County’s water director leaving for engineering firm

By Sean Tubbs
Friday, December 4, 2009
Charlottesville Tomorrow

Gary Fern will leave his position as executive director of the Albemarle County Service Authority to take a position with an engineering firm that has ties to the organization. Fern will go to work for Whitman, Requardt & Associates  (WR&A) in their Richmond office. 

“I will be working on engineering design of water and wastewater projects for municipal clients,” Fern said in an e-mail to Charlottesville Tomorrow. His last day at the Authority will be on February 26, 2010.

Fern will be working on projects similar to the proposed North Fork Regional Pump Station, which was designed by WR&A. The $10.7 million project will replace the aging Camelot Wastewater Treatment Plant. WR&A is involved in other ACSA projects as well, including several water main replacements, extensions and various water systems improvement projects.

The ACSA Board of Directors held an executive session to discuss the naming of an interim executive director. They also discussed the details of a search committee that will be formed to find a permanent replacement for Fern. The Board opted not to hire a headhunting firm, but to instead conduct the search in-house with human resources manager Katrina Thraves.

While discussing the advertisement for the position, ACSA Board member John Martin (White Hall) said it was important for the replacement to know that the authority will be expanding dramatically over the next ten years as Albemarle County grows. Liz Palmer (Samuel Miller) said the position description should make clear that the executive director sits on the Board of Directors for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. The ACSA, along with the city of Charlottesville, is one of the RWSA’s two customers.

Chairman Don Wagner expressed the concern that the controversy over the adopted community water supply plan “would not be a plus for us.”

“I am positive that people in the water and sewer business in the state of Virginia know what’s been going on with Rivanna for the past two years,” Wagner said. “It’s got to be a huge minus.”

County water official to step down

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Thursday, December 3, 2009

Gary Fern appearing before the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors

Gary Fern, the executive director of the Albemarle County Service Authority since March 2006, will publicly announce his resignation today.

A special meeting of the ACSA Board of Directors will be held this morning to discuss establishing a search committee to find his replacement.

Fern will continue as the ACSA’s director through the end of February.

The search for a replacement will be directed by Katrina Thraves, the Authority’s human resources manager. Thraves was also in charge of the committee that selected Fern to replace Bill Brent, who had held the position since February 1980.

Fern’s resignation is not the only change that will come to the ACSA. The terms of three members of the Board of Directors expire at the end of this year. Each newly elected Supervisor will choose if those members will be reappointed or replaced. Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) said in an interview with Charlottesville Tomorrow that he will retain Richard Carter in the position. Carter was appointed to fill the expired term of Robert Humphris who retired earlier this year.

Supervisor-elect Duane Snow (Samuel Miller) and Supervisor-elect Rodney Thomas (Rio) have instructed county clerks to publicly advertise the position. Liz Palmer said she will apply but has not yet spoken with Snow. Snow said he has not yet seen any applications, but would consider reappointing Palmer.  Thomas said he is considering three candidates for the position, one of whom is Don Wagner, the current Chairman.

Wagner worked with both Fern and Brent, and said Fern brought an engineer’s knowledge to the position. He added that Fern’s expertise has come in useful at a time when the ACSA is planning several capital projects.

“Gary is an experienced engineer who had run a business, so he brought both backgrounds to the position,” Wagner said. “If we can do as good a job hiring someone this time as we did last time, we’ve done well.”

RWSA Board considers dam replacement, I-64 study

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Tuesday, December 1, 2009

At their meeting on November 24, 2009, the Board of Directors for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority adopted a schedule for replacing the dams at the Ragged Mountain Reservoir, heard details about the potentially lower costs of replacing a major sewer line, and received reports on the organization’s financial health and the area’s water quality.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20091124-RWSA

Bids lower than expected for Meadow Creek sewer replacement

The lowest bid for the Meadow Creek sewer interceptor replacement is dramatically lower than what the RWSA had estimated for construction, according to RWSA executive director Tom Frederick.

Metra Industries of Little Falls, New Jersey, submitted a bid for two sections of the project totaling $10.8 million. Frederick said that is half of what had been expected by Greeley and Hansen, the engineering firm that has designed the plans for the replacement.

However, Frederick recommended the RWSA Board not take action on awarding a contract until City Council decides whether to grant easements to the RWSA for property it owns along the right of way, notably in Greenbrier Park. Action on the easements could come at Council’s next meeting on Monday.

Drainage area for expanded I-64 embankment to be studied

The Board also authorized the RWSA to enter into a $317,000 contract with Volkert Incorporated to conduct a study of the Interstate 64 embankment upon which would be partially inundated by an expanded Ragged Mountain Reservoir as part of the fifty-year community water supply plan. The money will come from the RWSA’s capital improvement budget. Engineers with Volkert will also study how the reservoir can be protected from hazardous materials that might spill from the highway, protection that does not exist on roads crossing the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.

