Walker and Nixon do not represent the town residents THis is absolutely incredible. The BOS don’t have any money, the economy is headed down even more, housing starts have stopped and forclosures on the rise and these elected officials are doing what? Trying to shove a deal down the taxpayers’ throats that will cost millions when we don’t have thousands. Walker and Nixon do not represent the town residents and need to either resign or become the subject of a recall movement. There is no growth in the community and won’t be. This plan is a plan to keep Angler afloat. And Angler shafted the town and the Town of Elkton and went bankrupt in one county project. This is ridiculous. Work a deal with the town for water and sewer BOS and quit messing with Angler. How many times do you have to put your hand on a hot stove before you realize it’s hot? The same can be said for Angler. This is outrageous.

Angler - October 7th After voting last month to end its consideration of a multimillion dollar proposal from Angler Development to build a county sewer and water system, the Board of Supervisors may reconsider their decision on Tuesday. Warrenton-based Angler, which submitted the proposal to the county under the name Culpeper Utility Partners, has resubmitted its public-private proposal to the county, according to county officials and Angler executive vice president Steve Vento. The 5-2 vote to take the deal off the table came after the supervisors and residents expressed concern about the public’s liability under the proposal’s financing arrangements and before any public hearings had been set on the matter. Vento said he thinks those concerns have been adequately addressed in the latest proposal. “The proposal has stayed all the same,” Vento said Friday. “What we are tweaking is the financial element. The revisions are within the latitude of the PPEA regulations.” With a price tag that at one time exceeded $100 million, the cost of the project — which could possibly include some 4.5 miles of piping, two water tanks and a sewage treatment plant — was whittled down to a optional plan that would allow the county to pick and choose the desired elements of the project. The county announced the unsolicited proposal in February. Vento said he will be present at Tuesday’s meeting and prepared to answer any questions, but added that he has not been officially asked to address the board. County Attorney Roy Thorpe said the supervisors are allowed to reconsider the idea. “The Board of Supervisors may lawfully take this matter up again if a motion to rescind the Sept. 2 action passes,” Thorpe said. “This is consistent with prior practice and is authorized by the Board of Supervisors rules of procedure.” Salem District Supervisor Tom Underwood introduced the motion to end consideration of the Angler deal. He and supervisors Sue Hansohn, Brad Rosenberger, Bill Chase and Larry Aylor supported the motion, while Supervisors Steve Walker and Steve Nixon voted against it. “I was voting to continue on,” Walker said. “I had heard that there were some new financing proposals in advance of what we did last month. What I was disappointed in is that we didn’t continue on in these public hearings.” Walker stressed that his vote was “to keep the conversation going,” and not an endorsement of the proposal. “I just want to continue the conversation; I really want to have the public hearing to hear what the public has to say.” But Cedar Mountain District Supervisor Larry Aylor said that he feels that the decision to stop considering the deal was the right one. “After doing my own research and discussing with other supervisors, I don’t think that I would be supporting the latest proposal,” said Aylor. “I think I’m one that’s probably not going to support rescinding our motion. I haven’t seen anything that would make me change my mind.” If the supervisors do decide to reconsider, Stevensburg District Supervisor Bill Chase said people should understand that consideration of the matter doesn’t equal approval. “I just feel that everything should be out in the open, and it doesn’t hurt to discuss it,” Chase said.

