Council holds work session to learn more about poverty in Charlottesville

The Charlottesville City Council held a work session on poverty to identify and discuss poverty related issues faced by the City.   The November 6, 2008 work session began with a presentation by Director of Social Services Buz Cox entitled, “What is poverty?”  One of Cox’s suggestions was for the City to provide or assist with low cost or free transportation to employment and education centers for those living in poverty.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download Poverty Work Session

Charlottesville City Councilors

Poverty is defined as “the state of living in a family with income below the federally defined poverty level.” However, while the federal poverty level for a family of three is $17,600, the actual income needed for a family of three to be self-sufficient in Virginia is $35,797 according to a study done in 2002.  Furthermore, the high cost of housing in Charlottesville relative to other Virginia cities may mean the self-sufficiency estimate is at the low end of what would be required.  There are twice as many people in Charlottesville living Charlottesville below the $35,797 income level than are living below $17,600. 

Cox explained to Council that it is challenging to find accurate numbers of people living in poverty in the City because Charlottesville is home to such a large number of students.  Recently, the State Department of Social Services paid the U.S. Census Bureau to do a special re-tabulation to remove college students earning less than $5,150, military persons and those living in group quarters from their poverty counts.  This reduced the apparent poverty rate from 22% to about 11%, according to Cox.

Director of Social Services Buz Cox

Cox presented the City’s anti-poverty initiatives, saying that the City generally targets nine issues facing people in poverty:
1. Affordable housing
2. Food and nutrition
3. Affordable and quality health care
4. Equal access to quality education
5. Dependable and affordable transportation
6. Quality and affordable child care
7. Opportunities for sustainable work that pays a living wage
8. Availability of adequate income supports
9. Care for the elderly and disabled

Mayor Dave Norris said “these are all good initiatives, but there are not that many of these here that are going to reach down and pull people out of poverty.”  Mayor Norris then asked that
Michael Harvey, Executive Director of the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development share ideas about how the City could accomplish these goals.

“You need to customize your workforce support system to meet the needs of your employers,” Harvey said. He recommended the City should make a move to get ahead of the problem and break the cycle, pointing out that the chronically unemployed in the area need to be addressed.   Harvey explained that while the African American community makes up 22% of the population, they consistently make up 40-60% of the unemployed people in Charlottesville.

Additionally, Cox said that what the city needs is more education and training, a second chance program for ex-offenders, to stop stereotypes and generalizations, continued financial assistance after employment, incentives to save money while living in public housing, mentoring, more resources and support for children and teens.

“We continue to create a lot of service level jobs that don’t create a lot of upward mobility,” said Councilor Julian Taliaferro, explaining that other cities may have more opportunities to provide manufacturing positions.  He suggested apprenticeship programs where workers could learn more advanced skills.

Harvey explained that there are good jobs for those without higher education, just thirty or forty minutes away.  He asked that the City identify the other issues in “connecting the labor surplus to the labor need.”

Karen Waters of the Quality Community Council recognized the work being done to improve regional transit but explained that part of the issue is some citizens cannot drive.  “If you have a felony or you’re behind on child support, you lose your drivers’ license,” said Waters.  “Even if you can get one of these jobs… you’ve been denied the privilege of driving.”  In order to address this issue Mayor Norris suggested that regional employers might work with the City to establish a carpool or van system.

City Councilor Holly Edwards emphasized the need for individual case management and personal relationships to help people with specific challenges, providing someone who can connect the resources with those who need them.  Harvey suggested that the one stop workforce center was meant to provide these types of “triage” services.

Councilor Edwards explained that in the examples the Councilors were presented, the cities were “a catalyst in creating opportunities for economic success.”  She suggested that Council define what “economic justice means for our City” and that Charlottesville become a leader in providing opportunities for citizens.  She suggested that the next step for identifying problems and working through possible solutions should be a town hall meeting to hear people’s needs.

Councilor Taliaferro suggested that the City should set measurable, specific goals as to what it would like to accomplish in this area.  It was then suggested that the City prioritize funding for non-profit organizations based on their objectives. 

Mayor Norris summarized the dialogue and Councilors agreed to move forward bringing in additional stakeholders to help set measurable, specific goals in the spirit of public-private partnerships. 

Fania Gordon

Blue Ridge Sand representatives make pitch for lower-cost dredging

Mitch King

Representatives from a group who are promising a lower cost estimate for the dredging of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir gave a presentation at the December 8, 2008 meeting of the South Fork Reservoir Stewardship Task Force. While their presence was not on the formal agenda, Chair Sally Thomas allowed Mitch King and Mark Fendig of Blue Ridge Sand to speak after the conclusion of the regular meeting.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20081208-SFRR-BRS

Blue Ridge Sand is located in southwest Virginia and maintains two reservoirs behind hydroelectric power plants on the New River. King said that Blue Ridge Sand has the experience in dredging on impounded rivers, as opposed to firms like Gahagan and Bryant whose primary experience is in dredging of coastal waterways. King, who works as a renewable energy commodities dealer, wanted community decision-makers to know that other cost estimates given for dredging are, in his experience, drastically over-inflated.

The company is promoting its amphibious dredge which would simultaneously remove material from the reservoir floor and begin the dewatering process. Sediment would pass through a series of filters, which King said would speed up the process.

“It dewaters in a matter of minutes rather than months and when you do it that way, you avoid the need for a large riparian dewatering facility,” King said. He said the firm is willing to give a demonstration this winter, and that Fendig would know how to get the permits to do so. No permit would be required below a certain level of material removed from the reservoir. Fendig said he could do the limited demonstration for under $20,000.

Fendig said that his equipment would take up less than an acre, and that he has already identified potential sites to dewater the spoils. Sediment would be removed and dewatered at a volume of 100 cubic yards an hour. The material would be sorted and then hauled off to an off-site location which Blue Ridge Sand would manage. Fendig said some of the material could be used elsewhere and that he could sell material for use in the production of asphalt and concrete. 

King said that Blue Ridge Sand has taken core samples of the reservoir in 2004 and believe that material on the reservoir floor can be made useful. At time, they were making a formal pitch to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority in the wake of the 2002 drought. Fendig said they mostly found sand, gravel and silt but additional geotechnical data on the reservoir’s floor would need to be collected to help his firm know what areas would have more value.

Fendig said dredged material is valuable in southwest Virginia, and that part of the cost of dredging reservoirs there is recovered through selling the material. In fact, he said his company profits off the sale of material. Liz Palmer, a task force member representing the Albemarle County Service Authority, asked Fendig if that meant his firm would offer to dredge the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir at no charge. Fendig said no, but said that the cost of the operation could be reduced if willing buyers could be found.

King said that if the community chose to do a one-time dredge to remove all sediment that has accumulated since the reservoir was built in 1966, there would be a very large cost associated with disposal.

“The cost issue is absolutely related to the rate at which you want the material removed and [if you are] willing to stop removing it if your market dries up for a month or two,” King said.

The task force will finalize its recommendations at a meeting on Thursday in the County Office Building on 5th Street Extended. The meeting begins at 6:00 PM in Room A.

Sean Tubbs

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 1:00 - Mitch King gives an overview
• 4:10 - Supervisor Sally Thomas asks how much land would be required
• 5:30 - Supervisor Dennis Rooker asks how much volume could be obtained
• 7:15 - ACSA Board Member Liz Palmer asks what other markets are available for sediment
• 9:00 - Thomas asked where core samples were taken
• 10:11 - Task Force Member Tom Jones asks how close dredges need to be to the dewatering site
• 11:20 - Audience member Rich Collins asks about the demonstration, which he claims
• 12:40 - Palmer asks a follow-up on dewatering sites
• 15:15 - Rooker asks for a cost on the demonstration project
• 16:30 - Task Force Member Mark Fletcher asks what would happen to material
• 17:40 - Palmer asks Fendig if he will dredge the reservoir for free
• 19:50 - Thomas follows up on what material would be like after dewatering 
• 20:50 - Dede Smith of Citizens for a Sustainable Water Plan asks about stump removal
• 22:10 - Rooker asks if Blue Ridge Sand has dealt with wetlands issues
• 25:30 - Collins asks about timing and phasing of dredging to meet market demands
• 26:30 - Gaffney asks a follow-up question about timing and who would bear the cost if market falls out
• 30:00 - Rooker asks for a range of costs for disposal costs for any removed material
• 31:30 - Audience member Richard Lloyd asks question about demand for sediment if economy recovers
• 32:40 - Gaffney asks how many gallons are in a cubic yard

County Planning Commission discusses changes for Planned Development regulations

In early April 2008, thirty years after the initial rezoning took place, the Albemarle County Planning Commission reluctantly approved a preliminary plat for the first phase  of the Clifton Lake development.  Since all parts of the County ordinance were satisfied and stale zoning and off-site concerns about traffic safety could not be used as justification for denial, the Commission felt they had no other choice. 

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20081209-CoPC - PDNMD

In order to avoid similar situations in the future, on April 22, 2008 the Commission passed a resolution of intent to consider changes to the Planned District (PD) regulations that would require older plans to comply with current regulations rather than those that existed at the time of the rezoning approvals.   A July 29, 2008 staff work session was held and then on September 30, 2008 a public roundtable discussion took place so stakeholders could discuss the proposed changes. After the public roundtable, several outstanding issues remained including vesting, signage, architectural requirements and parking. 