Stream Watch report

Click for larger image (Source: Stream Watch)

John Murphy, executive director of Stream Watch, presented a report on the state of the water ways that make up the area’s water shed. The RWSA contributes $10,000 a year to the group’s efforts to monitor the health of area streams. Data for this report was collected between the summer of 2006 and this past spring. Over two-thirds of the monitored streams fail Virginia’s standards for aquatic life. Murphy said there has been virtually no change in the six and a half years Stream Watch has been in operation.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 - Meeting is called to order by City Manager Gary O'Connell
• 02:00 - Executive Director's report from RWSA Executive Director Tom Frederick
• 06:30 - Frederick addresses several items on the consent agenda
• 09:00 - Frederick explains why the DCR schedule is necessary
• 10:30 - Frederick addresses I-64 embankment study
• 12:30 - City Councilor Holly Edwards makes a comment about tension during public comment period
• 14:45 - Public comment from Betty Mooney of Citizens for a Sustainable Water Plan
• 20:00 - Public comment from Dede Smith of Citizens for a Sustainable Water Plan
• 24:00 - Public comment from Robert Gilges in support of the water supply plan
• 27:30 - Public comments from Carey Powers of the Stony Point area who asks if dredging of South Fork Rivanna Reservoir is still a possibility
• 30:45 - Councilor Edwards says Council will wait until January to consider Schnabel's work on lowering dam
• 31:30 - Frederick responds to Smith's comment on debt services
• 30:45 - Albemarle County Supervisor Sally Thomas asks Frederick to confirm urban water supply will continue to come from three reservoirs
• 34:30 - RWSA takes up consent agenda
• 35:50 - Thomas asks question about Sewer Interceptor Study
• 37:00 - ACSA Director Gary Fern asks about meeting between Schnabel officials and community stakeholders
• 38:00 - Chris Webster of Schnabel Engineering describes November 5 meeting of stakeholders
• 39:45 - Fern asks for info about the alignment for a new pipeline along US 29
• 41:00 - Thomas asks what effluents are released from Camelot Wastewater Treatment Plant
• 43:10 - Fern asks question about schedule to DCR
• 45:00 - Fern asks question I-64 embankment study
• 46:20 - Edwards asks to delay vote on DCR compliance until January, prompting discussion
• 1:01:30 - Board adopts consent agenda
• 1:02:15 - Auditor Robert Hough briefs RWSA Board on RWSA financial audit for FY2009
• 1:05:50 - Report from John Murphy of Stream Watch on the state of the watershed
• 1:14:00 - Chris Webster of Schnabel Engineering details his firm's proposal for evaluating existing Lower Ragged Mountain Dam
• 1:16:45 - Thomas asks Webster to discuss cost differences between replacing and repairing the dam
• 1:24:30 - Frederick asks for Board's comment for hiring Greeley and Hansen for further work on sanitary sewer interceptor study
• 1:26:20 - Edwards commends RWSA staff for their work during torrential rain in mid-November
• 1:27:20 - End of recording - closed session called for property matters

RWSA adopts schedule for dam replacement to satisfy state regulators

By Sean Tubbs & Brian Wheeler
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Wednesday, November 25, 2009

The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) will receive permission from state regulators to allow for the two dams at the Ragged Mountain Reservoir to continue operating through the end of May 2010. On Tuesday, the RWSA Board of Directors adopted a schedule for replacement of the dams, even though a final decision on their future will not be made until next spring at the earliest.

The two dams have been operating under conditional permits from the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (DCR) dam safety division due to their age and concerns about their structural viability in the event of a major flood. The upper dam was built around 1885 and the lower dam was built around 1908.

Under the community water supply plan adopted by Albemarle and Charlottesville in June 2006, the dams are to be replaced by one taller dam downstream that would raise the water pool by 45 feet. The new dam is only one component of the 50-year water supply plan.

In September 2008, the new Ragged Mountain Dam’s preliminary cost estimates increased from an initial $37 million to a range between $56.5 million and $99 million (in 2010 dollars).   While the new estimates were not accepted by the RWSA, water officials did seek the opinion of an independent panel of dam experts and afterwards decided to hire a new engineering firm to design the dam.

In response to the escalating cost projections, Mayor Dave Norris and other city councilors have raised the possibility of repairing the lower dam to address DCR’s safety concerns, or alternatively to build on top of the 1908 dam by adding just 13 feet.

In order to receive the new conditional permit, the RWSA was required to submit a new timeline for replacement or repair of the dams. RWSA officials opted to use a schedule which indicates preliminary design of the new dam will be ready by August 2010, with construction to be completed by October 2013.

City Councilor Holly Edwards said she understands the reason for the new schedule, but has reservations about how the schedule might be interpreted by opponents of the water supply plan.

“There is concern the schedule implies consent for the new dam when there’s still a lot of information out there that we have not yet obtained,” Edwards said.

At first, Edwards asked for consideration of the new schedule to be deferred until January so Council could have time to discuss the matter. RWSA Executive Director Tom Frederick pointed out that the current operating certificate for the dam expires at the end of November.

Despite her concerns, Edwards voted to approve the new schedule after said the Board’s approval was not in any way to be seen as an endorsement of the community water supply plan.

Also at Tuesday’s meeting, the RWSA Board deferred consideration of a proposal to have the same firm that is designing the new dam conduct a study on repairing or expanding the Lower Ragged Mountain Dam.

