1972-12-29382
1 2-29-72
'Pursuant to the following notice, which was hand delivered on December 21,
1972, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, met in
special session at 11200 A.M. on December 29, 1972, in the County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, with the following members present:
Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley~ Jr., William C.
Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. ~eeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.
"This is to give notice of special meeting called by Mr. Gordon L. Wheeler
and Mr. Stuart2F. Carwile for the purpose of concluding matters from the
December 21, 1972 agenda.
"Messrs. Wheeler and Carwile have asked that this meeting be held at
11:00 A.M. on Friday, December 29, 1972, in the Board Room of the County
Office Building."
The Chairman called the meeting to order and asked for discussion of the
contract for a joint City/County landfill operation at Sanitary Landfill
Mr. Batchetor stated that he had discussed this contract with Continental Can
Company and they do not object. Mr. Wheeler then asked for comments from the
public.
Mrs. Victoria Craw stated that six months is not a long time to solve this
problem and asked if there were another solution.
Mr. ~aeeler stated that if the County and City decide to go into a joint
operation at another location, it will be necessary to select a site, hold public
hearings, etc.
not
Mr. Fisher stated that this was/the type of decision that he would like to
see made, but did not see any alternative and it is not his personal intentions-
to extend the contract past June 30, 1973.
Mr. James Taylor, From Richmond, stated that he knew localities all over the
state were having the same problems and asked where the Board would put this landfill
six mon,~ths from now.
Mr. Fisher replied that the Board had been working on this problem Since
last spring and still had not found a solution. He stated that he felt the
road leading to this site is a serious safety hhzard.
Mr. Wheeler showed to the Board a letter from Mr. James L. Bullock, President
of the Ivy Civic League, and several petitions signed by approximately 90 persons.
Mr. Bullock asked if the City could continue at their present landfill site
for six more months.
Mr. Fisher requested that Guy Agnor, Director of Public Works for the City~
come and be heard at this time.
This item was then deferred awaiting Mr. Agnor's arrival.
1 2-29-72
383
Next, the Board continued discussion of CUP-151, Albemarle Development
Corporation. Mt.Joseph Gibson was present. This matter had been deferred from
December 2'1 to allow the Board to study an agreement Which had been drafted in
reference to this permit. Mr. Gibson stated that the changes suggested by the
Board had been made in the agreement and the agreement has now been signed by all
parties except the County.
After a very lengthy, discussion, Mr. Wood offered motion to approve the signing
of this agreement, subject to the later approval of CUP-151 and the conditions placed
upon. same.
Memorandum of Agreement Conditioned Upon Granting of CUP-I~I By
The County of Albemar~,
THIS AGREEMENT made this 18th day of December, 1972 by and between
the City of Charlottesville, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth
of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as City~Tthe County of Albemarle~
Virginia, hereinafter referred to as County, Albemarle DeVelopment Corporation,
a Virginia corporation, hereinafter referred to as Development~ John J.
Russell, Bishop of Richmond, hereinafter referred to as Bishop, and
Henry C. Miller and Rose S. Miller, his wife, and F.H.E. Corporation, a
Virginia corporation, hereinafter referred to as Millers and F.H.K.~
W I T N E S S E T H :
(a) Whereas, Development is the owner in fee of a certain tract of
land situated in Albemarle County, near the interesection of Route 29 North
and State Route 631 (Rio Road) said tract of land containing approximately
99 acres, hereinafter called the Development Tract, and
(b) Whereas, Bishop is the authorized representative of the title
holder of a certain tract of land lying south of Development Tract~ known
as, and hereinafter referred to as Branchlands, and
(c) ~ereas, Millers and F.H.K. are the owners of a certain tract of
land lying immediately south of said Branchlands, such land hereinafter
referred to as the Miller Tract, and
' ~ (d) ~nereas, City by action of its Co,oil, December 16, 1968, agreed
to provide all city utilities~ i.e.~ water~ sewer and Eas, necessary to serve
Development Tract, and
(e) Whereas, by agreement entered into April 8, 1969~City agreed to sell
water to County upon certain terms and conditions,
(f) Whereas~ Bishop~ City, and Development entered into an agreement
dated 3Oth September, 1972, in which Bishop agreed to convey to Development
a non-exclusive easement twenty-five feet in width (to accommodate a sewer
line) connecting Development Tract with the City sewerage lines on property
adjacent to Branchlands, in consideration of which grant City agreed to permit
100 residential sewer connections upon payment of actual cost of such connection,
and at such time as sewage treatment plant capacity is available, to
permit 800 additional residential connections, or their commercial~
equivalent in volume, also at actual cost, and further~ upon installation
by Bishop of a water line across Branchlands~ City agreed to provide
water to said Bishop as soon as permitted by any existing contract~ on
the same terms and conditions as water is supplied _to other customers
outside the corporate limits of City, and
(g) Whereas~ Milte~and F.H.K.~ by deed of September 29, 1972,