County takes Angler deal off the table
After months of discussion and controversy surrounding the multimillion-dollar proposal from Angler Development to construct the county’s water and sewer system, the Culpeper County Board of Supervisors officially said “no” in a 5-2 vote Tuesday. Salem District Supervisor Tom Underwood proposed a motion to end the public-private deal with Angler, which Catalpa District Supervisor Sue Hansohn seconded. Supervisors Steve Nixon and Steve Walker opposed Underwood’s motion. “I like the concept, but this is too much too soon for the county,” Hansohn said. “It’s too expensive for this county. I would rather end it now.” Before the vote, Steve Vento, Angler’s executive vice president, updated the board on Angler’s proposal. Vento called it a “bare bones” plan — giving the county the option to pick and choose different features — with a maximum price tag of $25 million. The board had planned to consider a date to receive public comments on the PPEA, which Nixon supported rather than scrapping the deal altogether. “I don’t know how else we can address your concerns,” Vento said. “We’ve all put in a lot of time to get to this point, and I’d hate to see us abandon it.” Supervisors also raised concern about the Department of Environmental Quality’s December 2010 deadline for the county’s wasteload allocation. If a plant is not built by 2010 that can treat 2.5 million gallons of wastewater, the DEQ will reduce its allotment to 1.5 million gallons that Culpeper can dump into the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. “I think that everyone thinks this allocation thing is not a big deal and it’s gonna go away,” Nixon said in opposition to Underwood’s motion to drop the PPEA. “It’s not going to go away,” Nixon said. “It’s going to get worse… I for one don’t agree with this process, and I don’t support it.” Newly hired County Attorney Roy Thorpe said the county could start the process over with another PPEA or regular bidding, but Bossio stressed that starting over would put them past the 2010 deadline. “The public sentiment is overwhelmingly not in favor (of the PPEA),” Underwood said. Board Chairman Bill Chase ultimately supported the motion to end the PPEA deal and moved to a vote — with supervisors Hansohn, Underwood, Larry Aylor and Brad Rosenberger in favor — officially removing Angler from the water/sewer discussion. Vento left the meeting immediately following the vote and could not be reached for comment. Other options With the PPEA option off the table, the county has two options to provide water and sewer treatment to its residents and businesses: the county-funded modular treatment plant at the intersection of U.S. 29 and Route 666 or the proposed “memorandum of understanding” with the town. As an example of the first option, County Administrator Frank Bossio said Allied Concrete is funding the construction of piping from its site across U.S. 29 to the plant, built to serve Eastern View High School. That plant treats 100,000 gallons of wastewater and can be expanded with more modular units. “We have one plant and we could add another,” Hansohn said. “We could get this done. We’re doing it at a lower cost, a slower pace. We may lose a million gallons, but we have a million and a half more than we had.” Bossio also updated the board on the drafted memorandum of understanding with the town, adding that the town requested more time to inspect the proposed documents. “I don’t think they want to deal, so I don’t particularly want to deal with them,” Chase said. “The day will come when they want in on (a regional water/sewer) authority.” Thorpe said there were multiple issues with the memorandum the town was revisiting, but stressed that the atmosphere at the last town/county interaction meeting “was one of cooperation.”

Culpeper rejects sewer proposal TOWN'S DELAY IRKS SUPERVISORS In a move that caught many by surprise, Culpeper County supervisors voted 5-2 yesterday to reject a public-private water/sewer proposal the county had asked a developer to provide. "The public sentiment I have heard is overwhelmingly not in favor of it," said Supervisor Tom Underwood, who moved to reject the deal with Warrenton-based Angler Development. "The financing obligation is now on the county," he added. "I don't believe it makes sense to take this to a public hearing." Supervisor Sue Hansohn, who seconded Underwood's motion, was just as ada-mant. "This is too much too soon," she said. "There are other options we need to explore." The move leaves the county virtually at the mercy of the town of Culpeper if a 2.5 million-gallons-per-day state sewage-treatment allocation is to be preserved. County Administrator Frank Bossio said this month is pretty much the cutoff date for the county to begin building a treatment plant that could be in operation by the Dec. 31, 2010, deadline to use the allocation. Angler's proposal was to build a sewage-treatment plant east of Culpeper on Mountain Run. It would also provide deep-well water and the infrastructure to provide service to a large area of county land south and east of the town of Culpeper. Before the vote, Angler President Steve Vento told supervisors his company had refined its $120 million plan over the past 30 days to make it an "a la carte" proposal. "We listened to you," he said. But the plan that the county asked for 10 months ago had little backing. "I'm not going to put this county in a position of funding a filet mignon sewage-treatment plant in a peanut butter-and-jelly market," Supervisor Larry Aylor said. Although Supervisor Steve Walker also voted against nixing the proposal, it was Steve Nixon who spoke loudest against Underwood's motion. Nixon said providing water and sewer service to the eastern outskirts of Culpeper was vital to economic growth, and that without such growth, residential property taxes would probably rise dramatically over the next decade. As for the county providing the infrastructure on its own, Nixon added, "We're not going to have the means to do it." While Nixon called the possible loss of the 2.5 million-gallon allocation "a big deal," Supervisor Bradley Rosenberger indicated it was not. "Using 2.5 million gallons of sewage-treatment capacity a day will wipe agriculture off the map in Culpeper County," he said of the growth implications. He noted that the county now faces a half-a-million dollar a year operating bill for the new plant at Clevenger's Corner because no houses have been built in the past three years to hook up to the facility.