Under the terms of the proposal, Schnabel Engineering would be paid a fee of up to $188,000 to conduct what project manager Chris Webster called a ‘condition assessment’ of the structure.

Betty Mooney with the group Citizens for a Sustainable Water Plan said she thought Schnabel should not be given a contract to study the existing dam because of their existing relationship with RWSA.

“I do see this as a conflict of interest,” Mooney said. “They’re designing the new dam and I don’t feel the public can trust information coming from them.”  Mooney said she was also opposed to raising the dam by any amount and said the community will not need the amount of water that the RWSA has claimed will be necessary by 2055.

Webster said his firm had an obligation to remain unbiased.

“As a professional engineering firm, it’s our duty to provide what we think is the best recommendation for the client,” Webster said. He added he is not prepared to provide even a preliminary cost estimate for adding on to the dam because his engineers do not yet have enough data.

“Due to all of the background information that we currently have, the dam is in somewhat poor condition and we feel a fairly rigorous study would be necessary to determine whether or not it could be used beyond its current life,” Webster said.

Dan Johnson, vice president of GEI Consultants in Boulder, was a member of the expert panel assembled by RWSA earlier this year to review engineering data and a 1913 safety report for the lower dam.  He confirmed in an August interview that the independent panel did express what Frederick has described as “significant concerns” about any construction taking place on the 1908 dam.

“Work could be done, but you would have to lower the reservoir [water level],” said Johnson. “There was discussion about raising the existing dam… but there is no great cost benefit and you end up with an old dam integrated with a new dam. With an entirely new dam downstream, you can keep operating the reservoir, and that is very valuable.”

A vote on whether to accept Schnabel’s proposal was deferred until the RWSA Board’s meeting in January. City Manager Gary O’Connell said Council will take up the proposal and other water supply issues at its first meeting in January.
 

County water authorities may play bigger role with dredging study

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Monday, November 9, 2009

The Albemarle County Service Authority’s (ACSA) Board of Directors is considering whether to pay for certain tasks that were eliminated from a dredging feasibility of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Earlier this year, the authority refused to contribute to a study because the board said dredging the reservoir to its original capacity would not alone be enough to meet the community’s water needs in 2055.

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20091105-ACSA-Dredging

Last month, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) Board of Directors awarded a contract to HDR Engineering  to perform the study, largely at the request of the Charlottesville City Council. Council agreed to pay for tasks in the study that directly related to adding water capacity at the reservoir. In October, they reduced the scope of work in order to lower the cost of the study.

John Martin (right) asks a question of RWSA Executive Director Tom Frederick

Tom Frederick, Executive Director of the RWSA, has said on multiple occasions since then that the study might not produce an accurate estimate for the cost of dredging. He appeared before the ACSA Board at a special work session held on November 5, 2009.  One item removed from the list of studies was a $25,000 beneficial re-use study, where dredged sediment would be examined to determine its commercial value.

“The more sediment that can be used [commercially], the less that you have to worry about disposing it, which may reduce the cost of dredging,” Frederick said. He added that a contractor may be able to sell the sediment as fill for other construction projects.

Additionally, Frederick said only two potential dewatering sites would be analyzed under the reduced scope, whereas there are at least four possible locations that have been discussed.

“If this community wants to study all four in detail, we’re going to have put up more money than we’ve already offered,” Frederick said.

ACSA Director John Martin (White Hall), a supporter of the adopted community water supply plan, said he wanted to know what role the ACSA could play to make sure the feasibility study provides objective data.

“My personal attitude is that this feasibility study shouldn’t be done at all,” Martin said. “But if it’s going to be done, it should be done right.”

Richard Carter (Jack Jouett) said the ACSA Board should become more proactive in supporting the 50-year plan, but also should make sure that City Council’s concerns are satisfied. Fellow directors agreed, but agreed to take up whether to fund the beneficial re-use study and the study of the two additional dewatering sites at its next meeting on November 19, 2009.

Frederick said that he welcomed additional ideas about the water supply plan, and said the community is benefiting from the discussion.