conveyed a non-exclusive easement 20 feet wide for a distance of 14.70
feet for a sanitary sewer line over the Miller Tract~ and
(h) ~ereas~ County asserts the right to provide sewerage
throughout Development Tract and Branchlands, and the right to provide
water to Branchlands and to Development Tract upon the expiration of the
water contract between County and City mentioned in::':paragraph (e) above,
notwithstanding the contractual agreements between Development and City
(paragraph (d) above)--which agreement was memoralized by a written
document dated October 4~ 19717 recorded in Deed Book 49~, page 608~
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle Cou_nty~ Virginia*-and
(i) Whereas~ the question of the validity of the rights of
Development under its contract with City¢ or the question of the validity
of the rights of Bishop under his contract with City, or the question of
the validity of the rights of Millers and F.H.K., under their contract
with City cannot presently be resolved~ and
(j) Whereas, the establiskment of Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority
as an operating entity is imminent~ and that it is proposed that when in
operation it will (1) hold title to all "interceptor" sewerage lines~
(2) wholesale water and sewer services to both City and County, and (3)
not sell either serv&ce at retail but leave the fees and rates at retail
level to the respectiVe political subdivisions~ and
(k) ~ereas, Development has applied for a conditional use permit
(CUP 1~1) to run said sewerage line over Branchlands, and possibly over
the Miller Tract and over an easement owned by Developer over property
of Grover Forloines and Sons, and it is in the interest of the public
and all concerned that Development be permitted to construct said sewerage
line for the servicing of (at least in part) Development Tract, and
(1) %¢hereas~ Customer allocation between City and County~ and
the determination of the amount of connection fees to be charged~ are
issues the parties pla~e, beyond the scope of this agreement and reserve
for mutual resolution~ or that failing~ determination by the Courts,
agreeing hereby that the granting of ~UP 1~1 shall not prejudice nor
enhance the rights of any parties hereto.
December 29, 1972
38'5
NOW~ THEREFORE~ it is mutually agreed as follows:
(l) If County does grant the Conditional Use Permit (CUP-151)
subject to such reasonable conditions as may be necessary to avoid
duplication of ~ervice or paralleling lines~ then:
(2) Bishop consents to the use of the easement across Branchlands
to be conveyed to Development (paragraph (f) above) but in so doing he
retains all those rights upon which that contract was conditioned and his
consent is without prejudice to those rights in any manner whatsoever.
(3) Pending resolution of matters referred to in paragraph (1) above,
a status quo shall be maintained by the parties insofar as ownership of
easements and lines is concerned~ and~ in each instance~ ownership shall
remain in the grantor. Upon determination of the matters set out in
paragraph (1)~ the lines and easements shall be conveyed to whomsoever is
determined entitled.to serve Branchlands and Development.
(4) Development agrees to construct said sewerage line at its own
expense~ and to convey same as aforesaid~ but it also specifically retains
all the rights and interests it possesses under its existing contract with
City (mentioned in paragraphs (d) and (h) above) and by this agreement does
not prejudice its right to have the question of connection fees charged
resolved beyond this agreement by mutual consent~ or '~hat failing by
litigation.
(~) If the sewerage line shall be required to be constructed over the
Miller Tract~ then said Millers and F.H.K.~ retain all their rights to
insist upon the services at the terms and conditions as provided in their
contract with the City (paragraph (g). If~the sewerage line does not traverse
the Miller Tract~ their contract with the City is unaffected by this agreement.
(6) It is mutually agreed that for purposes of service fees (as
distinguished from connection fees and/or charges) the designation of any
of the affected areas~ i..e.~ Development Tract~ Branchlands~ Miller Tract~
as City customers or as County customers shall be binding upon the owners of
those respective tracts~ their successors and assigns~ and such customers shall
be charged such service fees as are chargeable to like customers in the general
whose
vicinity by the political subdivision ~.Z· customers the owners of these tracts
are designated to be.
(7) Unless the contract between the City and Development has been
determined invalid~ by agreement or by litigation~ that contract shall be
recognized as valid and Development shall be liable to City for only those
fees and charges which can be imposed under that contract. However~ until the
issue of connections fees and charges~is resolved (by agreement or litigation)~
Development agrees to place into escrow that sum of money representing the
excess that the County would charge for connection fees and charges~ such
12-29-72
386
deposits in escrow to be made to the Albemarle Service Authority as
the actual connections are made. If by the end of one year following
this agreement~ i~e.~ December 31~ 1973~ the issue of connections fees
and charges has not been finally resolved by mutual agreement and if there
i~is then pending no litigation in which said issue is directly to be
determined~ then the escrow shall be returned to Development and
Development shall thereafter be subjected to no greater fees or charges
for connections than it would be subjected to if it were a customer of
City.
