Speakers at meeting criticize proposed partnership between Culpeper County and developer

Date published: 6/27/2008

By DONNIE JOHNSTON

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.

Others were more eloquent and most were more long-winded. But no one was more to the point.

Seventeen out of 18 speakers at the one-hour hearing were solidly against Culpeper County joining with Culpeper Utility Partners (an offshoot of Angler Development) to build more than $100 million worth of water and sewer infrastructure in an industrial corridor on the southeast outskirts of the town of Culpeper.

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.

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 be no need to bring the Angler plan to either a vote or a referendum.

Donnie Johnston:
Email: djohnston@freelancestar.com

Date published: 6/27/2008