miss Nash said she seconded the motion on the basis that Council has assured the Board
tonight that it will go ahead with a supplemental agreement on the costs. She feels it is
important to have that agreement along with the Buck Mountain approval. Hopefully City
Council will agree to have water users share in these costs, because she does not feel that
the taxpayers who do not use the water should have to pay the costs. Miss Nash said it is
important to get on with the Buck Mountain project.
Mr. Butler said he will support the motion. He has stated several times that this is
one of the most important decisions facing the Board. The County cannot afford not to go
forward with the project.
Mrs. Cooke said she is concerned that the project go forward, but at this time she is not
prepared to agree to anything until it is known that the cost w~ill be borne by the water users
and not by the general taxpayers.
Mr. Henley said Mrs. Cooke had expressed his feelings.
Mr. Fisher said he feels that the. Four-Party Agreement entered into by the City, the
County, and the Albemarle County Service Authority, in 1973, speaks directly.to a mechanism
for building and paying for reservoirs, sewage treatments plants and other such facilities
needed for this region. It is a sound agreement and has been in effect and served the comunit~
for nine years. Mr. Fisher said as he reads the 5 C's proposal, it appears that it would shift~
$1.6 million of the cost of financing the Buck Mountain project onto County water users and
that is not contemplated in the Four-Party Agreement. Mr. Fisher said he feels the County
has borne a considerable cost for watershed protection, and political costs, and legal costs,
and everything else since 1977 (when the Runoff Control Ordinance was adopted), and if there isl~
to be a supplemental agreement outside of the Four-Party Agreement, it should cover all new
business. Mr. Fisher said he is not willing to tell the people in the County that he has
agreed to have them pay for more in this supplemental agreement when they are already paying
for enforcement and protection of the reservoir. Mr. Fisher said he thinks the Buck Mountain
project is needed for the community and he is sorry that the Board and Council could not have
agreed months ago to use the existing Four-Party Agreement. Mr. Fisher said that Buck Mountain
Creek has been there for many millions of years, so another month or two will not make that
much difference. Mr. Fisher said he feels strongly about the principle of equity in sharing of
the costs to protect the public water supply, and he is not willing to let that principle go.
He said he is willing to let the people who live in the Buck Mountain area do what they want
to do with their properties, and the public will have to bear the cost in some way. This has
been a failure because the parties to a, contract could not agree to what the contract says.
499
November 11, 1982 (Adjourned from November 10, 1982)
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to point out that the $1.6 million mentioned by Mr. Fishe
will not be borne by the general taxpayers of the County, but under the proposed compromise
would be borne entirely by future customers of the Albemarle County Service Authority through
a surcharge on tap-on fees. Mr. Lindstrom said that he has also read the Four-Party Agreement
and finds that his first impression was incorrect; the Agreement does not legally bind the
City to do anything, although in the minds of some people it may morally bind them. Therefore,
he does not look upon the 5 C's compromise as a deviation from the Four-Party Agreement. The
5 C's proposal is just a way of including the City to request the Rivanna Authority to fund
the Buck Mountain Project and place some of the costs on City citizens. That is not something
Council is legally obligated to do, therefore, Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it is futile on
his part to "thump the table" about their deviating from the agreement, which he does not
believe legally binds them, nor was it written to legally bind the City in this instance. If
it were legally binding on the City, it would not take the City and the Albemarle County
Service Authority to request future facilities, or in the absence of both requesting, the one
requesting would pay the entire cost. Mr. Fisher noted that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors is not legally bound to request the project either. Mr. Lindstrom said that is
correct, but he feels that the constituents in his district will pay a lot more money because
of the decision this board is about to make. He does not like that and does not think that
the proposed compromise will cause the County citizens to pay one cent more than they are
presently paying because the cost will be put on the water consumers.
Roll was called, and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
Ayes:
NAYS:
Messrs. Butler and Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
Miss Nash asked if the moratorium ended this night. Mr. Fisher said the Board has not
yet voted on that question. Miss Nash said there does not seem to be any point in having the
moratorium after the last vote. Mr. Lindstrom said he has serious problems extending the
moratorium under these circumstances. Also, he does not feel that not extending the moratorium
will do any good because the Board still needs to come to some final resolution of this
problem.
Mr. Fisher asked if any Board member had a motion to consider. Mr. Butler said City
Council will supposedly present.a report within thirty days; he could support an extension of
the moratorium for that length of time. Mrs. Cooke said she feels that the people in the Buck
Mountain area have waited long enough for a final decision by the Board. When the last mora~
torium was declared, a statement was made that it would be the last time the ordinance was
extended and she is not willing to further extend the moratorium because of that statement
and what these property owners have been through up until this point.
At this point, Miss Nash offered motion to readopt Section 5-3.1 of the County Code for an
additional 60 days. The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler who said that he has felt for a long
time that the moratorium should not be extended, but he also cannot overstate the importance
of having that water supply. Therefore, he feels this may help. Roll was called and the
motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler and Miss Nash.
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom.
Mr. Fisher said this whole process has clearly been a disappointment. He had come to this
meeting tonight in the hope that the Board and Council would be able to sit down, make some
revisions in Mr. Agnor's recommendations for taking care of watershed management costs, and
then agree to same. When it was indicated that two of the four proposals were rejected and of
the two left, the funding mechanism for both was rejected, there was not much left to work with
Mr. Fisher said he believes that if City Council will accept the funding mechanism in the
existing Four-Party Agreement, or some other way can be worked out to share the costs of
watershed management, then this Board has the power to enact a moratorium on an emergency basis
and take whatever steps are necessary at that time, but he does not believe anything will happe
unless there is some agreement on sharing of the costs.
Agenda Item No. 5. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher said that Mr. Agno~
is in New York City tonight trying to get a favorable rating on the bonds which the Rivanna
Authority is about to sell. Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, was to have made the presen-
tation, but is ill. Mr. Tucker stepped in and prepared the presentation today, and he would
like to express a word of thanks.
Agenda Item No. 6.
was adjourned.
At 9:50 P.M., there being no further business to conduct, the meeting
Chairman