Dec 052008
 

The four boards with jurisdiction over Charlottesville and Albemarle County’s public water resources have met to discuss City Council’s concerns about the cost of two major components of the adopted community water supply plan. In a resolution passed November 3, 2008, Council called for a full review of the plan and its cost estimates. That prompted the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) to seek a joint meeting to find out the nature of Council’s concerns. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority’s Board of Directors hosted the four-way meeting on November 25, 2008 in the CitySpace Meeting Room in the Market Street Parking Garage.

(Read more at Charlottesville Tomorrow)

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

* 1:12 – RWSA Chair Mike Gaffney calls RWSA to order, and explains reason for meeting
* 4:55 – Gaffney details what Gannett Fleming discovered in the geotechnical data collected in the borings
* 9:17 – Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris explains Council’s reasoning for calling for further study
* 14:12 – Albemarle County Board Chairman Ken Boyd
* 15:12 – Albemarle County Supervisor Dennis Rooker
* 19:00 – RWSA Executive Director Tom Frederick shares information about cost estimate for cost estimate studies
* 22:12 – Rooker asks Frederick about scope of work for dam panel
* 26:42 – Councilor David Brown asks if panel of experts can address both dam and pipeline
* 28:12 – Mayor Norris asks for cost estimate on expert panel
* 29:00 – Boyd asks Councilors to describe why they are concerned about the plan, Norris responds
* 31:27 – Comment from Liz Palmer, ACSA Board Member
* 32:12 – ACSA Chair Don Wagner asks Norris to list questions people have with the pipeline, Brown responds
* 34:12 – Frederick addresses why cost estimates are so volatile in this economy
* 36:12 – Supervisor Lindsay Dorrier asks a question about dredging
* 38:42 – Boyd says that dredging by itself will not meet the projected 50-year demand, Frederick talks about safe-yield analysis
* 40:12 – Councilor Satyendra Huja said he does not expect pipeline to be redesigned
* 42:12 – ACSA Board Member John Martin asks City Councilors what specific evidence they have to question the adopted plan
* 43:42 – Councilor Julian Taliaferro responds
* 45:42 – Liz Palmer makes two points; one in support of dam expert panel, second to discuss pipeline options
* 48:12 – Norris responds to Martin’s request
* 51:12 – Comments from Albemarle County Supervisor Sally Thomas
* 53:12 – Councilor Brown asks for more information on the pipeline route
* 56:22 – Boyd seeks consensus on what the four boards agree on
* 58:42 – Gaffney suggests conservation study be conducted by the
* 1:01:12 – Rooker asks if challenging the demand analysis would affect the DEQ and Army Corps of Engineer permits
* 1:03:52 – Brown points out that he is the only one of five sitting councilors to have participated in developing the plan
* 1:08:42 – Frederick answers Rooker’s question about how permitting process might be affected
* 1:10:12 – Rooker challenges assumptions that water supply plan alternatives could be easily approved
* 1:11:22 – Martin says he’s been involved with the water supply planning process since 1998 and discusses demand
* 1:13:47 – Thomas says the community will need to produce a conservation plan by 2011 as part of the state water supply process
* 1:15:22 – Palmer details her letter to City Council that lists the ACSA’s conservation efforts
* 1:18:42 – Comments from ACSA Board Member Clarence Roberts, who says much of the work requested by Council has already been done
* 1:21:42 – Comments from Satyendra Huja about wanting to see the dredging feasibility study going through
* 1:22:12 – Councilor Brown says water usage is on the rise
* 1:24:42 – ACSA Member Jim Colbaugh says a conservation program is needed to help the community attain the 5% figure
* 1:26:42 – Boyd seeks consensus on the matter of having both ACSA and the City conduct the conservation study
* 1:30:12 – Slutzky asks Norris for clarification over City’s desire to forward
* 1:31:00 – Sally Thomas reports on the progress of the task force
* 1:33:20 – Martin reports on the progress of the task force and warns against conducting feasibility study prematurely
* 1:34:20 – Gaffney seeks an opinion from the four boards on whether new demand analysis needs to be done before moving forward
* 1:38:50 – Norris asks for Council’s opinion of whether demand analysis and
* 1:40:50 – Palmer recommends RWSA move forward with panel of dam experts
* 1:41:55 – Huja says he wants panel of experts to address pipeline as well
* 1:42:20 – Bob Tucker reminds four boards of DCR deadlines
* 1:45:16 – Gaffney seeks direction from Frederick on whether panel of experts could address pipeline; Wagner answers in detail
* 1:48:20 – Brown explains how citizen pressure has lead to City Council’s concerns
* 1:50:00 – Palmer asks for more details on Council’s concern over the pipeline
* 1:52:10 – Rooker describes the merits of the South Fork pipeline and
* 1:54:00 – Norris says he thinks the South Fork pipeline “makes more sense” but the public doesn’t trust it
* 1:56:00 – Rooker asks Frederick to describe how Sugar Hollow pipeline would fill Ragged Mountain
* 1:58:20 – Supervisor Ann Mallek says there may be more migitationmitigation issues involving the Sugar Hollow pipeline
* 2:01:10 – Gary Fern says he hears a mixed message from City Council
* 2:04:45 – Frederick reviews what he has heard regarding the pipeline study
* 2:08:23 – Gaffney summarizes the decision made about the pipeline study
* 2:12:00 – Gaffney repeats the conclusion reached by the four board with regards to the $25,000 pipeline study
* 2:13:17 – Gaffney repeats consensus point that a decision on dredging feasibility will wait until task force makes its report
* 2:15:20 – Frederick answers question from Rooker regarding cost estimate for fixing dam rather than replacing it
* 2:19:20 – Rooker asks Frederick is dam experts will be looking at dam height
* 2:21:00 – Boyd asks for clarification from Council about last sentence of resolution
* 2:23:00 – Motion to adjourn from all four boards

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.