At their meeting on December 9, 2008 the Planning Commission reviewed staff’s revised recommendations and took further public comment.  The revised regulations would require any Planned Development rezoning approved on or before December 10, 1980 (date of the ‘Great Rezoning’ of Albemarle County) to meet current zoning requirements unless a property owner can demonstrate they have vested their zoning rights.  Vesting would, in theory, be accomplished with diligent pursuit by the property owner to complete the development approved in the rezoning.

If developers can establish vesting has occurred, they could decide if they will abide by the zoning regulations at the time of rezoning or with current regulations.  PDs approved after December 10, 1980, may abide by zoning regulations in place at the time of rezoning, however, requirements for entrance corridors, outdoor lighting, signage, parking and landscaping must meet current zoning regulations unless the developer can show vesting has occurred.

Next, the outstanding issues that remained after the roundtable discussion were addressed.  Staff suggested that since the development community felt that the size of signs in Neighborhood Model Developments was too limiting, the issue should be brought separately to the Planning Commission by the Zoning Department. 

Staff suggested removing specific architectural style standards from a project’s code of development and instead suggested the regulations should only emphasize several important aspects of the County’s Neighborhood Model which identifies human-scale and pedestrian-oriented development as key goals. Albemarle County Senior Planner Elaine Echols recommended the County should consider features that create pedestrian friendly environments such as form, massing and façade treatments of buildings.

Echols explained that the planning staff does not have the architectural resources to conduct stylistic design review and that should be handled by the architectural review board for projects in the entrance corridors.  “Our job is to deal with those elements that make it a pedestrian friendly community,” said Echols.

Staff asked that parking for planned developments should be allowed to be determined at the site plan stage.  This change would give the Zoning Administrator ability to reduce parking requirements with greater certainty regarding tenants and opportunity for shared parking.  Planning Director for Albemarle County, Wayne Cilimberg said, “We think it is legitimate to delay those parking studies.”

Planning Commissioner Tom Loach (White Hall) asked if architectural requirements were being removed solely because of lack of departmental expertise and questioned how community input would be integrated if design guidelines were removed from a new development’s code of development.  Cilimberg responded that while they need to translate what is in the Master Plan to the way building is carried out, it is not the place of zoning to enforce the desires of the community.

Planning Commissioner Jon Cannon (Rio) told staff that he appreciated the removal of architectural style standards from codes of development. “There’s a point at which the community has interests in everything that goes up but those interests have to be balanced against the interest of folks that are putting stuff up and the interests of folks that are potentially customers or occupants of those things,” he said.

Planning Commissioner Linda Porterfield (Scottsville) expressed interest in maintaining consistent styles and concepts to meet neighborhood demands.  Planning staff was careful to emphasize that they do not want to remove opportunities for diversity that comply with the goals of pedestrian scale development within the context of what has come before. Echols emphasized that guidance regarding style of development should be laid out in the Master Plan as opposed to zoning regulations or codes of development.

The meeting was well attended by representatives of the development community.
Developer Don Franco of KG Associates commended planning staff for the proposed changes.  “Having the ability to commit to massing but not particular design elements will be a help to us,” said Franco. 

Don Franco

Franco explained that after master planning, if design elements were to change, the developer would have to find a balance between meeting the preferences of the community and fulfilling their own requirements.  He emphasized that in entrance corridors and on the perimeters of PDs the developer could remain consistent to the Master Plan to satisfy the surrounding community while meeting the needs of the purchasers of the homes.

Developer Cliff Fox pointed out to the commission that there are a lot of other components of land development that impact pedestrian orientation, like street design or tree canopy.

Attorney Valerie Long, who represents a number of large planned developments, expressed concerns about having to prove vesting. She explained that vesting code in VA law leaves a lot to subjective analysis and there are few precedents on which to base these decisions.  Furthermore, she says, application plans are very detailed and specific, basically almost complete site plans, so if a project is found to be not yet vested, developers could stand to lose a lot of money resubmitting revised plans.

Planning Commissioner Bill Edgerton (Jack Jouett) suggested that perhaps developers would prefer no zoning and as much freedom as possible, similar to what he believes takes place in Houston, TX.  However, Franco said, “We’re protected by the zoning around us.  I personally support zoning because I think it helps us.” He said that some local developers appreciate the guidelines set forth by the Planning Commission.

The Commission agreed to postpone the decision on signage and approve the staff’s recommendations for parameters of vesting and the cutoff date for abiding by current zoning requirements.   The Commission reached consensus to remove architectural style from codes of development but maintain requirements regarding massing, scale and façade treatments.  The Commission also agreed to staff recommendations to allow the parking study for a PD to occur with rezoning or at the site plan level.  Staff will prepare a final set of regulations for a future public hearing before final approval before both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.

Fania Gordon

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST
01:30 Elaine Echols presents staff report for ZTA 08-02
03:00 Echols discusses Signage, Planned Developments and Vesting, Architectural Requirements, Parking Standards
09:00 Echols reviews summary slide of Form, Massing and façade requirements
Echols explains they would like for developers to deal with design through their own architectural review boards.  Echols discusses including parking study at the site plan rather than the rezoning stage
17:00 Loach asks if they you want to do away with the code of development because staff has no architectural review expertise and why the master plan wouldn’t provide adequate architectural guidelines. 18:30 Cilimberg says they are trying to achieve a level of review to reflect the desires of the community
19:30 Edgerton clarifies that the zoning ordinance is a law while master plan is a guide.
21:45 Porterfield asks how can neighborhood concepts and styles be included.
23:30 Echols reminds commission that staff recommends architectural styles be consistent in infill developments.
24 :45 Porterfield wants community concept to be maintained
26:00 Echols describes Downtown Mall as an example of pedestrian scale development
27:30 Loach explains the paradox being faced by the Crozet library, where they are not mandating a style, but want it to reflect design elements of the community. 
28:15 Cilimberg explains that design should really be designated by developer. 
29:30 Cannon warns that community interests have to balanced against stakeholders
31:30 Loach expresses concern that neighborhood desires be met
32:30 Echols says that Master Planning provides guidance for codes of development.
33:30 Don Franco says, “Having the ability to commit to massing but not particular design elements will be a help to us”
35:45 Porterfield asks if developer decided to change styles, would they go back to community for consultation.
39:00 Franco explains that if the perimeter design were to change he would go back
41:15 Cliff Fox says that pedestrian orientation not only based on massing and design.
43:00 Valerie Long raises issues of developers
47:15 Porterfield asks how much of a burden this would really be on developers
51:15 Strucko asks if it is a risk in timing for a developer delay when plans are approved because community preferences may change
55:30 Strucko asks if a standard that impacts public safety would be considered
56:15 Kamptner says in issues of public safety, they recognize rights will vest
58:00 Edgerton recognizes that staff has identified a good timeline
1:00:00 Edgerton says that he doesn’t want to specify an architectural style
1:01:30 Porterfield asks about phasing. 
1:02:00 Kamptner responds that the action that determines vesting is the rezoning.
1:03:00 Neil Williamson mentions concerns about signage and vesting and critiques Edgerton’s statement that developers dislike zoning. 
1:05:30 Don Franco comments on zoning, signs, parking and entrance corridors
1:08:30 Kamptner responds to questions by Neil Williamson. 
1:14:00 Echols asks which issues the commission had reached consensus for.
1:15:30 Strucko says that he thinks exceptions identified plus public safety matters should be included. 
1:16:30 Echols says that landscaping is included because not too onerous to address.
1:18:30 Loach would like some more specificity regarding architectural restrictions. 
1:19:15 Edgerton says he likes staff recommendation and focus on massing and scale. 
1:20:00 Porterfield wants consideration of inclusion of “community’s design concepts.”
1:20:15 Cilimberg explains that Master Plans have not defined architectural styles.
1:20:45 Cilimberg says they are removing the specification of a style in the code of development. 
1:27:00 Cannon says he likes the way it is framed, would avoid homogeneity.
1:28:30 Porterfield says she is trying to get direction in Village of Rivanna Master Plan. 

City Planners propose cuts to Meadowcreek Parkway funding; Restore investment in parks, new sidewalks

The Charlottesville Planning Commission has proposed some amendments to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) drawn up by City budget and planning staff. With less projected revenue coming in, the 2010-2014 CIP had to include some cuts. Several Commissioners felt these specific cuts did not reflect either the values of Charlottesville residents, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, or the ranking criteria used by the Budget Office to evaluate inclusion into the funding plan. They specifically asked to cut funding for the City’s portion of the Meadowcreek Parkway, and reintroduced funding for new sidewalks and parkland acquisition.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20081209-CIPpodcast

During the December 9, 2008 planning commission meeting, the general sentiment among commissioners was that sidewalk and open space projects should be given a higher priority than the Meadowcreek Parkway (the City’s portion is referred to as McIntire Road Extended). Mayor Dave Norris weighed in on the irony of placing a higher priority on a new road project for a city with high aspirations for sustainability. Norris has voted against granting easements needed for the Meadowcreek Parkway on other City owned land.  Several citizens spoke during the public hearing, including two members of the Sierra Club, against the Meadowcreek Parkway.

Jim Tolbert, Director of Neighborhood Services, defended his decision to maintain funding for the controversial road project. First, he said the Commonwealth of Virginia, faced with heavy competition for road projects, may end up dropping their side of the funding if the City waffles and delays too much. Second, Albemarle County has already gone to bid for their portion of the road between Rio and Melbourne.  Tolbert said the original goal was to coordinate the timing of these endeavors so they will finish together. Without the Charlottesville side, the new Meadowcreek Parkway would just empty cars onto Melbourne Road and add to the congestion of the area.