“We are very hopeful that a much better plan and cost will come forward from the studies we are currently doing than what was offered by Gannett Fleming in August 2008,” Frederick said.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 - Wagner welcomes Frederick and explains why he was invited to speak
• 02:30 - Frederick updates ACSA on where the dredging feasibility study stands
• 04:40 - Frederick says dredging can be done at any time outside of the 50-year-plan
• 07:00 - Frederick traces history of the particular dredging feasibility study
• 08:50 - Frederick says Gannett Fleming's 2004 study of dredging was not a full feasibility study
• 15:45 - Frederick describes why he thinks the reduced scope of the story will be inferior
• 16:45 - ACSA Legal Counsel Jim Bowling asks about what happens in a beneficial reuse study
• 17:45 - Liz Palmer (Samuel Miller) asks why Council reduced number of dewatering sites from 4 to 2
• 19:40 - Palmer asks how much study of dewatering site alternatives will be needed to satisfy Clean Water Act
• 24:15 - Frederick says DEQ and Army Corps of Engineers ratified plan with permits
• 25:00 - Jim Colbaugh (Scottsville) asks what goal of HDR dredging feasibility study
• 27:00 - Frederick explains ramifications of not conducting a beneficial reuse study
• 30:30 - Palmer asks about Schnabel looking at 13 foot increase
• 34:10 - Richard Carter (Jack Jouett) asks logistical question about dredging
• 36:40 - Frederick describes how dredging process would work if someone wants the fill
• 38:00 - Carter asks about the status of the 50 year plan
• 39:15 - Palmer explains some of the logistical challenges of dredging the South Fork
• 40:00 - John Martin (White Hall) asks about how various elements of the feasibility study will be paid for
• 45:40 - Martin asks when first public meeting would be held
• 46:30 - Martin says he wants study to be done right if it is going to be done at all
• 49:30 - Colbaugh asks about the effects of raising the existing dam by 13 feet
• 53:00 - Palmer says Gannett Fleming never produced an exhaustive study of replacing the old dam
• 54:10 - Frederick describes how Schnabel Engineering is approaching the question of studying raising the existing dam
• 57:30 - Palmer said it was her recollection that City Council Edwards directed RWSA to have Schnabel study raising existing dam
• 1:02:45 - Palmer asks question about studying pipeline alternatives
• 1:11:45 - Frederick says supporters of the adopted water supply plan need to be more vocal in their support
• 1:16:00 - Carter says ACSA needs to carefully determine if it wants to be an advocate for existing plan
• 1:20:00 - Palmer asks about Frederick's upcoming trip to Richmond to discuss dam safety concerns with Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board
• 1:22:00 - Frederick says Virginia Dam Safety Division is trying to determine who really owns Raggged Mountain Dam
• 1:26:45 - ACSA Chair Don Wagner comments on the water supply plan
• 1:30:45 - Martin thanks Frederick for his hard work in the face of personal abuse
• 1:31:15 - Frederick said he is getting more e-mails from citizens about restoring Sugar Hollow pipeline

RWSA approves dredging study, modified Meadowcreek Interceptor work

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Thursday, October 29, 2009

At their meeting on October 27, 2009, the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) approved a contract for a dredging feasibility study of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, agreed to a modified work order for the Meadowcreek Interceptor, and directed staff to work with Schnabel Engineering on a proposal to develop a cost estimate for raising the existing dam at Ragged Mountain Reservoir by 13 feet.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20091027-RWSA

RWSA approves dredging feasibility study

After months of discussion between the “four boards”, the RWSA has approved a $343,778 contract with HDR Engineering to perform a series of dredging feasibility studies at the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. The studies will provide a range of cost estimates for restoring the reservoir to its original capacity and disposing the spoils.

The full study was requested by City Council in order to determine if dredging would be a cost-effective way of providing some additional water capacity, and Council agreed to pay for studies that dealt directly with dredging for that reason. Members of the Albemarle County Service Authority did not feel the information was necessary to move the adopted water supply plan forward, and thus were unwilling to pay for the full suite of studies. Full restorative dredging, and maintenance of that condition over the 50-year period of the community water supply plan, does not by itself provide enough new water storage capacity to meet needs identified in the 2006 plan. 

HDR was selected as a finalist for the project in August, but the price for their services was initially much higher than City Council had expected. Earlier this month, they agreed to a “standard” study that will provide less detail. Council also removed a study that would have examined the sediment to determine if it had any “beneficial re-use.”

RWSA Executive Director Tom Frederick

RWSA Executive Director Tom Frederick has warned both Council and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that without the more detailed study, HDR may not be able to come up with a full cost estimate. Another item that was removed by Council was a public meeting that would be held while the study is being conducted so citizens can ask questions of HDR consultants. Gary Fern, who sits on the RWSA Board because of his position as Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, offered to contribute an additional $8,880 to ensure the second public meeting will be held. 

 “We’d hate to have all that data and then not be able to express it to the public,” Fern said. 

Frederick said a decision on whether to conduct the beneficial reuse study anyway could be made after that meeting. HDR would hold a second public meeting when their study is complete.

One item in the study is a new bathymetric analysis of the reservoir, which will be paid for by the RWSA from its watershed fund. The RWSA will write the check to HDR and will be reimbursed by the City of Charlottesville for the portions of the study that it has requested. The ACSA will pay the $8,880 for the additional public meeting.

According to City Public Works Director Judy Mueller, The City’s share of the study is nearly $256,000 and includes a pre-dredge survey, a characterization of the sediment, an analysis of dredging alternatives, an analysis of potential dewatering sites, and the final public meeting.

The RWSA’s share of the study is nearly $79,000 and includes a bathymetric study, an assessment of whether there are any federally protected wetlands in the reservoir, as well as the final report.

State regulators want answers on dam replacement

RWSA officials have been requested to appear at a November 19 meeting of the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board to answer questions about efforts to replace or repair the existing dam at Ragged Mountain Reservoir.  A final decision about how to proceed with the dam is not expected to be made until the spring of 2010. That is when Schnabel Engineering, the firm hired to replace Gannett Fleming in designing the new dam at the reservoir, is expected to complete its work on a preliminary design and cost estimate. 