CulpeperCompPlan A lot has changed in the town of Culpeper since 2002. That’s the last time the town revamped its comprehensive plan, a 10-part document for growth management. Six years and thousands of new residents later, the town is taking up that torch again with the recent appointment of a 15-member Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee. Town and county residents, elected leaders, and business and transportation officials make up the volunteer committee. Cincinnati-based Clarion Associates, land-use planning consultants, will assist the town in developing the new comprehensive plan during the next two years for a fee of $98,720. The steering committee met with the consultant last week to discuss the process. It will next meet Sept. 8 at 2 p.m., at which time interested citizens will have the opportunity to listen in on the effort. A series of public meetings at the Depot will follow, dates and times yet to be determined. Like the town vision plan from last year, the comp plan’s development “is citizen-driven,” meaning public participation is key, Hill said. Steering committee member Jack Rhoades, a downtown resident who serves on the town’s Parks and Recreation Commission, said his interest in the project is two-fold — a bigger lake and more miles of trails. Mostly, he’s interested in developing more recreational opportunities in and around town. First, he’d like the town to pursue the expansion of Lake Catalpa, also known as Bald Run Lake, a 46-acre body of water northwest of downtown. “I have this vision of expanding that lake up to a couple hundred acres,” Rhoades said, mainly for recreational purposes. The 60-year-old Culpeper native, who lived in Chicago for a few decades before moving back home recently, also wants more trails for biking, hiking, walking, etc. The area east of downtown around the Daniel Technology Center needs a trail system, said Rhoades, to connect it to the town, high school and Mountain Run. He’d also like the comp plan process to include a discussion on new bike trails along McDevitt Drive in the Tech Center area. Further, a proposal to grow the town beyond its 1968 borders will likely play a part in the plan’s development. “If you’re going to make a five-to 20-year plan for the town, you need the full deck of cards of what you are playing with,” he said of the possibility for a boundary line adjustment, now under closed session negotiation between Town Council and the Board of Supervisors. “I think it is good that issue was raised so there is dialogue about what do we need to do to come together to make some of those decisions.” Steering committee member Laura Loveday, a Culpeper County planner, said involvement from the county in the process will lend “some cohesive thoughts” between the town’s comp plan and the county’s comp plan. An Orange County resident employed by Culpeper County since 2005, Loveday said revising a locality’s comp plan is a valuable exercise “because you always want to keep an updated vision that is consistent with the changing demographics.” The 2002 town of Culpeper comprehensive plan included 10 chapters: environmental resources, population and housing, transportation, water and sewer, economic development, land use, community facilities, parks and recreation, historic preservation and urban design, and community development. That plan included a population projection in town by 2010 of 13,405. But the town’s most recent population figure is 15,600, compared to 9,664 in the 2000 census. Several goals outlined in the 2002 comp plan have since been reached, including the development of a neighborhood park on Wine Street, the launching of a larger Town Hall on Main Street, the initiation of viable discussions about a boundary line adjustment, and the introduction of a public bus system. State law requires a review of the comp plan at least once every five years. In-house, the town did a partial update three years ago

Seems like the Culpeper County Board of Supervisors is rushing the Culpeper Utility Partners decision. Although the board has had access to the full CUP proposal for about six months, it is only recently that the citizens have seen it (and I still haven’t waded through all of it). Hats off to the Piedmont Environmental Council for getting its viewpoint made quickly and effectively. (BOS take note). As I understand it, the BOS feels pressured to make a decision this month to ensure that authority for an additional 1 million-gallon-per-day capacity isn’t lost in 2010. I also understand that a request to extend that authority has been made but that a response won’t be received until August at the earliest. Seems like the bureaucracy is making the decision. So, I strongly suggest that the BOS climb into a van and trundle down to Richmond and get ’er done sooner. Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the CUP proposal, this is a very big issue — too big for the board to make such a decision themselves, regardless of how many public hearings are held. This issue needs to be decided by the residents of the town and county as a referendum on the November ballot. .... Kevin J. Mahoney

Public discussion on consolidation and water and sewer issues should be commended. Two of the most debated, yet misunderstood, topics facing our local governments are water and sewer and the push for consolidation. Perhaps part of the reason for the misconceptions and false impressions is that the issues have been the subject of so many closed-door meetings — despite the objections of some elected officials. Bill Chase, chairman of the Culpeper County Board of Supervisors, and Town Councilman Michael Olinger also objected to closed-door talk of forming a joint water and sewer authority between the town and county. Both rightfully said that citizens deserved to know what was being considered. We couldn’t agree more, and we applaud these officials for standing up for open government. Technically, the town and county didn’t violate any Freedom of Information statutes by going into closed session. But our leaders should operate under the principle that people are more likely to trust their government when it conducts business in the sunshine. If that were always the case, citizens would have a better understanding of important issues and a renewed sense of democratic entitlement.

Progress on water, sewer is promising Tthe town and county are again moving forward with plans to form a joint water and sewer authority. After seemingly reaching an impasse months ago, the two governmental bodies have again started taking real steps, for the first time, toward an independently managed regional water and sewer authority. While the specific details have not been made public it appears that the town will agree to join the county’s authority and in return the county will allow some expansion of the town borders. The consolidation proposal apparently will still go forward, even though it has been seen by some as being used primarily to get the town and county to talk again. As we have previously editorialized, because of Angler’s recent financial track record the CUP proposal did not appear to be the best way for the county to proceed (“Devil’s in the details with Angler plan,” May 31). The wisest, safest and most cost-effective plan from the beginning seemed to be a town and county partnership creating an independent authority.