Jim Tolbert defended his cuts to new sidewalks by calling attention to a balance of $778,000 sitting in the account. When asked why those funds are not being spent, given a priority list with 80 items, he responded in part that the City Manager has recently put a freeze on all new spending, so an engineering project waiting in the wings has been deferred. Tolbert also expressed concerns about the volume of projects existing staff could manage in a given year.

Nevertheless, many of the commissioners stated their opinion that these priorities should be flipped to be in line with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Genevieve Keller came out strongly against funding for the road, stating that it was “a flawed plan based on 1960’s and 1970’s planning principles,” and Commissioner Dan Rosensweig thought the drop in land values could present opportunities for the purchase of parkland. Commissioners Cheri Lewis and Michael Osteen were the only two votes against the recommendation for reallocation of budget cuts. Commissioner Lewis was very sympathetic to the parkland suggestion, but could not countenance the elimination of funding for the Meadowcreek Parkway. Commissioner Osteen was less enthusiastic about spending money on parkland during an economic crunch.

The City's capital budget for FY 2010-2014 is still in its preliminary stages. Every citizen of Charlottesville is being mailed a Citizen Budget Survey (available online here), to be returned to the City Manager’s office by the end of 2008. The next step for the Planning Commission is to present the capital budget with their recommendations to City Council during a January meeting. From there, Council will take all of this input into account before making a final decision by April of 2009.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST

1:20 – Mr. Davidson from Budget Office presents on CIP
14:20 – Ms. Beauregard explains why items are on hold
15:20 – Consequences of not funding City portion of Meadowcreek Parkway
19:20 - Commissioner Emory says ranking criteria not followed
22:10 – Why top three ranking projects not included
25:25 – Mayor Norris asks why sidewalk money is not being spent
28:20 – Public comments in opposition to Meadowcreek Parkway
42:35 – Commissioners want more involvement in CIP process
49:20 - Commissioner Emory makes case for parkland acquisition
55:10 - Commissioner Keller opposes funding McIntyre parkway
56:10 – Councilor Huja wants to comment, but not at appropriate time
58:50 - Pearson summarizes Commissions priorities
1:04:05 - Commission reviews their options for recommendation
1:07:25 - Commissioner Keller makes a motion
1:10:05 - Commissioners Lewis and Osteen explain their opposition
1:14:05 - Final vote of Commission

Daniel Nairn

Reservoir Task Force disagrees over reasons for dredging feasibility study

Most of the members of the South Fork Reservoir Stewardship Task Force are in agreement that a feasibility study should be conducted to assess dredging opportunities at the reservoir. However, they continue to disagree on why and when such a study should be conducted.

The discourse came during the task force’s penultimate meeting on December 8, 2008. For two and a half hours, the group reviewed the finer points of a straw-man proposal put forth by task force member Tom Jones which recommended that dredging should be conducted to preserve the long-term ability of the reservoir to act as storage capacity for the community’s public water system.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: 20081209-SFRR.mp3

Since the last meeting, Jones had extensive conversations with each task force member to get their opinion and crafted a new proposal accordingly. His plan assumes that the adopted 50-year water supply plan will go forward, but that dredging should be considered “in the near future” for two primary reasons.

Tom Jones

First, the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir should be maintained for the water supply to ensure its restored capacity is available after the adopted 50-year water plan is fully implemented. Dredging sooner would prevent the formation of additional wetlands that could prove more difficult to remove in the future due to federal protections.

Second, dredging now would provide an “insurance policy” of extra water capacity while the pipeline between the South Fork and Ragged Mountain reservoirs is designed and constructed. To facilitate the process, Jones said a feasibility study should be done along the lines of what dredging firm Gahagan & Bryant has suggested. He said that since the last major drought in 2002, the South Fork Reservoir has lost more capacity. If the Sugar Hollow pipeline that fills Ragged Mountain today fails before it is retired, the community might have capacity issues before the adopted water plan is completed.

Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) said that before a feasibility study goes forward, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) needs to establish whether or not new land formation in the reservoir would be considered wetlands.  He also said it was belief that the four Boards are expecting the task force to recommend a study.

“Personally I’m in favor of at least obtaining the information [via a feasibility study] so we better understand the parameters of how that can be done, whether [dredging] be a little bit at a time or all at once,” Rooker said.

John Martin, a member of the Albemarle County Service Authority’s Board of Directors but representing the Rivanna River Basin Commission, said he was troubled by the idea of dredging now to eliminate emerging wetlands.  He said a feasibility study should be conducted closer to the time the community is ready to dredge, but for now, the ACSA and the RWSA only have the money to build the community water supply plan.  Martin said he could support dredging for rowing, but that was not within the purview of the ACSA or the RWSA. He suggested that the University of Virginia pay for some of the costs.

Mark Fletcher and City Councilor Holly Edwards

Mark Fletcher, representing UVA’s athletic interests, says the University sees the reservoir as a community resource but that because the reservoir was not created for the purpose of rowing, UVA would need to evaluate other options if it silts in. Fletcher said it is not necessary to dredge for rowing at this time, but he recommended commissioning a feasibility study to give decision-makers more information.

Liz Palmer, another ACSA Director, said that today’s ratepayers should not have to finance preemptive dredging that would only be useful outside the time-line of the adopted water supply plan. She also questioned whether a feasibility study for recreational dredging would cost $275,000 because of a smaller scope of work. Palmer also said that dredging for restored water capacity would not be a priority in the ACSA or RWSA’s Capital Improvement Program for the foreseeable future given the need to upgrade other aging infrastructure. She said any money the RWSA might spend to dredge could be used to design and build the South Fork Pipeline sooner.

Mike Gaffney, chair of the RWSA, said if a feasibility study is done, the City and the County will make the final decision. He acknowledged that some water capacity gains would be made if dredging is done for recreational or aesthetic reasons, but said the RWSA’s ability to pay for that dredging would be conditional on how its capital costs could be reduced.

“I’m guessing at that point we can look at how much storage capacity that would add and then we may be able to reduce the height of the [new Ragged Mountain] dam,” Gaffney said. “And if we reduce the height of the dam, we know [there will be cost reductions]. And I would suggest at that point, [RWSA] could contribute the savings of the reduction in the dam towards dredging. The remainder of the cost of dredging needs to come from the community.”

Ridge Schuyler of the Nature Conservancy stressed the importance of telling the “four Boards” why dredging would be performed.

“The ‘why’ becomes the scope of work which then narrows the focus of the feasibility study which then, we hope, reduces its costs,” Schuyler said.

Dede Smith of the group Citizens for a Sustainable Water Plan agreed that the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir should be dredged now to make sure it can remain a “large body of water” into the future.

City Councilor Holly Edwards said she did not understand why the dam at South Fork could not be removed after the new Ragged Mountain Dam is built. She said she recommended a dredging feasibility study to take care of the river’s health and joked that she had attended way too meetings to not recommend one. 

Mike Gaffney said if the community wants to design a reservoir as an asset to the community with both recreational and water storage capacities, a dredging feasibility study should be conducted. He said what happens with the study will be up to the community at large, and not the RWSA.

Karen Joyner, representing the Ivy Creek Foundation, said she wished that the task force had spent more time discussing how to prevent sediment from getting into the reservoir. She was skeptical that a feasibility study would be money well-spent, and supported issuing a recommendation with a wide range of scenarios to preserve the reservoir.

“I don’t think it’s a capacity issue, it’s more of a community asset,” Joyner said. She said there are other maintenance issues that could be addressed without dredging.

Christopher Lee, representing the Chamber of Commerce, agreed that one reason to dredge now would be to mitigate the risk that the reservoir would be available in 60 years for water storage. However, he said he was not sure if that was a valuable risk and that if the community really needed it then, federal regulators would allow it. However, he questioned whether dredging was really a maintenance issue, given that other methods could be undertaken to stop the growth of hydrilla and to remove obstructions. He also asked whether the community should commit funds to a study now if actual dredging might not take place for many years.

“The timing of it is up to the elected officials to decide when and how much they would spend on such a review,” Lee said.

Schuyler said the feasibility study needed to be as specific as possible to give the four chairs more guidance. He said the community would need to determine if dredging the wetlands would be worth the benefits to the community given the high cost of mitigation.

“All those people who want to dredge for capacity, because they think it’s cheaper are going to find out that they are wrong by quite a substantial amount,” Schuyler said. He said the feasibility study should be limited to dredging for recreational purposes and investigating disposal sites should be a priority.

The task force members will now review the various recommendations and discuss them via e-mail before their final meeting on December 18, 2008.

“I’m very optimistic that we can actually come up with something,” Thomas said. “And we don’t have to have 100% agreement… and we may [not have] that because there are different ideas around this table.”