The Lower Dam at the reservoir is currently operating under a conditional permit from the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Dam Safety division. The permit expires at end of this month. Frederick said the permit might possibly be extended as long as the RWSA continues to show progress towards complying with state regulations.

Frederick said that the RWSA continues to assume that the Lower Dam will be replaced by a larger one just downstream as called for in the 2006 community water supply plan. However, City Council has also directed Frederick to ask the dam’s new designers to model a scenario in which Lower Dam would be raised by 13 feet.  In order to do so, Schnabel will need to perform underwater tests to investigate the strength of the bedrock on which the existing structure rests. Frederick told the RWSA Board that Schnabel’s initial guess was that it would not be cheaper to build on the existing dam because of the complications that could arise when building on 100-year-old technology.

Albemarle Supervisor Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) asked if Schnabel would study how the Ragged Mountain Reservoir would be treated during construction. Would the pool have to be lowered, reducing the amount of water available to the community? Would the City and County have to enact mandatory usage restrictions in order to reduce demand? Frederick said he did not have those answers handy, but Schnabel’s proposal for the study will come back before the RWSA Board for a vote at the next meeting in November.

RWSA Chief Engineer Jennifer Whitaker said there are questions about the strength of the dam’s cement core. She also said to build anything on top of the existing dam, construction crews would need to remove an earthen buttress that was built around the dam in the 1930’s to address earlier safety concerns.

“There are legitimate concerns that you could not [remove the buttress] while the water was up against the dam,” Whitaker said. “You’d run the risk of tipping it over.”

Whitaker said before building on top of the dam, Schnabel will need to determine how the existing dam would be incorporated into the new structure, and how the two different types of materials would bond together. She also said a higher pool of water would exert a higher pressure on the base of the dam.

During the public comment period, Richard Lloyd of the group Citizens for a Sustainable Water Plan said he thought concerns about the safety of the dam were being exaggerated.

“I don’t get it. That dam is a hundred years old. It has withstood hurricanes, it withstood Camille,” Lloyd said.

Board votes to approve modified work order for Meadowcreek sewer replacement

Click for a larger map of the interceptor's alignment

The RWSA board voted 5-0 with one abstention to place a section of the Meadowcreek sewer interceptor replacement project under the jurisdiction of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Built in the 1950’s by the City and sold to the RWSA in the 1970’s, the Authority is in the final stages of planning a replacement sewer line. Frederick said the existing pipe is deteriorating, a situation made worse after storms when it is infiltrated by runoff.

Part of the pathway for the interceptor lies on the same right of way being used to construct the Meadowcreek Parkway. Frederick said in the initial planning for the project, it was assumed the sewer line would be laid before the roadway is built. However, due to a delay over negotiations with property owners in the City for easements to build the interceptor, the road project has moved ahead of the interceptor.  

At issue is 410 linear feet on City-owned land in Albemarle County where the RWSA needs an easement in order to proceed, as well as 2,130 linear feet on VDOT property.  Faulconer Construction, the company building the Meadowcreek Parkway in the County, has so far delayed their work on this section of land.

Frederick suggested that the Board approve a motion to remove this portion from the rest of the interceptor project so the project as a whole can go to bid. The work on the 2,540 linear feet would be performed by Faulconer as part of their contract with VDOT. However, City Council must approve the easement on its land before the contractor can work on that section of the project.  The earliest Council can take up the easements is on November 16, 2009, but they need to have two readings of the matter before it can be passed.

City Councilor Holly Edwards

City Councilor Holly Edwards abstained from the vote because she said had concerns about the design. While on Council, Edwards has consistently voted against the Meadowcreek Parkway.

Thomas asked if Edwards abstention meant that she would not recommend Council approve the easements. Edwards said she would not make that decision until it came time for City Council to vote.

The modified bid will be released on November 5. VDOT will be paid nearly $2 million for the work.

Other news from the meeting:

Frederick asks Board and Council to call on Richmond to appropriate an additional $175 million to the state’s Water Quality Improvement Fund. He said unless the next General Assembly comes up with the funding, the RWSA may receive only two-thirds of the state money it was expecting to upgrade the Moores Creek Wastewater Treatment plant. That means the agency may have to find an additional $3.1 million to pay for the project.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 - RWSA Chair Mike Gaffney opens meeting
• 01:30 - Executive Director's report from Tom Frederick
• 05:00 - Frederick comments on the request from DCR to update them on the dam progress
• 11:30 - Frederick says any additional requests for studies need to be made now
• 12:30 - County Executive Bob Tucker directs Frederick to submit WQIF request to TJPDC Legislative Liaison David Blount
• 13:15 - City Councilor Holly Edwards asks what information Schnabel needs
• 15:15 - Thomas asks if Schnabel's conceptual design for building on existing dam would look at different heights other than 13 feet
• 20:30 - RWSA Chief Engineer Jennifer Whitaker describes the challenges Schnabel will face
• 25:45 - Public comment from Richard Lloyd of Citizens for a Sustainable Water Plan
• 29:00 - Public comment from City Council Candidate Bob Fenwick (I)
• 31:45 - Public comment from Dede Smith of Citizens for a Sustainable Water Plan
• 35:30 - Public comment from Albemarle County resident Susan Bacik
• 37:00 - Public comment from Betty Mooney of Citizens for a Sustainable Water Plan
• 43:15 - Public comment from Liz Palmer of the Albemarle County Service Authority
• 46:45 - Dede Smith makes a correction to her comment
• 47:00 - Responses to public comment
• 50:00 - Thomas makes a comment about her role in efforts to create a sustainable water plan
• 52:00 - Edwards asks for clarification on whether bathymetric study is required and if RWSA will pay for it
• 55:20 - Edwards asks why Sugar Hollow Reservoir is down
• 59:30 - RWSA takes up engineering services contract with HDR for dredging feasibility study
• 1:11:00 - Edwards explains why Council made its decision to cut costsF 
• 1:14:00 - Gary Fern of the ACSA offers to pay for second meeting
• 1:16:00 - Frederick answers question from Edwards about how studies will be paid for
• 1:19:00 - Fern makes the motion
• 1:22:00 - Frederick begins his update of the Meadowcreek Interceptor study
• 1:37:00 - Thomas reports on DEQ's new Total Maximum Daily Load requirements
• 1:39:30 - Frederick expresses his opposition to the new requirements