LakeCatalpa Expansion The town of Culpeper is considering spending nearly $99,000 to investigate additional sources of drinking water. The Town Council Water and Sewer Committee Monday recommended that the town spend $69,800 for a capacity and expansion study of Lake Catalpa, also known as Bald Run Lake, a 46-acre body of water northwest of downtown. The committee also endorsed a separate $29,500 study of the reactivation of two old town wells on Spring Street and Fairfax Street Extended. The goal of the Lake Catalpa study, according to a recent town report, is to obtain 1 million gallons per day of water to supplement Lake Pelham, a 254-acre lake and the town’s primary source of drinking water. The proposal would require about a mile-and-half of piping to connect the two lakes. Lake Pelham has a yield of more than 4 million gallons per day; the town currently uses about half of that daily capacity. The town has water rights for the top five and half feet of Lake Catalpa, built in 1973 by the federal government as part of a five-lake flood control project.

Caruso Homes files for Ch. 11 The flagging housing market has forced another Washington area homebuilder to seek bankruptcy protection. Crofton, Md.-based Caruso Homes, which has developed numerous subdivisions in suburban Maryland and Northern Virginia in recent years, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Monday. The company has more than $100 million in debt, due mostly to banks, and plans to emerge from court proceedings in the next “three or four months� after restructuring its liabilities, said Jeff Caruso, the builder’s chief executive. Operations will continue for Caruso during the bankruptcy protection process and the company will continue to build at various projects in Prince George’s County, Charles County, the Annapolis area , in Fredericksburg and Culpeper.

Foreclosures Through June 13, a total of 187 properties — including 27 vacant lots in town — went into foreclosure this year in Culpeper, county records show. Of those, 122 occurred within the town’s limits. The other 65 foreclosures happened in various portions of Culpeper County. The month of February was the worst so far with 55 foreclosures, including the vacant lots. There were 18 foreclosures in the first two weeks of this month, compared to 32 in March; 30 in April and 26 in May. In 2007, banks foreclosed on 182 properties in all in the town and county of Culpeper. Today’s foreclosure problem is also caused by declining home values, like in Culpeper County, “that put homeowners ‘upside down’ with their mortgage,” the VHCD report says, “and lead to tightened credit standards that limit homeowners’ refinancing and resale opportunities.” “We are anticipating another flood of foreclosures in the fall,” said Heflin of Front Royal. “There’s another group of adjustments (to mortgage payments) coming and that’s where I would really like the banking industry to step in and stop it. Add in record high gas prices and people are really struggling, Heflin said. “It was the people who the bank tried to make exceptions for because of the market we were riding like a rocket ship,” she said. “The home sales prices were escalating every year — it was 20 percent one year and 20 percent more on top of that the next year.” Lower income citizens or people with less-than-stellar credit that banks would typically pass over for home loans suddenly qualified, Heflin said. “But then the market stopped all these people who shouldn’t have gotten these loans were in trouble.” The fact that Culpeper County has a lot of commuters, coupled with the high gas prices, is also contributing to the housing crisis, Emery said. “The further out from the metro center the worse it is because gas prices are impacting the way people chose to live their lives,” she said. “I think the commuters are gone for good,” Emery said of people moving to Culpeper and working in D.C. Steve Baugher, executive director of the Virginia Association of Mortgage Bankers and a member of the Virginia Foreclosure Prevention Task Force, said northern Virginia has been hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis. “I have a feeling you guys are six, eight months late coming into it,” he said of why the rate in Culpeper keeps getting dramatically worse. “I think this thing is going to work itself through, but it’s not going to happen overnight.” On Monday, Baugher said, he got a report indicating that some 60 percent of the home sales in northern Virginia were from bank-owned sources, or foreclosure properties. “So there’s a heavy inventory of bank owned properties that needs to be liquidated, a lot of foreclosures properties that have to be sold,” he said. With real estate values dropping, homeowners get frustrated, Baugher said. “They are struggling, the house is worth less than what I paid for it so what’s the point?” Baugher said he’s never seen so many foreclosures in his 35 years in banking.

The PiedmontRealestateBlog shows Culpeper with an inventory of 779 homes.. Given the current inventory of homes that need to sell and the price of gas, making this a less attractive commuter community, it’s likely to be a long time before we see much increase in construction. Amissville real estate broker Julie Emery agreed and supposed a long road ahead of more of the same. “I think it will take a while to work ourselves out of this,” she said. “I don’t think we will see a true stabilization of the market for two to three years because of the amount of inventory and absorption.”