Sean Tubbs

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 1:00 - Task Force Sally Thomas introduces Dede Smith's presentation on the survey
• 6:00 - Ridge Schuyler of the Nature Conservancy gives his take on the survey responses
• 8:45 - Liz Palmer of the Albemarle County Service Authority says many people who filled out survey were misinformed
• 9:30 - John Martin of the ACSA and the Rivanna River Basin Commission says many respondents did so based on misinformation
• 11:00 - Schuyler continues discussing the survey
• 12:00 - Schuyler claims some people were coached on how to make their responses
• 12:30 - Smith says she is impressed with the knowledge expressed in the responses
• 13:30 - Thomas begins discussion of what the task force report will be
• 15:45 - Martin reads from the simplified charges that came out of the joint statement from Mayor Norris and Chairman Boyd on 10/28/08
• 16:50 - Thomas describes the process of how she will write up a report before the 12/18/08 meeting
• 20:15 - Dede Smith says that she feels the report should be based on the full list of charges, not the clarified charges
• 21:30 - Jones presents his proposal to dredge to increase water storage capacity
• 26:00 - Jones details the long-term benefits of dredging for water supply
• 28:00 - Supervisor Rooker recommends getting a legal opinion on wetland status of reservoir
• 29:00 - Palmer says that any legal opinion on dredging would require a reason
• 31:45 - Martin says he would be opposed to preemptive dredging
• 32:10 - Smith says that hiring Gahagan and Bryant would allow Rooker's question to be answered
• 32:30 - Jones describes what he sees as the trend towards stricter regulation of wetlands
• 36:20 - Martin characterizes Jones' plan as a "nibble around the edges" plan
• 37:50 - Palmer says future technologies will help meet growing water demands post-2055
• 39:50 - Smith says that if the South Fork Reservoir silts in much more, it will be lost forever as water storage
• 40:45 - Palmer says she supports dredging for recreational purposes, but not for additional capacity
• 41:30 - Rooker says that the task force should not make a recommendation based on the needs of ratepayers
• 43:30 - Palmer disagrees with Rooker's point because anticipated storage is met by the adopted water plan
• 45:00 - Rooker reads from the resolution to prove his point
• 45:30 - Wren Olivier says there is plenty of information to question the adopted plan
• 47:00 - Mike Gaffney of the RWSA addresses Jones' proposal
• 49:40 - Martin says he would not support an immediate feasibility study
• 53:00 - Palmer says the task force has not spent enough time discussing how sediment can be kept out of SFRR
• 54:30 - Martin jokes that RWSA could spend the $300,000 budgeted for dredging feasibility could be better spent on filling County land use positions
• 55:30 - Schuyler discusses the technical work of the Rivanna River Basin Commission (RRBC)
• 1:00:11 - Rooker says the recommendation could include study of forebays, and comments on land use protections
• 1:03:00 - Palmer talks about implementing water protection ordinances in the County
• 1:04:00 - Rooker says it is hard to determine where sediment is coming from, but says forebays would provide more certainty than dredging
• 1:07:00 - Thomas asks for consensus on question of dredging vs. preventing sedimentation
• 1:08:00 - Smith says she has assumed that preventing sedimentation will be a necessary component after a one-time dredge
• 1:09:00 - Jones comments that the task force has not discussed the workd of the RRBC
• 1:12:00 - Rooker suggests that the task force mention that it endorses the work being done by the RRBC
• 1:12:30 - Schuyler said that the task force should not recommend specific actions tied to dollar amounts for projects
• 1:15:00 - Rooker said it was clear that the four boards expect a feasibility study to be recommended
• 1:17:00 - Palmer says that Gahagan & Bryant's quote of $275,000 may be less if dredging is done for non-storage purposes
• 1:18:00 - Palmer says that dredging for capacity would not be a high priority in the existing Capital Improvement Program
• 1:20:00 - Jones says dredging might not be as expensive under his suggestion
• 1:22:00 - Gaffney says Jones' proposal can't be fully fleshed out until the 'why' question is answered
• 1:25:10 - Mark Fletcher of UVA responds to questions regarding UVA's willingness to participate in dredging
• 1:27:10 - Martin asks if the task force should recommend that RWSA work with UVA to establish a timeline for recreational dredging
• 1:29:00 - Rooker points out that estimates for dredging vary on how you handle sediment disposal
• 1:32:30 - Schuyler says task force needs to concentrate on answering the 'why' question
• 1:33:30 - Fletcher comments that the task force does not need to worry about the sediment removal issue
• 1:34:46 - Palmer says that if dredging costs $28 million, she would rather spend that money on the pipeline
• 1:35:30 - Jones says the capital budgets of the ACSA and the RWSA are not something the task force has discussed
• 1:36:30 - Thomas suggests a detailed recommendation outlining different dredging schedules depending on desired usage
• 1:38:00 - Jones discusses short-term reasons to dredge - to provide extra capacity during drought in the short term
• 1:42:50 - Palmer says that the RWSA has better drought management practices then it did in 2002
• 1:45:00 - Martin comments on Jones' short-term suggestions and says there is a flaw in his logic
• 1:48:20 - Smith says dredging now would add redundancy to the plan
• 1:49:20 - Rooker warns against permitting issues with dredging for capacity
• 1:52:20 - Martin says if feasibility study is done now, it may be stale
• 1:54:00 - Rooker states his support for obtaining a dredging feasibility study "to maintain capacity"
• 1:56:20 - Dede Smith calls the reservoir an invaluable resource and says it should be dredged to make sure it can survive
• 1:59:00 - Holly Edwards recommends a feasibility study
• 2:01:03 - Mark Fletcher recommends a feasibility study now to get new information
• 2:02:02 - Gaffney recommends a feasibility study
• 2:03:00 - Jones summarizes his proposal and says that is his opinion
• 2:05:15 - Karen Joyner of the Ivy Creek Foundation answers the why question by saying d
• 2:09:10 - Christopher Lee answers the why question
• 2:15:00 - John Martin lists his reasons for why a feasibility study might be conducted
• 2:18:00 - Wren Olivier lists her reasons for why a feasibility study for full restorative dredging should be conducted
• 2:19:00 - Palmer lists her reasons for why she does not think that a feasibility study should be conducted
• 2:21:30 - Schuyler describes how he thinks the feasibility study should be approached

Reservoir Task Force discusses recommendations and water supply plan

The South Fork Reservoir Stewardship Task Force is winding down its work, and the group spent its most recent meeting preparing to make its final recommendations. On November 18, 2008, Task Force Chair Sally Thomas took the group through a presentation outlining some of the information that the group had been presented over the course of the fall.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20081119-SFRR

Tom Jones, who represents landowners near the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, said he wanted to make sure that the task force’s report was clear and questioned whether the chairs of the four boards needed to see so many slides of information. Throughout the course of the meeting, Dede Smith of Citizens for a Sustainable Water Plan questioned some of the facts that Thomas displayed during her presentation.

Mark Fletcher, representing the University of Virginia, suggested that any report be written to have a long shelf-life so that future decision-makers can benefit from the information gathered by the task force. Ridge Schuyler of the Nature Conservancy said if task force members dispute a particular piece of information, the task force should try to verify the fact before throwing it out. 

Thomas reminded the task force that the presentation was meant as a discussion piece, and was not meant to be the final presentation.

One new piece of information related to the frequency the proposed pipeline from South Fork Rivanna Reservoir to Ragged Mountain Reservoir would be used to transfer water. Ridge Schuyler had asked an contractor with the firm Hydrologics to model possible scenarios under which the latter reservoir would need to be filled.

Karen Joyner, Tom Jones and Mark Fletcher

“On average, that pipeline would operate fewer than 20 days a year because the [reservoir] is there for use during times of drought,” Schuyler said. However, Schuyler said the pipeline would need to be operated more frequently following droughts in order to refill Ragged Mountain. He reminded the task force that the purpose of expanding Ragged Mountain is to build a bigger storage for use during droughts.

He said that when the task force visited the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir in August, they saw evidence of how the South Fork can be quickly drawn down because siltation has reduced its storage capacity. Under the adopted water supply plan, Ragged Mountain’s full storage capacity would be tapped during droughts.

Mark Fletcher asked Schuyler if that meant the South Fork reservoir would continue to play a role in the water supply plan. Schuyler said it absolutely would, and that the South Fork reservoir would be the primary water supply “90% of the time.”

“The South Fork is the bigger drainage area and so it makes sense most of the time to take advantage of all that water and use that to supply the City with water,” Schuyler said. “But when that flow subsides and you have to rely on storage, the storage facility is over at Ragged Mountain because it doesn’t have any sediment and it’s a big enough bowl to hold enough water to meet our needs.”

Wren Olivier, representing the Sierra Club, said if the South Fork reservoir were dredged, it would accomplish the same goal. Schuyler said it would not be big enough. Olivier said it would be if the community chose to stop growing. John Martin, representing the Rivanna River Basin Commission, said there was no guarantee the community could do that for 50 years. Schuyler pointed out the City has changed its zoning to allow for a denser population. Olivier said the County and City have financially supported an optimal population study being advanced by Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP). Martin asked Olivier if a smaller water supply should be built so the area can’t support further growth. Olivier said that was not she wanted to do.

Fletcher said he would have appreciated a better understanding of how the reservoirs are connected.
Martin said that one important feature of the new water supply plan is that the South Fork pipeline would allow water to be transferred in both directions in case more water was quickly needed.

Dede Smith asked how the full Ragged Mountain Dam would be initially filled. Schuyler said it would be filled via the pipeline from Sugar Hollow because the new South Fork pipeline would not be built for a number of years. Smith asked if all two and a half billion gallons could be filled via Sugar Hollow. Schuyler said the process would be much slower, but it could be done.  Liz Palmer of the Albemarle County Service Authority said that the existing pipeline is 81-years old and will need to be replaced at some point.

Dede Smith said if there was extra capacity at South Fork, then there would be no need to build a new pipeline. Palmer said that either way, the community was going to have to build one of three lines to transfer water from a supply source to a storage basin. That could come through rebuilding the Sugar Hollow pipeline, building the pipeline from South Fork to Ragged Mountain, or by building a pipeline to the James River. 

That prompted Olivier to say that the community never talks about water conservation. Palmer and Martin vehemently disagreed.

Dede Smith took issue with the amount of water storage capacity that would be restored if the community did a one-time dredge and then continued to dredge. She said that the task force should report that at least 1 billion gallons of capacity would be restored. Thomas’ presentation claimed 400,000.