Albemarle candidates discuss transportation, economic development, and water supply

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Friday, October 23, 2009

The six candidates running for the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors made their case before a group of Charlottesville business leaders Thursday. The North Charlottesville Business Council asked questions about transportation plans, the government’s role in economic development and the community water supply plan.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20091022-NCBC-Forum

The candidates each had three minutes to make a brief opening statement.

Samuel Miller candidates, left to right: Madison Cummings (D), Duane Snow (R) and John Lowry (I)

Madison Cummings (D-Samuel Miller) pointed to his eight years on the Albemarle School Board. John Lowry (I-Samuel Miller) touted his chairmanship of the County’s Economic Development Authority. Duane Snow (R-Samuel Miller) said he would apply the lessons he learned running a business to County government.

David Slutzky (D-Rio) cited his entrepreneurship and gave examples of what he has done to attract jobs to Albemarle County. Rodney Thomas (R-Rio) said his time as Chair of the Planning Commission prepared him to serve on the Board.

Dennis Rooker (I-Jack Jouett) faces no opposition, but said he should be re-elected in order to help maintain what he described as Albemarle County’s “fiscally-sound” local government. Rooker pointed to the County’s AAA bond rating, a tax-rate he described as low, and the transition to a five-year financial planning process.

The first question asked whether the candidates supported the adopted 50-year community water supply plan. All six said they agreed with the plan, but Thomas explained why he did not sign a pledge supporting the plan.

“I do support the plan… but I just want to see what the new designers and architects will come up with,” Thomas said, referring to the recent decision by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to hire Schnabel Engineering to design a new dam at Ragged Mountain Reservoir. Thomas said he also wanted to know about why dredging of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir was not selected as a way to add capacity to the water supply system.

Slutzky said that dredging will be more expensive than its proponents think, and that there are many logistical issues that may prevent that option from receiving federal and state permits.

“It might be possible to put the spoils in [a nearby] quarry, but it might not,” Slutzky said. “That quarry might have fracture zones in that will make it connect with an aquifer down below and the Clean Water Act isn’t going to let us just willy-nilly put a bunch of dredging [spoils] that might contaminate that.”

Lowry said he understood that many in Charlottesville are opposed to the plan because they don’t see the city’s population increasing. However, he said that could change as new information comes in from both Schnabel and the dredging feasibility study.

“My perception is that people in the City are getting the message that they’re going to need to be part of the plan because it’s the best alternative,” Lowry said. He said it was fair that County ratepayers pay more for the additional capacity that will be created under the plan.

Duane Snow said the elements of the plan should be built as quickly as possible. Madison Cummings said he did not want the plan to become another delayed infrastructure project, like the Meadowcreek Parkway.

The second question dealt with transportation. The NCBC, which is an affiliate of the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce, has been critical of the Places29 Master Plan over its potential to affect businesses along the U.S. 29 corridor. Chamber President Tim Hulbert asked what transportation improvement projects the candidates would support as Supervisor.

Lowry said he supports the parallel road network called for in the Places29 Master Plan, as well as a fourth lane on southbound U.S. 29 from Hydraulic Road to the U.S. 250 Bypass. However, Lowry said the main issue is getting the state of Virginia to resume paying for roads.

Snow said he supports the extension of both Hillsdale Drive and Berkmar Drive, as well as the widening of U.S. 29 from Polo Ground Road to Hollymead Town Center. Snow said he is opposed to the grade-separated interchanges called for in Places29.

“Before I would consider grade-separated interchanges, I think we should reopen the bypass discussion,” Snow said. However, he pointed out the idea was moot because there is no funding for any of the projects at this time.

Cummings said he also supported Hillsdale and Berkmar, as well as a grade-separated interchange at Rio Road and U.S. 29. However, he said a similar interchange at Hydraulic may not be necessary. Cummings also said that in his opinion the Western Bypass was dead.