CulpeperToCompPlan The Town of Culpeper must develop a CompPlan for the "annexed land".. Even If the county and the town actually come together as part of a regional water/sewer authority as the two governments tentatively agreed to do Tuesday, there may still be a need to bring the Angler plan to either a vote or a referendum?

CUPProjectFinancing ("5.91 meg")

Public hearing: June 26 Chip Russell, the last speaker at last night's Culpeper Utility Partners citizen input hearing, pretty much summed up the sentiment of those who stood at the Culpeper County Board of Supervisors' podium before him. "Wrong plan, wrong partners, too much liability," Russell said.
PARADE OF SPEAKERS NEARLY ALL OPPOSED Most speakers questioned the availability of groundwater to feed four deep wells planned for the project while others worried that providing infrastructure would encourage more residential growth. The biggest concerns, however, were those regarding the county's ultimate liability to repay bondholders who would finance the largest single project in Culpeper's history.
Under the proposed plan, investors would be primarily repaid through the sale of water and sewer taps. However, the county would be liable to purchase unsold taps if a specified number of taps were not sold each year. "This could mean financial disaster for our children who will be left holding the bag," argued Sarah Shepherd.
PROJECT A GAMBLE, ACTIVIST TELLS BOARD David Rowe, representing Concerned Culpeper Citizens, called the proposed project "a high-stakes gamble" and added that two wars with no end in sight, high oil prices and a souring economy were not likely to bring 176 new households to Culpeper on an annual basis in the foreseeable future.
Doug Mayhugh questioned the propriety of the county partnering with a developer to build infrastructure that would ultimately benefit the developer. In particular, he said he was confused about development fees that were part of the plan. "I thought the county charged fees to the developer, not the developer charging fees to the county," Mayhugh said. He estimated that under the proposed financing plan, Culpeper County could wind up paying as much as $5.8 million per year in interest. "In seven years you haven't brought the principal down a nickel," he said.
Danielle Aylor told the supervisors that the county now has more than its share of unsold homes and that there is no need to build more. "I see this as a way to pad the pockets of those pushing [the plan]," she said. "This should be brought to a referendum. Only Diana Sheesley spoke in favor of the Angler plan, reminding the Board that providing water/sewer infrastructure will spur commercial growth and increase the county's tax base. Supervisors Chairman Bill Chase told the capacity crowd that more public hearings will be held before any vote on the project is taken.

CountyTown-Joint Water:& Sewer “We’ve gotten a general agreement but the particulars haven’t been worked out,” he said. “We’re now in a posture to proceed,” on the regional sewer and water authority, Chase said. He said more details would be forthcoming at Thursday night’s public hearing regarding what role in the regional authority Angler Development’s proposed water and sewer system around the town would have. Rimeikis said the Angler proposal was not discussed at Tuesday night’s meeting. Mayor Rimeikis said it was too early to specify in which areas the town would grow. “I would say more than half of the contiguous area around the town boundaries — all the way around,” he said. Previous town proposals included the area around Lake Pelham and areas north and east of town, including portions of the Northridge Subdivision, Lowe’s and the Centre at Culpeper, the shopping center with Five Guys. Also included in a previous town proposal was an area along U.S. 29/15 Business out to Inlet, and land around the town sewer plant and public works facility. Rimeikis said the newly opened high tech data center at Terremark was not under consideration as part of the boundary adjustment. Rimeikis said the town’s utility employees would remain in place under the regional authority format.

CUP BB&T Cash Flow Projection: According to the newly released financials, construction of the “Culpeper Water and Sewer Project” would cost $88.3 million. However, including debt service, reserves and other costs, the total bond issue for the project would be $126.4 million. Following is an itemized breakdown of financials for the project, according to the document online at culpeper-county.gov:
Site work: $10.8 million
Environmental: $1.7 million
Water system: $7.2 million
Sewer system: $19.1 million
Sewer plant: $25 million
Engineering: $2.1 million
Surveying: $1.07 million
Geotechnical: $300,000
Developer’s fee: $5.9 million
Legal costs: $1.57 million
Proposal submission: $425,000
Easements: $510,000
Financing: $6.6 million
Easement plat preparation: $450,000
Permits: $490,000
Contingency: $5 million
The Culpeper County Board of Supervisors has not yet voted to enter into the public-private proposal with Angler for the system, but will hold a public hearing on the matter Thursday at 7 p.m. In order to preserve the county’s ability to build and operate a sewer treatment plant per new state regulations, construction on the system must start next month and be finished by the end of 2010.
Want to see it on-line? To view newly released details about Angler Development’s proposal to build a water and sewer system for the county, check out culpepercounty.gov and click on “Previously confidential tab 4 – project financing.”