Tom Jones said at one point that the conclusions of the adopted water supply plan were put “off-limits” and that it was not acceptable to present them if the task force had not reviewed them. Fletcher suggested just including the references as a bibliography and said the work of the task force was to make recommendations, not confirm every figure that has been published on the reservoir.

Karen Joyner of the Ivy Creek Foundation said the task force should have discussed the water supply plan so these issues could have been cleared up.  She said there has been a lot of misleading information about how the water supply plan would work and why it is needed.

“We should have a session on this to make sure we all understood it,” Joyner said. Fletcher said that the task force’s recommendation should include a disclaimer that says that the task force did not discuss the water supply.

Palmer said having the information about the reservoir would be useful in case the task force decides to recommend dredging. Schuyler said the task force was not charged with whether the South Fork should be dredged for water capacity because that decision has been made.

“But that doesn’t mean that expanding capacity for other reasons is not a by-product [if] we do dredging for other reasons,” Schuyler said. “We could certainly say back to them that [extra capacity] would be the effect of maintenance on the [reservoir].”  He said that any extra capacity would be in addition to the water supply plan’s goals, but doubted that the height of the Ragged Mountain Dam would be affected by more than a foot with this added supply taken into account.

Jones said that he was skeptical of Schuyler’s claim that the pipeline would only be used for an average of 20 days a year because he thought that Ragged Mountain would be the primary water source.
Jones said he could not imagine the South Fork being used as a reservoir if it only has a usable storage capacity of 250 million gallons. Schuyler said that the supply for Ragged Mountain would come through the natural flow of the river and all the new plan did was shift storage away from the supply.

Martin said that the task force’s recommendations should start from the assumption that dredging is not required to meet the water supply demands of 2055. “Our job is to say given that fact… do we want to dredge anyway, and why?”

After the task force finished the exercise, Tom Jones handed out a list of his recommendations. Though he said his proposal was a straw-man, he suggested the task force should recommend that the four boards request a dredging feasibility study that would provide a bathymetric study, a side scan, geotechnical samples, an evaluation of disposal sites as well as a cost estimate. His proposed objectives would include dredging for water supply capacity, to add redundant capacity to the system, and to preserve opportunities for rowing and fishing.

“[My proposal] does not take a position and I don’t think it’s our task force’s charge to take a position to say when the estimates come in for dredging that we ought to dredge at any price,” Jones said. “There clearly are uncertainties associated with the ultimate cost of the Ragged Mountain plan and I don’t make a statement that’s due to any incompetence or malfeasance or errors on anybody’s part. I think that just comes with the engineering

Time expired before the task force could take up Jones’ proposal. The group has two more meetings scheduled this year. It is expected that a full report will be made to the chairs of the four boards early next year.

Sean Tubbs

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 1:00 - Sally Thomas calls the meeting to order, discussion and adoption of minutes
• 3:00 - Discussion of next few meetings 4:45 - Tom Jones asks if final meeting will include a presentation to the four boards
• 10:00 - Thomas begins overview of task force's work to date by discussing the charge of the task force
• 13:45 - Dede Smith questions some of the information that had been presented
• 14:45 - Tom Jones has question about process of how the task force will present its information
• 19:00 - Mark Fletcher says the report should have a long shelf life
• 21:11 - Task force reviews the timeline of no maintenance
• 22:10 - Jones discusses possibility of a staging area for dredging becoming new public access
• 24:30 - Ridge Schuyler of the Nature Conservancy says task force should verify facts Smith claims weren't discussed rather than removing them
• 25:40 - Jones disputes how siltation in channels is depicted in the presentation
• 27:30 - Smith asks for aluminum sulfate to be included as one of the chemicals in the water because of its presence in water filtration
• 28:30 - Christoper Lee of the  Chamber of Commerce says that quality of drinking water won't be affected by siltation of SFRR
• 30:00 - Task force reviews public information slide
• 31:00 - Discussion of how water is pumped through the water treatment plants
• 32:00 - Ridge Schuyler discusses modeling for the pipeline
• 35:30 - Mark Fletcher asks follow-up questions about the water supply plan
• 37:30 - Fletcher asks if South Fork will always be part of the water supply plan
• 38:35 - Wren Olivier of the Sierra Club says dredging South Fork would accomplish the same goal
• 39:30 - Martin describes what happens during a severe drought 40:41 - Smith asks how many days it will take to initially fill RMR
• 41:15 - Martin reminds task force
  that as RMR is filled up, Moormans River needs increased stream flows
• 43:40 - Olivier makes the claim that the community never talks about water conservation
• 45:00 - Thomas returns discussion back to the presentation and addresses conservation
• 46:00 - Smith disputes how Thomas depicted the amount of water supply capacity at South Fork
• 48:00 - Schuyler disputes Smith's concern
• 49:30 - Smith again expresses concern that the task force is presenting information it has not seen
• 50:00 - Tom Jones says he is uncomfortable presenting information in such a way that it makes it look like the task force did the work
• 50:50 - Schuyler asks Smith and Jones to present evidence why the 'facts' being presented are not factual
• 52:50 - Karen Joyner said that the task force should have held a session on how the water supply plan works
• 54:30 - Fletcher asks for a disclaimer to be included with facts on the reservoir
• 56:00 - Schuyler said the task force was created to gather information for decision-makers
• 59:00 - Joyner suggests including factual background as an appendix rather than presenting it in a report
• 1:01:00 - Palmer said she's never heard anyone question the numbers of how much would need to be dredged, but the questions are on how to dispose the material
• 1:02:20 - Jones says he is uncomfortable with Schuyler's claim that the pipeline would only be used an average of 20 days
• 1:03:00 - Palmer said she was told it would take two to three months to fully fill the Ragged Mountain from Sugar Hollow when the pipeline is built
• 1:03:50 - Jones asks for clarification that the South Fork will be used as a reservoir
• 1:05:00 - Martin points out that SFRR is a "valuable water source" with abundant flow
• 1:06:00 - Schuyler explains how adopted water supply plan shifts water storage to Ragged Mountain, but continues to use SFRR for water supply
• 1:07:30 - Palmer describes how currently there is no way to get water from South Fork to the Observatory Water Treatment Plant
• 1:08:22 - Smith questions Schuyler's 20-day figure prompting detailed discussion of how reservoirs would be operated
• 1:10:00 - Palmer said that the South Fork pipeline would add flexibility to the RWSA's water operations
• 1:10:45 - Martin said recommendations of the task force should begin assumption dredging is not required to meet water demand in 2055
• 1:13:00 - Task force discussion switches to objectives of task force
• 1:13:40 - Dede Smith repeats request that the task force submit as fact that one-time dredging plus maintenance dredging would yield an additional 1 billion gallons of storage 
• 1:14:30 - Review of Chris Gibson's testimony to task force
• 1:15:15 - Thomas reports from a conversation she had with a dredging firm about how to get into Ivy Creek
• 1:16:30 - Smith says she talked to somebody who
  reported that the land at South Fork was clear cut to build the dam
• 1:19:00 - Discussion of ways to present information on keeping sediment out of the South Fork Reservoir
• 1:25:00 - Edwards explains why she is supportive of finding out what would happen if the South Fork dam were breached
• 1:28:45 - Jones comments that he thought turbidity was not an issue with water quality
• 1:30:30 - Task force agrees to fact-check claim that water quality was "unlikely" to create water quality problems
• 1:31:30 - Fletcher says the group did not ask South Fork Rivanna officials about hydrilla
• 1:35:22 - Task force discusses the airport question
• 1:40:20 - Jones makes case for maintenance dredging
• 1:41:35 - Discussion of prioritization of maintaining existing infrastructure
• 1:43:40 - Smith objects to calling the existing Sugar Hollow pipeline as "old" and "brittle"
• 1:44:15 - Schuyler objects to giving decision makers any priorities; Jones says he doesn't want to list others
• 1:47:45 - Lee asks for a statement to be removed from the presentation; concerned structural integrity of dam with sediment in SFRR - agreed to put an asteriasteriskx on it
• 1:53:30 - Tom Jones handed out a list of possible recommendations
• 2:05:00 - Edwards ask if there is any interest in taking a tour of the landfill to see what happens to slurry

MPO continues review of future transportation projects; Supports road widening and overpasses on US 29

Three members of the MPO Policy Board were present at the group’s meeting on November 24, 2008. The Board continued its discussion of the UNJAM 2035 regional transportation plan, endorsed the transportation component of the Places29 Master Plan, and discussed ways to boost public participation in the discussion of transportation projects. City Councilor Julian Taliaferro and County Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio) were not present.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20081124-MPO

This fall, the MPO has moved their meetings to the CitySpace meeting room in the Market Street Parking garage in order to boost public participation. The strategy appears to be working, as the November meeting featured more comments from the public than normal. 

Several citizens spoke to encourage the MPO Policy Board to include the proposed pedestrian bridge over the Rivanna River south of Free Bridge in the UNJAM 2035 plan as a transportation project, not a recreation project. The MPO Policy Board and its various subcommittees are currently evaluating what new projects to include on the plan’s Constrained Long Range Project list. The CLRP is an exercise in which the MPO must list projects that can actually be funded over the next few decades, based on current projections of funding. 

City resident Stephen Bach suggested prioritizing the Rivanna bridge above a project to build bike lanes and sidewalks on Old Ivy Road in Albemarle County. Bach said the footbridge over the Rivanna would serve more people. 

Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) disputed Bach’s contention, and reminded him that there are many University of Virginia students live in apartment complexes on Old Ivy Road. The project would allow them safer passage through the railroad underpass. 