Left to right: Rio District Supervisor candidates David Slutzky (D) and Rodney Thomas ( R) as well as unopposed Jack Jouett District candidate Dennis Rooker (I)

Thomas said he was against all of the grade separated interchanges because they would “destroy the businesses” along U.S. 29. He added that it was crucial that both the City and the County are on the same page concerning the stretch between Hydraulic Road and the U.S. 250 Bypass. Thomas said he supports the Western Bypass or the extension of Leonard Sandridge Road.

Slutzky said he is concerned that VDOT wants to turn U.S. 29 into an “expressway” in order to make it easier for through traffic to travel through Albemarle County. He said there might be a good case to be made for the Western Bypass, but raising “a quarter of a billion dollars” for the project would be difficult.

Slutzky said building parallel roads to U.S. 29 and expanding the transit system would help alleviate congestion on what he called Albemarle County’s Main Street. Slutzky said the only way Berkmar Road would be expanded is if the County expands its growth area to allow for development between Polo Grounds Road and Hollymead Town Center.

The final question sought to find out the candidates’ position on the role local government should play in economic development.

Slutzky said one thing the government should do is fund infrastructure. Thomas said local government should provide services such as police in order to attract businesses. Rooker said that a good education system is a requirement for companies looking to locate or grow here. Cummings said sometimes government should foster a climate for economic development, and sometimes government needs to stay out of the way. Snow said the role of government is to facilitate planning. Lowry repeated his call for the County to create an economic development department.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 - Introduction from L.F. Wood, Chairman of the NCBC
• 02:15 - Opening comments from Madison Cummings (D-Samuel Miller)
• 05:00 - Opening comments from Duane Snow (R-Samuel Miller)
• 07:20 - Opening comments from John Lowry (I-Samuel Miller)
• 10:45 - Opening comments from David Slutzky (D-Rio)
• 13:30 - Opening comments from Rodney Thomas (R-Rio)
• 16:10 - Opening comments from Dennnis Rooker (I-Jack Jouett)
• 20:30 - Question 1: The Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce supports the Albemarle County and Charlottesville 50-year water supply plan. Do you support the plan?
• 32:30 - Question 2: The north Charlottesville corridor houses 20,000 jobs and contributes for $800 million a year in salaries. There are lots of plans for transportation projects in the corridor. Which ones do you support? Which might you champion? Grade-separated interchanges? Western Bypass?
• 49:00 - Question 3: What is Albemarle County's role in economic development?
• 56:00 – Closing comments from L.F. Wood

RWSA director briefs Council on new dam estimate, potential pipeline options

By Connie Chang
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Monday, October 12, 2009

On October 5, 2009, Tom Frederick, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, provided the Charlottesville City Council with a status report on several items related to the community water supply plan. Frederick commented on the costs and logistics of repairing the existing lower dam at the Ragged Mountain Reservoir, as well as the proposed pipeline to connect the Ragged Mountain and South Fork Rivanna Reservoirs. 

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20091005-CC-Frederick

Frederick also reviewed the work that is being undertaken by Schnabel Engineering to design a replacement dam at Ragged Mountain, as envisioned in the 2006 community water supply plan.  Schnabel, based in Glen Allen, Virginia, was awarded a $1.3 million contract in September for preliminary engineering.  The goal is to secure a new design and a new cost estimate for construction of the dam by late spring of 2010.  


TIMELINE FOR PODCAST

01:00 – Tom Frederick provides status report
02:06 – Frederick reports on new dam design firm, Schnabel Engineering
04:28 – Frederick reports on asking firm whether they can provide ballpark cost for lower-height dam
06:46 – Mayor Dave Norris asks why Gannett Fleming said it would cost a fraction to repair the existing Lower Ragged Mountain Dam and why Schnabel says it will cost more
09:54 – Frederick explains discrepancy between two firms’ cost estimates
10:10 – Councilor David Brown asks whether they are referring to repairing the dam or making it taller
10:42 – Norris comments that Gannett Fleming provided an estimate for enlarging the dam
11:13 – Frederick comments on consistent reporting
12:33 – Frederick says the idea of raising the dam can be studied if they want to
12:55 – Norris asks for an estimate of how much that study would cost
14:27 – Frederick discusses relationship between the size of the proposed pipeline from South Fork to Ragged Mountain and the storage required in of all reservoirs
16:28 – Norris asks whether projections are based on current water demand and a 5% conservation rate
17:49 – Frederick describes Hydrologics’ model
18:55 – Frederick describes Gannett Fleming’s model
19:17 – Norris asks about 20% conservation rate achieved during drought emergency
20:20 – Norris comments that he believes they can plan for lower water consumption than what is envisioned in the current plan
21:15 – Norris asks whether his assumption that lower water consumption can lower average flow is correct
21:51 – Brown asks whether Frederick has any comments on discussion that water consumption is lower
22:30 – Frederick responds
24:25 – Frederick comments on third study, a water conservation study has been completed
24:47 – Norris comments that that study is still in progress
25:05 – Frederick comments on fourth item, a conceptual review of the assumptions of the conceptual design of the pipeline
26:08 – Norris asks for clarification about the proposed routing for the South Fork pipeline
29:30 – Norris asks whether they will evaluate the projected costs of land acquisition
30:05 – Frederick comments on fifth item, dredging feasibility studies
30:17 – Frederick comments on sixth item, pros and cons of three pipelines (South Fork to Ragged Mountain, Sugar Hollow to Ragged Mountain, James River to Ragged Mountain)
31:06 – Norris comments that it will be helpful to compare options by costs
32:00 – Frederick comments on being able to provide lengths of each pipeline
32:38 – Norris comments on trying to get the most accurate estimate on costs and factoring in the renegotiation of easements for a replacement Sugar Hollow pipeline
33:40 – Brown comments that he believes RWSA will find a proper estimate
34:57 – Frederick comments that they can have a consultant do a conceptual design and cost estimate for the update
35:38 – Brown comments that he’d like to see RWSA provide information on how much they can spend and what they can get with it
36:25 – Norris asks Frederick to comment on I-64 embankment being separated out
39:33 – Norris asks where we are now on cost-share allocation of city versus county
39:50 – City Manager Gary O’Connell responds that he can’t give solid numbers
41:00 – Julian Taliaferro asks whether maintenance is a part of the cost estimate
41:22 – Judy Mueller responds
43:04 – Norris asks how confident Frederick is in the current projections of costs to upgrade treatments plants and related infrastructure