Freelancestar The official reason for the meeting is boundary adjustment and related issues." It is one of those related issues--water and sewer-- that is the focus of almost everyone. Since the mid-1990s, the town and county have bickered over water and sewer. The town has both, and the county, which began growing dramatically eight years ago, wants in on the action. The county has at times tried to both seduce and coerce the town into becoming part of a regional water-sewer authority. The Town Council has been tempted in the past, but, each time, it offered to turn over its water and sewage treatment assets to a third party--even if it were part of that new authority. In 2005, the county upped the stakes by applying for and being granted some 3 million gallons per day in state-allocated sewage-treatment capacity. The county, however, has only one small sewage-treatment plant near Culpeper Regional Airport. Another is about ready to come on line at Clevenger's village. Both are 10 or more miles from the outskirts of town, where most of the commercial growth is occurring. To keep its allocation, the county must have plants capable of using it by the end of 2010. It takes about 2 years to build and bring a plant online. Time is running out, and the Board of Supervisors is now considering entering into a public-private partnership with Angler Development of Warrenton to build a plant on Mountain Run to provide sewer and water to a large commercially zoned area on the eastern outskirts of town. Public sentiment seems to be overwhelmingly opposed to the $100 million deal, which could leave the county holding the bag for thousands of unsold taps if the economy doesn't rebound and remain sound over the next 20 years. To get all that work done before 2010, Angler must reach an agreement with the county by Aug. 1.

The Town Council is vehemently opposed to the venture, but to thwart the deal, it must strike a water-sewer agreement with supervisors by the same deadline. If the town joins a water-sewer authority, it would lose its physical assets but gain tax revenue from a favorable boundary adjustment agreement. If it doesn't, the town stands to lose water-sewer business around its outskirts and a sewage-treatment plant upgrade to 6 million gallons per day--at a cost of more than $20 million--will have been wasted--especially if the Angler deal goes through. It the town and county can't agree and supervisors reject the Angler plan, the county stands to lose its state sewage-treatment allocation-- unless it builds smaller plants on its down. With the deadline approaching, that may be difficult. "This could be the mother of all meetings if we come out of there with some sort of agreement," said Culpeper Mayor Pranas Rimeikis, who admits that "conditions are different now than they were 2 years ago" when the two governments started seriously discussing the boundary adjustment issue. Rimeikis added that the town has always supported county growth on its outskirts. "We've committed 500,000 gallons a day [of sewage treatment] to the County for various projects, in addition to 600,000 gallons as part of a 2003 water-sewer agreement," he said. cautiously optimistic Councilman Chip Coleman said he is cautiously optimistic. Supervisor Sue Hansohn sees tonight's meeting as a last-ditch effort to hammer out at =east the framework for a town-county agreement. "We're probably at the end of the line if we don't," she said. Hansohn sees the county coming up with its own "drastically reduced" plan if an agreement cannot be reached with the town. She is not optimistic the Angler deal will go through. Both Hansohn and Supervisor Tom Underwood believe that a town-county agreement tonight would also put a virtual end to consolidation possibilities for the two governments. "Water and sewer was the issue that brought the consolidation issue up in the first place," said Hansohn. "If it is resolved, that would take most of the steam out of the matter. Then there would not be a whole lot left to consolidate." Underwood agrees, saying that an ultimate public vote would be moot if the town becomes part of a water-sewer authority. And the first- year supervisor agrees that tonight's meeting is important. "We need to come up with a framework agreement tonight," he said. It's time to either fish or cut bait."

Cecilia & Geraldine Schneider

Dear Mr. Kennedy,
After much research and consultation with both experts and simple neighbors I would like to present my firm objection to the consideration of the unsolicited Angler Water Treatment plant in our area. At this moment the area under consideration already has an independent water supply that satisfies the needs of its citizens and this is certainly not an appropriate time to be investing huge sums of taxpayers hard earned resources on a one sided plan that only benefits a questionable company and those who would like to be investing in huge tracts of housing developments during a housing slump and crisis. The negative effect resulting directly on the flora, fauna and up to now successfully operating agricultural areas which our sector is based on would certainly spiral us into an economic and ecological disaster similar to what other communities have experienced when priorities and alternatives have not been studied and weighed. We are in no hurry or need at this moment to be considering this project, therefore the incurring deadline should be upheld and the project denied. If, in the future, there is a need for such a plant, there are surely countless professionals and planners who could study the many alternatives available on today’s market for presentation to the community. A project of such proportions should involve the active participation of not only those who are aiming to make a profit, but those who are immediately affected. Within the Culpeper County area there are adequate engineers and experts and agencies to advise the Board of Supervisors with a better knowledge, the requirements, the goals, and the pursuit of happiness of Culpeper citizens. From: M. Cecilia Schneider