City Councilor and MPO Vice Chair Satyendra Huja said he would not be opposed to including the bridge on the constrained plan, but he said he thought the project was still at the conceptual phase. The project was recommended for inclusion on the constrained plan by both the CHART and MPO Tech committees, but was moved to the ‘vision list’ by the MPO Policy Board at their October meeting. 
Since the MPO last discussed the CLRP in October, the description for the Old Ivy Road has been changed to specifically address the underpass issue. Currently, pedestrians and cyclists do not have a safe path under the railroad tracks. 

The group did not make final recommendations on the constrained project list because of the absence of Slutzky and Taliaferro.  The CLRP will come back before the MPO at its next meeting in December.

MPO ENDORSES US 29 NORTH CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION STUDY

The US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study is a list of potential transportation projects to improve mobility along US 29. It is also the transportation component of the Places29 Master Plan. The MPO held its first public hearing on the study in June 2008.

During the public hearing, Albemarle County resident Greg Quinn said that US 29 is “Main Street” for the community. He recommended reducing the speed limit to 40 miles per hour for the entire span from the Greene County line to the City of Charlottesville. Quinn also recommended the creation of a parkway along the Dickerson Road corridor as well as a bypass of US 29 that would use the same corridor as the railroad track from Barboursville to Charlottesville. In reference to the study’s call for a bus rapid transit system, Quinn said public transit is only used by 2% of the population, and that society has been developed around the automobile.

Morgan Butler of the Southern Environmental Law Center urged the MPO to endorse the plan in order to fix congestion on US 29. He said the grade-separated interchanges called for in the plan would improve traffic flow for both local and through traffic.  However, he said the Rio interchange needed to be a mid-term project rather than a long-term one because he said it is needed soon.

Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum expressed his concern that the study might be approved without accurate cost estimates, and passed out a sheet that estimated the cost of improvements at $292 million, not including the cost of acquiring the right-of-way.

City resident Gerard Diely, who serves on the MPO’s Community Mobility Committee, said that he did not think the study did enough to promote or encourage transit ridership. Diely read from a poem he wrote that described how light rail would improve the corridor.

The MPO voted to endorse the study, with an amendment to raise the priority for the widening of US 29 from Polo Grounds Road to Hollymead Town Center. The study had recommended it as a mid-term project rather than a near-term one. Rooker suggested the project could likely qualify for primary road funding.

Sean Tubbs

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 1:00 - Meeting called to order by City Councilor Satyendra Huja, MPO's Vice Chair
• 1:30 - Public comment from former City Council candidate Peter Kleeman
• 5:11 - Public comment from City resident Chad Freckman in support of Rivanna River footbridge
• 7:00 - Public comment from Jeff Werner of the Piedmont Environmental Council regarding drive times on US 29
• 11:00 - Public comment from Caroline Heins of the Alliance for Community Choice in Transportation in support of Rivanna River footbridge
• 12:30 - Public comment from City resident Stephen Bach in support of Rivanna River footbridge
• 14:50 - Public comment from Randy Salzman, the proponent of the Rivanna River footbridge
• 19:00 - Supervisor Dennis Rooker responds to public comments
• 27:30 - Public hearing on Draft Final US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study
• 27:45 - Public hearing comment from Albemarle County resident Greg Quinn
• 29:50 - Public hearing comment from Morgan Butler of the Southern Environmental Law Center
• 32:50 - Public hearing comment from Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum
• 34:30 - Public hearing comment and poem from Gerard Diely
• 38:30 - Public hearing comment from Randy Salzman
• 40:00 - Public hearing comment from Stephen Bach
• 40:15 - Second public comment from Greg Quinn
• 42:40 - Public hearing comment from City resident Alec Goss
• 43:40 - MPO Policy Board discuss the study
• 47:25 - Albemarle County Chief of Planning David Benish addresses the role widening of US 29 plays in the study
• 50:00 - MPO endorses study
• 50:30 - Adoption of minutes from October meeting
• 52:00 - Discussion of Regional Transit Toolkit Presentation
• 54:00 - Presentation by John Martin, CEO of Southeastern Institute of Research
• 1:03:12 - Discussion of UNJAM 2035's Fiscally Constrained Long Ranger Project List review begins
• 1:10:00 - MPO discusses possibility of adding new bike and pedestrian projects to the CLRP
• 1:19:00 - Ann Whitham walks through the suggested new projects to be added to the CLRP
• 1:24:20 - Benish discusses the County's position on the Ashwood Boulevard to Polo Grounds Road Connection
• 1:27:00 - Discussion of improvements to Interstate interchanges
• 1:37:00 - Discussion of upcoming CTB meeting
• 1:38:30 - Discussion of reduction of federal funds for MPOs
• 1:40:20 - Discussion of webinar that former MPO Director Harrison Rue is participating in
• 1:41:00 - Public comment from Jerry Diely in support of transit
• 1:41:45 - Public comment from Alec Goss in support of Fontaine-Sunset Connector
• 1:42:00 - Public comment from Greg Quinn in support of fixing I-64's Exit 118

Supervisors vote to include Yancey Mills proposal as part of Crozet Master Plan review

The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has overturned a decision by the Planning Commission to end consideration of a proposal to create a new industrial park in Crozet on largely rural land just outside the designated growth area. The 184-acre Yancey Mills Business Park will now be considered as part of the mandated review of the Crozet Master Plan scheduled to take place next year.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20081203-BOS-Yancey

On November 11, 2008, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 to stop further review of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment submitted by Will Yancey. The site is north of Interstate 64 and adjacent to Route 250 and Western Albemarle High School. Commissioner Eric Strucko (White Hall) said at the time that there was not a compelling reason to expand the growth area, claiming that the County's industrial land needs could be met with existing parcels in the development area.

At the end of the Board's meeting on December 3, 2008, Chairman Ken Boyd (Rivanna) asked his colleagues if they would support a request to ask the Planning Commission to reconsider the amendment. County staff recommended to the Board that the matter be folded into the Crozet Master Plan review.

Boyd said he was concerned that if the matter were left solely up to participants in the master plan review, Yancey's proposal to add more light industrial land would not have a chance to get an up or down vote before the Board.

“I consider this to be more of a County-wide issue and I don't feel real comfortable putting it in the hands of a relatively small group of people,” Boyd said..

As evidence that big changes could be made to a master plan after the work session process, Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio) reminded Boyd that when they approved the Pantops Master Plan, they overturned the Planning Commission's recommendation to allow a large tract of land to remain in the growth area. Clara Belle Wheeler's 77-acre property along Route 20 was removed from the growth area against her wishes.

Supervisor Ann Mallek (White Hall) said the proposal should go before the public as part of the review process, which is set to begin early next year. Supervisor Sally Thomas (White Hall) said that would be the most efficient way to review the proposal.

Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) supported the Planning Commission's decision to table the proposal because of the property's presence in the watershed and because it is not connected to the existing growth area. However, Rooker also supported including the proposal in the upcoming review.

“I'm not comfortable recommending an expansion of the growth area in the absence of the Crozet community having an opportunity to weigh in on that issue as a part of planning for that community,” Rooker said.

County Attorney Larry Davis reminded the Board there was no guarantee that the community would recommend the expansion of the growth area during the review process.

To satisfy Boyd's concern, Slutzky recommended that the Board be given a chance to weigh in on the subject sometime during the review process.  County Planning Director Wayne Cilimberg said he would ensure the Board had opportunities to check-in on the Crozet Master Plan review in general and to specifically assess the community’s recommendations on the Yancey Business Park.

Sean Tubbs

City Planners seek more involvement in budget proposals for Capital Improvement Program

The Charlottesville Planning Commission took their first look at the proposed budget for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2010-2014 during a work session on November 25, 2008. Leslie Beauregard, Director of Budget and Performance Management, presented the draft proposal to the Planning Commission. ”The word of the day is bare-bones,” said Beauregard. “We are truly looking at some economic downturns.”

In the absence of budget adjustments, City staff are anticipating an operational shortfall of $1.4 million as they start drafting the FY2010 budget, the capital budget is being examined for cost saving opportunities.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20081125-CIPpodcast

Proposed cuts made to FY2010 – 2014 CIP budget include:

• Budget for new sidewalks cut from $300,000 to $0 (then to $250,000 in FY2011)

• West Main Streetscape cut from $350,000 to $0 (then back in FY2011)

• Forest Hills and Rives Park renovations deferred

• Neighborhood CIP funds cut from $125,000 to $0

• Sidewalk repair reduced by a third

• City-wide traffic improvements reduced from $250,000 to $150,000

• Trails and Greenways Development reduced by a fourth

• Rejection of new funding for park land acquisition

The Commissioners paid close attention to a few of the budget items cut for next year. Other commissioners were also curious about some transportation budget proposals. Sidewalk repairs were reduced and new sidewalks were cut entirely for 2010. Neighborhood Development Services Director Jim Tolbert said the sidewalk budget is being cut because the funds currently granted to sidewalks are not being used, leaving a balance of almost $800,000 in the account. Commissioner Mike Farruggio wondered why sidewalk money was not being spent, given that Charlottesville residents have been “clamoring for” sidewalks. The funds to begin engineering and design studies for the City’s portion of the Meadowcreek Parkway have remained intact.