(8) The contract between City and Bishop shall with respect to
connection f,ees and charges be resolved in exactly the same manner as
that stated above for the resolution of that issue arising out of the
Development-City contract in paragraph (7) above~ and in a like manner
shall.he2, the contract between City and Miller and F.H.K.~ be resolved
if it should be necessary to involve that Miller Tract in the construction
of this "interceptor" line. However~ it is expressly understood that
these three contracts are separate and distinct~ and nothing contained
herein shall prevent the resolution of the rights and duties under one
of these contracts while the issue is still pending with respect to one
or both of the other.
(9) Where the term "agreement"¢ "mutually agreed"~ or any like term
is used in this agreement to identify the resolution of the problem of
connection fees and charges and otheT related terms and conditions of
the separate contracts City has with (I) Deve!opment~ (2) with Bishop~
and (3) with Millers and F.H.K.~ the' term is used to indicate the
agreement~ or other resolution of the issues between the City~ County and
Development~ the City~ County and Bishop and the City~ County and Millers and
F.H.K.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the pa~ties hereto have executed this agreement in
person or by their duly authorized agents.
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
BY (Signed) Francis H. Fife~ Mayor
Attest:
J. S. Rush~Clerk of the Council
coUNTy OF ALBEMARLE
BY (Signed) Gordon L. ~eeler
Chairman~ Board of Supervisors
Attest:
Lettie E. Neher~ Clerk to Board of Supervisors
(Signed) John J. Russell
Bishop of Richmond
Attest:
Walter F. Sullivan~ Chancellory Diocese of Richmond
1 2-29-72
387
ATTEST:
Percy Montague~ III, Secretary
ALBEMARLE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
By (Signed) Ben Minor Miller~ President
(Signed) Henry Co Miller
(Signed) Rose S. Miller
(Signed) F.H.K. CORPORATION
By .... ~ President
ATTEST: Marilyn S. Steuber~ Secretary
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile~ Fisher~ Henley~ Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Wood then offered motion to approve CUP-I~I subject to the State Water Control
Board granting their approval before the line is used, that proper sizing of the line
be established by the County Engineer and the Albemarle County Service Authority and
that p~ant capacity be established as adequate. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile~ Fisher~ Henley~ Thacker~ 'Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Guy Agnor arrived to speak to the Board concerning the landfill contract
under discussion earlier in this meeting. He stated that the City could stay at
their present location for another six months, but in that length of time the landfill
would be built up to a grade 32 feet above I-6~ and the~must keeps'sufficient area
on top of this site to abse same and seed.
When questioned about the number of vehicle;:trips per day, Mr. Agnor replied
present time
that the City would make approximately 11~ trips per week and at the/there are
approximately 90 trips per day by private carriers to the present City landfill.
Mr. Wheeler stated that there had been some question about this contract and
how to handle same since the contract calls for the City to work out an agreement
with Whitfield Morris~ the current contractor for maintenance of the landfill. Mr.
Carwile suggested that any agreement should be drawn for the County to deal directly
with the City and the~bunty in turn to negotiate an agreement with Mr. Morris.
Mr. Wheeler then recommended a committee composed of Messrs. Carwile, Fisher~
Batchelor and Pickford to consider changing the contract along these lines and have
this contract ready for the Board to review on January 10.
Motion to approve this committee to work out a satisfactory agreement to be
ready for January 10 was offered by Mr. Thacker~ seconded by Mr. Henley and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile~ Fishery Henley~ Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Cl$1ms against the County amounting to $1,382~592.6k were presented~ examined
388
and allowed and certified to the Director of Finance for payment and charged
against the following funds:
General Revenue Fund
General Operating
School Operating
Cafeterias
Capital Outlay
Virginia Public Assistance
Dog Tax Fund
Textbook Rental Fund
Local Sales Tax
Commonwealth of Virginia: Current
Credit Account
$ ' 3.33
17~,826.74
766,948.61
24,433.34
18~,692.28
90,814.76
1,234.39
3,604.~+
1~3.62
, 133,881
Total
$1 , 382, ~92.64
Mr. Fisher offered motion to adjourn this meeting until 10:00 A.M. on
January 2, 1973 for reorganization of the Board. Motion was seconded by Mr.
Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
N~YS: None.
Chairman