Dear Mr. Kennedy,
My objections to the unsolicited water treatment plant presented by the Angler corporation are founded on considerable research as to feasibility, financial practicality, and consequences of the development of the proposition of Angler. As to the feasibility, the suggested location of the treatment plant is inappropriate. It is not justified , and entails an unnecessary length of pipe and destruction of property over a distance requiring a tremendous expense to the citizens . The quantity of subterranean water being withdrawn would cause hardship to the agricultural needs of the surrounding farms. There is a substantial doubt concerning the rate of recharge and a serious water crisis could eventually result. At the present time the surrounding farmland is adequately supplied by individual water supply from the underground sources at no expense to the county. These are well developed dairy farms, tree farms, vineyards, pastureland necessary to the economic and social balance of our community and should not be threatened and destroyed. Our community is in a delicate financial situation, as is the rest of the country. It is certainly not wise to even consider joining in an operation of over 100 million dollars with a company that has blatantly shown its irresponsibility and very unstable financial enterprise. The guarantees of Angler are not based on a recognizable, solid foundation. The reassurances of Angler are like words in the wind. The consequences of Angler’s proposition if realistically considered could be devastating. Their calculations of water supply, the cost of construction of their suggested plant, and appurtenances have not been accurately accounted for and in keeping with the economic capacity of Culpeper County. It should not be necessary to have to construct a whole new development of considerable size to supply enough taps for the maintenance of the suggested plant. Especially at a time when a goodly number of the newly constructed housing developments are in serious financial straits, hundreds of homes are being foreclosed and even the older homes can not be rented or sold. The tremendous negative effect on existing valuable agricultural enterprises can never equate with any benefit may claim for the County of Culpeper. Geraldine Schneider There are other options which could be reasonably considered : construction of smaller plants closer to the areas where needed, industrial and residential. In a crisis or case of accident, smaller plants are more practical and readily repaired than a mega plant. Smaller treatment plants close to locations could be constructed in less time , at far less expense, within the time limit to receive the promised monetary grant to the County by 2010. Within the Culpeper County area there are adequate engineers and experts and agencies to advise the Board of Supervisors with a better knowledge, the requirements, the goals, and the pursuit of happiness of Culpeper citizens.

The Culpepertimes Is it growth of zoning fallacy? Elected officials sometimes say that they'll put the brakes on growth, and not rezone anymore property. In reality, there's little the board of supervisors can do to stop growth when it comes. The housing market has severely slowed growth in Culpeper, but the zoning remains in place for more than 5,000 homes to be built without approval from supervisors. And once the zoning is in place for residential development, it usually remains. Property with residential zoning could mean millions for the landowners, and few would give up a potential pay-off. Once a property has the proper zoning, all it must do from there is meet the county's subdivision plans. But most of the construction had been approved years ago. Speaking before the board, Planning Director John Egertson said that a few rezonings had been approved by the board in the past 10 years. Egertson claimed that the only major project the current board had approved was the unfinished Clevenger's Village project (more than 700 potential homes). But since Clevengers remains unbuilt, only 59 homes trace their rezonings to actions from current board members. However, Egertson hastened to add that the board's decision to restrict residential property on industrial lands had actually prevented 250 homes from being built. At the same time, thousands of permits were approved for building homes that already had the proper zoning in place. But why so many homes? Ironically, it begins with plans to control growth. Many of the zonings stem from 1989, when the county supervisors enacted changes in the county's zoning. Prior to that, any parcel could sport a subdivision., said Supervisor Brad Rosenberger. "All you had to do was get the health department's approval, meet requirements and you were automatically approved," Rosenberger said, one of the few board members serving at the time. "The board wanted to get a handle on it." That still left huge tracts of land ready for development. But other preventative measures may stand in the way of future development. Gas prices could challenge developers, even if the housing market begins booming again. Culpeper's population boom came when developers recruited potential Culpeper homeowners from Northern Virginia, promising lower home prices. A house in Culpeper is still cheaper than a house in Fairfax, but Northern Virginia residents who move to Culpeper likely face a much more expensive commute.