Commissioner Bill Emory speaks about the budget proposals

Commissioner Bill Emory, who was the only commissioner to sit on the budget development committee, said he was particularly chagrined to see $1,000,000 requested for new parkland acquisitions cut. He praised the budget office for their careful methodology in deciding which projects to admit into the budget, but felt that the same rigorous evaluation criteria was not applied by staff to the decision of what to cut. Other commissioners agreed that some of the decisions seemed arbitrary. Commissioner Emory also suggested that City consider issuing more bonds during a time of economic stress. The City is legally allowed to incur $482 million in debt but currently has a debt load of only $67 million. He cited Warren Buffett’s advice to move forward in a time when costs are lowered: “When other people get fearful, it’s time for us to get greedy.”

However, the bulk of the work session revolved around the role of the commission in the CIP process in general, more so than the content of the current budget proposal. Last year the Planning Commission had sent a memo to City Council along with the CIP proposals to add some suggestions of their own, including specifically the acquisition of parkland. Commissioner Cheri Lewis said it was unclear how much weight these recommendations were given toward the writing of the final budget.

Commission Chairman Jason Pearson asked, “officially, who is presenting the CIP to Council?” State code specifies that the Planning Commission is the body responsible for presenting the CIP proposals to Council with help from the City staff. However, for the past several years, the Planning Commission has listened to the budget proposal from the City Manager and simply added some recommendations. Several Commissioners expressed an interest in adopting a more assertive role, rather than merely “rubber stamping” the document.

While in general agreement with this shift, Commissioners Michael Osteen and Genevieve Keller felt the time to make major changes to this year’s budget proposal had already passed. The budget office had put “hundreds of hours” into these decisions, and altering them in the last minute would be counter-productive. Beauregard was not even sure if the Planning Commission could feasibly change the CIP proposals at this point anyway. Commissioner Pearson suggested a way forward could be to express to Council their concerns that their input is not taken seriously and their desire to be more actively engaged in the future.

This discussion will be picked back up again during a public hearing scheduled for December 9, 2008.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST

1:20 - Leslie Beauregard explains the tight budget
4:50 - Ryan Davidson presents basics on CIP
12:20 - Commissioner Dan Rosensweig asks about role of Planning Commission
14:40 - Chairman Pearson gives opinion of Commissions role
16:00 - Discussion over whether last year's recommendations were taken seriously
18:20 - Commissioner Keller asks where comprehensive plan fits in
20:00 - Discussion on ranking criteria for budget inclusion
27:10 - The details of budget expenditures
36:00 - Commissioner Emory concerned that cuts were not well-conceived
71:00 - Pearson reiterates the Planning Commission submits the CIP to Council
43:00 - Explanations for specific cuts
54:00 - Rosensweig asks about not fund McIntyre Road extended (no answer yet)
57:35 - Revisiting last year's recommendations
1:00:00 - More on Planning Commission role
1:07:30 - Emory questions fiscally conservative City Manager
1:10:20 - Commissioners Osteen and Keller say that involvement should have happened earlier
1:21:10 - Bearegard addresses possibilities of change at this point
1:22:30 - Commission Farruggio pushes for more Planning Commission involvement
1:24:50 - Deciding how to approach Council with recommendations
1:36:50 - Preparation for public meeting in December

Daniel Nairn

City Council backs off on demands for water supply studies; Councilors say they were responding to citizen concerns about costs

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.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: 20081125-Four-Boards

Of the six studies requested by City Council, only three are expected to be conducted in a manner that may impact the current water supply plan, one of those studies requested was significantly scaled back and the other two studies were already in the works.

• The RWSA will not appoint a team of consultants to review the entire water supply plan as originally requested by City Council.
• The RWSA will not retain a “Board of Consultants” to review 50-year water demand calculations.
• The City Public Works Department and the ACSA will conduct their own conservation studies to identify opportunities for water conservation. The City had asked for the RWSA to hire an outside expert to study the issue.
• A panel of dam experts will be convened to review Gannett Fleming’s design for the Ragged Mountain Dam.  This panel was previously recommended by the RWSA in September 2008.
• RWSA staff will hire a consulting engineer at a cost of up to $25,000 to review the concept of building a new 9-10 mile pipeline to connect the South Fork Rivanna and Ragged Mountain reservoirs.  The City had asked for a much more extensive study which would include the development and pricing of another design alternative and “field reconnaissance” of both routes.
• Assuming the South Fork Rivanna Stewardship Task Force recommends a dredging feasibility study, the RWSA will conduct the dredging study for the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.  The RWSA has already set aside funds for this study and the “four chairs” charged the Task Force with looking at dredging in June 2008.  The reservoir has had no maintenance dredging since it was built in 1966.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION SETS TONE FOR MEETING

Twenty-two officials gathered in front of about sixty observers in the CitySpace meeting room overlooking the Downtown Mall.  Mike Gaffney, Chair of the RWSA, began the meeting by reminding those present that the adopted community water supply plan has cleared the regulatory hurdles to proceed with design and construction of both the expanded Ragged Mountain Reservoir as well as the South Fork Rivanna Pipeline. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) granted a permit in February 2008, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers followed suit in June.

However, borings drilled at the site of the new dam revealed that the bedrock on which the foundation would be laid was fractured. Engineers with the firm Gannett Fleming concluded that would mean the foundation would have to be as much as 60 feet below the surface, whereas their preliminary design had assumed it would only need to be an average of 20 feet down. The additional work increased the cost estimate from an initial $37 million to a high end estimate of almost $99 million (in 2010 dollars with contingency funds). Gaffney said this was not an unusual situation.

“Other communities have faced similar challenges during the transition from conceptual design to more detailed design of a project this complex,” Gaffney said. He called City Council’s resolution noble, but said federal and state regulators have already examined other alternatives to the water supply plan. Gaffney said the goal of the meeting was to build on the success of the adopted plan, and warned against taking steps that could undermine the plan.

Before Council passed its resolution, the RWSA Board had already discussed a recommendation by RWSA Executive Director Tom Frederick to convene a panel of experts to discuss Gannett Fleming’s findings, as well as to consider a second opinion by the firm Schnabel Engineering. Schnabel’s interpretation of the data differs from Gannett Flemings and their engineers attached a cost estimate of $57 million for the Ragged Mountain Dam. According to Gaffney, RWSA staff had recommended the panel “to clarify  design criteria that would optimize the costs.”

Gaffney said that RWSA staff have talked with top officials at national engineering firms, and estimate the full cost of Council’s requested studies to be in the range of $750,000 to $1 million. Gaffney said the objective of the four board’s meeting was to simplify the scope of work requested by Council to reduce costs while satisfying Council’s objectives.

COUNCIL’S CONCERN STEMS FROM CITIZEN PRESSURE

Mayor Norris explains Council's concerns to the other members of the four boards

Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris said the object of Council’s resolution was not to delay the project, but to satisfy the concerns of City residents who feel the cost of the adopted water supply is too expensive. He said that because the RWSA has stopped design work on the new Ragged Mountain Dam, the community had an opportunity to revisit the plan to see if it is the most environmentally friendly and economically responsible alternative.

 “We need to reassure our taxpayers and ratepayers that [the South Fork] pipeline is at least sound in concept and preferential to the alternatives,” Norris said. He disputed Gaffney’s assertion that the studies requested by Council would cost up to $1 million, and later added that Council was not seeking a full engineering analysis. He said that the conservation study should cost no more than $50,000.

FOUR BOARDS TAKE UP COUNCIL’S CONCERNS

To start the discussion, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Chairman Ken Boyd (Rivanna) said he thought most of the work Council had requested has been done before during the permitting process, with the exception of the dam review panel.

Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) asked Frederick if the scope of work for the panel of experts reviewing the dam could be expanded to include other studies requested by City Council so that exact costs of this research could be determined . Frederick said that if the studies were “properly constructed,” the RWSA could conduct them on a parallel track. Frederick said whether the panel was expanded would be up to the four boards, but that it would increase costs. Frederick said if limited to the dam, the panel of experts would likely cost between $150,000 and $300,000 to convene.

Councilor David Brown said he thought there was a natural connection between the review of the pipeline and the dam, and asked if Frederick thought the panel of dam experts could “look over the shoulder” of the conceptual design of the pipeline produced by Gannett Fleming. Frederick said there are experts who could address both issues, but added he did not want to limit the panel to people knowledgeable in both dam and pipeline construction.

Liz Palmer, a member of the ACSA Board of Directors (Samuel Miller), said extending the expert panel to the South Fork pipeline would be fruitless, given that there is no preliminary engineering complete on that concept.  Norris acknowledged that concern, but said many City residents have “raised legitimate questions” about the feasibility of the pipeline. ACSA Chair Don Wagner (Rio) pressed Norris to name a specific question. Councilor David Brown answered by saying that many neighborhood associations have approached the Council with their concerns over the rising cost of the dam, but he said their information may have been based on incomplete news reports.

“A lot of the residents of Charlottesville are very concerned about whether we’ve gotten accurate estimates on the dam, and by extension, whether the estimates for the pipeline likewise are reasonable,” Brown said. Brown wanted to know if the rising cost of the dam is solely due to the fractured bedrock, or if other reasons contributed as well.

Frederick said in today’s economic climate, there are many variables that affect cost estimates for capital projects that will go to construction in the near-term future.  He said the major factor in the Gannett Fleming estimate increase was due to Gannett Fleming’s decision to build a deeper foundation, but said rising fuel costs played a role as well.

Chairman Boyd said that dredging by itself would not solve the projected 50-year water demand, which requires a safe-yield of 18.7 million gallons a day by the year 2055. Frederick said two firms, Gannett Fleming and Hydrologics, have come up with similar numbers.

Frederick said when the community meetings were held to develop the water supply plan, it was decided that the community wanted a pipeline that would not carry sediment-laden water from the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir to the Ragged Mountain Reservoir. If the community now chooses to have a cheaper water supply system, said Frederick, the sediment-removal system that is now part of the conceptual plan could be eliminated resulting in a lower price tag.

ACSA Board Member John Martin (White Hall) asked Wagner’s question a second time.

“Does the City have a specific factual basis for the necessity for spending this additional money for these additional studies?”

Martin asked if local government should be “paralyzed” when some element of the community is concerned.  “Mr. Norris seemed to indicate that part of the reasoning of the City Council was to reassure the public that we have the best plan here. It doesn’t matter what plan we have. There are going to be elements of the public that disagree with what government is doing.”

Councilor Julian Taliaferro responded that he is concerned because of the increasing cost of the dam, and that the neighborhood associations have valid concerns. Supervisor Rooker said he could appreciate that concern, and said he supported getting another look at the cost estimates in case the price tag for the entire project doubles.

“In my view, we really don’t have much of a plan if all we do is expand Ragged Mountain Reservoir without addressing the pipeline issue,” Rooker said. “I’m not much in favor of waiting 10 years to go forward with the pipeline to the point where we find out what it costs and to make certain that it’s actually feasible.” Boyd said he was not sure how a realistic cost estimate could be made for a project that won’t begin for another decade.

Norris said that the adopted water supply plan has suffered from a lack of accuracy and specificity when it comes to costs.

“It dismayed us to see the inflation on the dam… With the pipeline itself, there’s concern about the fact that at least in some part it is premised on the construction of the Western Bypass [of US 29]…. The conservation goals set forth in this plan a lot of us feel are woefully inadequate. We’re talking about 5% reduction per capita in conservation and I believe that other communities have shown you can go much higher than 5%.”

Norris said he also objects to the adopted plan’s failure to acknowledge any water supply gains that might come through dredging the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir for non-water supply reasons.

“Why would we not choose to incorporate those into the plan and save money and save some acreage and thousands of trees at the Ragged Mountain Reservoir?” Norris asked. However, the Mayor said it was his opinion that the pipeline is getting a negative public reaction because apples-to-apples comparisons between the different pipeline options, including improvements to the existing 13 mile Sugar Hollow pipeline, have not been made. He said Council’s request is to make sure that comparison is done for the public’s benefit.

Councilor Brown asked Frederick if there were any truth to the rumor that the pipeline could not be built unless the western bypass is built. Frederick said the pipeline could be built without using the right of way for the bypass. He said the RWSA assumed it would be built on the fringe of the urban area, and that the bypass route would make sense as a candidate if the Virginia Department of Transportation eventually builds a road along that corridor.

CONSERVATION SUGGESTED AS A WAY TO LOWER DEMAND PROJECTIONS

Mike Gaffney suggested that because the RWSA only has two wholesale customers, a study of how conservation can reduce demand should be conducted by the City of Charlottesville and the ACSA. The results of those studies would then be communicated back to the RWSA to see if it would affect the demand portion of the permits granted by the DEQ and the Corps of Engineers. Norris said he didn’t mind who did the conservation study, as long as the community water supply plan is updated to reflect any new figures that emerge.

Supervisor Rooker wanted more information on how a change of the demand analysis would affect the existing permits. He said that when the plan was being crafted, he also challenged the population estimates that went into the demand analysis.

“But those arguments did not prevail when we all went through this and ultimately the plan was approved,” Rooker said. He questioned whether spending additional time and resources on a new analysis would actually produce a lower demand forecast.

Frederick said that is the community wanted to hire a consultant to identify ways to dramatically increase conservation, it could be done without affecting the existing process. However, he warned that the Council and Board should pursue with “a great deal of caution” when reviewing the demand assumptions that went into the permitting process.

“Regulatory agencies have to follow the rule-book of federal law and it may come into question whether with a smaller demand if the right project has been selected,” Frederick said. “There is a possibility they would require you to start all over again and go back through the alternatives process.”

Martin said he acknowledges that 5% is a conservative figure and that the community could likely do better. However he said for the purposes of water supply planning, it is better to go with the low figure.
“If you overestimate the amount of water conversation you can achieve, then you’re shorting yourself,” Martin said. “But if you are conservative and you conserve like you hope you could, then you’re going to have extra water supply. It would be irresponsible to plan water supply capacity on assumptions that the public will theoretically cooperate in the future and actually conserve.”

Liz Palmer said the “cornerstone of any conservation plan” would be to repair old infrastructure that is prone to leaks. She said hiring an outside consultant to study conservation would be a waste of money until the pipes are fixed.

“We’re doing G.I.S. mapping, we’re buying monitoring equipment, we’re in the process of getting a lot of programs together to look into this,” Palmer said. She also reminded the Council that County residents will proportionally be paying more for the new components called for in the adopted water supply plan because that is where the growth will be. ACSA rates have risen by a higher percentage than City rates. Councilor Brown said that he felt that the City and County have recently weakened their power to conserve during droughts by altering the restrictions to allow for more uses during drought warnings.

Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio) asked Norris if he would consent to the water plan moving forward without conducting a demand analysis. Norris said that he would prefer to adjust the water supply plan after a new demand analysis is conducted. Brown said he would like a new analysis to be conducted “promptly.”

The RWSA will officially ask the City and the ACSA to conduct a conservation study that will check to see if the two agencies are employing best practices. Norris said that Council was not prepared to make a decision until the conservation studies are conducted. Huja said he wanted to see the results of the conservation study to find out how much could be saved. Brown said he was leery of holding up the plan.

“I’m interested in  learning how we can conserve more water, [but] I don’t see at this point a role for it in creating a new plan, a different plan than we have now,” said Brown.

County Executive Bob Tucker reminded the members of the four boards that the Department of Conservation and Recreation requires that the safety issues associated with the existing dams at Ragged Mountain be addressed by June 30, 2011. He said the project is already behind.

“Everything we do is delaying this deadline that we’re all facing right now,” Tucker said. Huja said Council was not trying to delay, and that the study of the pipeline could be concurrent.

“What we need is somebody that can look at all the information that’s in-hand now and give an objective analysis and reassure us that this is the best path forward,” Norris said. Boyd said he did not have a problem with that, but thought a study now might be too premature.

IS THE PIPELINE CONCEPT NOT VIABLE, OR JUST TOO EXPENSIVE?

Brown repeated that Council’s resolution came as a result of neighborhood associations and other groups who have pressured Council to reconsider the water supply plan. Brown is the only sitting City Councilor who was involved in approving the plan in 2006.  “I think we have a responsibility to make sure that our residents have confidence in Gannett Fleming and confidence in the process that’s moving forward… We do need to have some experts come in, look over the shoulder of the work that’s been done involving the pipeline,” Brown said. The object of such a study would be to make sure that the cost estimate for the South Fork pipeline isn’t drastically under-estimated.

Liz Palmer asked if Council’s concern was over the viability of the pipeline, or its expense. Brown said he thinks the pipeline is viable, and he supports it. Councilor Satyendra Huja said he was concerned about the expense and needed someone else to look at it before he could make a decision. Palmer asked Huja if it would be helpful if someone from the RWSA met with Council to explain the 32 alternatives that were explored when the plan was built. Huja said that would not help him very much. Taliaferro said he was concerned about the cost as well. Palmer said that under any scenario, at least one pipeline is going to have to be built in order to fill Ragged Mountain.

Rooker said he also wanted to have a better cost estimate for the pipeline, but that the City Council resolution appeared to request an apples to apples comparison between the South Fork and Sugar Hollow pipelines. He questioned whether that was a useful goal given that a new pipeline from Sugar Hollow to Ragged Mountain would not satisfy many of the other objectives of the adopted plan.
Norris said the value in getting a study was not to provide Council with information on which to make a decision on how to proceed, but rather to reassure the public that the plan is sound. He said he personally felt the South Fork Pipeline is preferable.

“I’m convinced that [the South Fork Rivanna Pipeline] makes more sense than the Sugar Hollow pipeline,” Norris said. “But there’s a lot of distrust among the public that we’re hearing regularly… I happen to think that the basic parameters of the plan are sound, but they’re not convinced.”

Rooker asked Frederick to comment on whether it would be viable to replace the over eighty-year old Sugar Hollow pipeline to continue filling Ragged Mountain that way.  Frederick said that a new 18” pipeline from Sugar Hollow could only pump 4 MGD a day to Ragged Mountain, which might not be enough to fuel the Observatory water treatment plant to meet demand in 2055. He also said the permits granted for the adopted plan require specific stream flows to be restored to the Moormans and South Fork Rivanna rivers. He said the permits would have to be modified.

Gaffney said it would make more sense to have a separate engineering firm conduct the pipeline study, separate from the dam expert panel. Gary Fern, Executive Director of the ACSA, suggested having an engineer come in to review the methodologies that went into the development of the concept, but to limit the scope of the review in order to keep the study costs low. Frederick said that could be done relatively cheaply and before the panel of dam experts concludes their work.  However, he said an apples to apples comparison would be more involved because it would open up questions of whether the new plan would allow the RWSA to meet its safe yield requirements. Norris said that what the public needs is to be told what the advantages and disadvantages are between the two pipeline alternatives. Palmer suggested that information is already available. Norris questioned whether the information was accurate.

In the end, the four boards agreed to direct the RWSA to spend up to $25,000 to hire an engineering firm to review the general South Fork Pipeline concept. The firm’s task will be to provide an opinion on whether cost estimate for the pipeline is within a “reasonable range” according to Dennis Rooker. The task force will report during a meeting of the chairs of the four boards, after which a decision will be made whether or not to proceed with a feasibility study.

Sean Tubbs

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