Culpeper's Financial BurdenThe repayment for this project when it is completed and running will be based on the demand of the marketplace. It is not correct to believe that the current market slump or any future market demand will have no bearing on this project. It is the “marketplace” that will purchase $245 million-plus (estimated principal and interest) worth of water and sewer services. And when he says the project will be paid for, it is the construction cost that will be paid for, not the debt. The debt payments will only begin. The decision on whether to go forward with this project will be the biggest decision ever made by the county. Certainly, it will have the greatest financial impact. We have not yet begun to repay the huge debt for two new schools and the cost for operating them. The BOS struggled to fund a mere $1.8 million increase in next year’s school budget. Yet, according to the CUP project repayment plan, annual payments start at $5 million in year one and increase to $16.7 million in year 25. If the revenue from the CUP project is not sufficient to repay, the county will have to come to the taxpayers for money to make the debt payments. We will not be able to file for “protection under bankruptcy” and “reorganize.”...Steve Southard

CulpeperWater...Steve VentoPublished: June 13, 2008 cstarexpo

Last year, a study of our wastewater and water needs in Culpeper County uncovered that the county lacks the reliable sewer and water infrastructure needed for a sound financial future. Without it, the county can never attract any new businesses with good-paying jobs. And if the county does not act soon, there is a potential that it will lose a large portion of our wastewater allocation and will be reliant upon unproven resources to meet future capacity needs. To ensure that the current 2011 deadline could be met, Culpeper Utility Partners forged a partnership to work with the county through a public-private partnership. Culpeper Utility Partners will finance, engineer and build the system for the county so it can meet its water and wastewater needs for the next 50 years.

Culpeper Utility Partners offers a breadth of experience developing and constructing major projects throughout the region. Our partners are the leaders in financing, building and engineering public-private infrastructure projects in the commonwealth. One partner, Angler Development, has been the target of a lot of talk about recent financial challenges. Angler Development, and entities it manages, have a proven track record of completing quality projects across Virginia. Based in nearby Warrenton, we have a strong connection to Culpeper, developing numerous projects here over the past 10 years. Like every other developer, the slumping housing market has impacted our projects. As we all have seen or read in the news, this market downturn has had its consequences, meaning some of our projects could not move forward and needed to be placed in bankruptcy for reorganization.

Copper Ridge which was a promising project. Unfortunately, at the end of 2006 as the market had turned and our builder partner pulled out, we could not find another builder partner for the project. After fighting on all fronts for more than a year, it was very clear we had absolutely no choice but to place Copper Ridge under the protection of bankruptcy. This was not the path we wanted, but it was the path our legal and financial advisers strongly recommended.

CulpeperCrossroads project is a different story. Despite being impacted by the economic downturn, the solid financial strength of the deal is not impacted, only its timing. It is in reorganization, and we expect to file a refinancing plan within the next 90 days. It is anticipated that this new plan will be approved and construction will commence in 2010. These are not easy days for many industries. We work hard to be transparent with our partners, financers and the communities we work within. We strive to do the right thing, no matter how hard. And sometimes the right thing is to use the legal system to protect our landowners and financiers. We could only wish that all of our development projects are as solid as the Culpeper Utility Partners project.

This water and sewer project is very different. n First, unlike a marketplace project with phased funding based on market conditions at any given time, the Culpeper Utility Partners project has 100 percent financing from day one — meaning no matter what, the project will be paid for and completed with our team of experts. n Second, those working in partnership on this will not be waiting for the market to sell. They are ready to build right now to meet the challenging deadline that ensures Culpeper County gets the wastewater capacity it needs. n Third, water and sewer taps will be sold for many uses — industrial, commercial and residential — so this project does not depend on any single sector of the market. Working with our public-private partnership, the county will get its water system built on time without one dime of taxpayer dollars, and without increasing demand for residential development. A reliable future water supply and wastewater treatment capacity will bring jobs. Today, employers with good-paying jobs see the talent here, talent that is forced to commute a long way to a job every day. And while these employers would love to tap that talent for good-paying jobs by moving here, they need to see that Culpeper County has a reliable, long-term supply of water and the wastewater capacity before they will move. The Culpeper Utility Partners project is about Culpeper’s future. We can take the steps today to ensure we have the infrastructure to bring new employers with good-paying jobs for our citizens and at the same time ensure there is a tax base to continue to protect the quality of life here.

Culpeper Crossroads in bankruptcy- Culpeper Crossroads, a massive commercial development slated for the corner of U.S. 29 and Route 3, filed for Chapter 11 on May 27, according to the Alexandria division of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Angler’s proposed 490-home Copper Ridge project on East Chandler Avenue went into bankruptcy in October. Last June, the Culpeper County Board of Supervisors voted 4-3 to rezone 66 acres — from rural area to commercial services — for Culpeper Crossroads. The large commercial project was to include a major department store along with another 500,000 square feet of big box stores and retail offerings. Maryland attorney Jim Vidmar, who also represented Angler in the Copper Ridge bankruptcy, said Monday that his client filed for Chapter 11 in the Crossroads project in order “to reorganize their business affairs.” ..Published: June 9, 2008

From Steve Vento June 8, 2008