Council approves less detailed dredging feasibility study; Supervisors briefed on implications

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Friday, October 9, 2009

City Council has approved a scaled-back series of feasibility studies designed to answer how much it would cost to dredge the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. In May, Council agreed to pay for studies that would provide a better cost estimate for restoring the original water capacity of the reservoir. The Albemarle County Service Authority refused to contribute financially to what some of its members considered unnecessary work that would not create permanent water storage capacity.  Dredging is not a component of   the community water supply plan adopted in 2006.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20091005-Dredging

A committee of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority selected HDR Consulting to oversee the studies, but their cost estimate was more than double what the City had expected to pay. In the proposal before City Council Monday, the City’s share to do the entire suite of studies requested in the RFP was $561,684.  In the course of their discussion, Council whittled that amount down to about $300,000.

One item that was eliminated was a study on whether forebays would help reduce the amount of silt that enters the reservoir. Mueller said that HDR concluded that was not necessary if the community only seeks answers on dredging.

HDR suggested a “standard feasibility assessment” which would provide a wetlands assessment, a bathymetric study, a pre-dredge survey and a sediment analysis to determine the composition of the silt on the reservoir bottom.  However, the level of data collected in those studies would be less then that called for in the original scope of work. Judy Mueller, the City’s Public Works Director, said that meant the study would rely more on HDR’s analysts to draw conclusions from the data.

“Experienced  judgment can be very effective if you’re comfortable with that,” Mueller said.

Council also reduced the analysis of sediment dewatering sites from four to two locations. Another cost savings was the elimination of a public meeting where HDR officials could explain to the public what they found out about the reservoir.

Councilor Satyendra Huja agreed that HDR’s standard study would be sufficient. But, Mayor Dave Norris said the price could be further reduced by $45,000 by eliminating the beneficial re-use study which would assess the sediment’s marketability and by eliminating the public meeting where HDR would explain the study results. Council agreed to drop the beneficial re-use study, over the objections of Councilor Holly Edwards, and then Norris explained his opposition to paying for a public meeting..

“We want technical information, and we’re going to have our own public meetings to review this information,” Norris said.

RWSA Executive Director Tom Frederick

But Tom Frederick, the Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, urged Norris to retain the public meeting component so citizens could directly ask questions of HDR analysts.  He also said he felt the community would be more confident in the study if it relied on more science and less on analysis.

Norris said he didn’t understand why it would cost $19,000 to hold a public meeting when the City could hold a meeting “for the cost of soda and chips.” Frederick explained that the creation of visuals to convey scientific information to the public would cost money.

“People like visuals. That takes time and preparation,” Frederick said. “It’s not going to be done for the cost of soda and chips. I’ve been in this community now long enough that people are going to ask a lot of questions. They are going to be very irritated if they can’t get answers. The most reliable way to get that information is to involve the consultants in your public meeting.”

Norris suggested that the two citizen representatives appointed by the City to the study selection committee be involved to help provide a liaison with the public. In the end, Council agreed to pay for the public meeting.

Councilor David Brown said he mainly wants to know how much water storage capacity would be restored by dredging as much as can be physically dredged. He said he doubted the original capacity could be restored due to the difficulty of getting to certain portions of the reservoir. 


Supervisors briefed Wednesday on City Council’s modifications

Two days later, Frederick appeared before the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. After telling the Board what actions Council made, Frederick said HDR could not develop a full cost estimate without the beneficial re-use study because disposal of the sediment is the largest variable in terms of coming up with a more definitive cost estimate. At issue is whether or not a land owner with a disposal site would be willing to take on the risk of selling or holding the material. Frederick said HDR could only give a range of estimates for dredging, just as Gannett Fleming had done previously.

Frederick also repeated his preference to have  the study to be as detailed possible.  “I believe the study is an attempt to build bridges, and to answer some questions that were not answered in [Gannett Fleming’s original study].  With all the publicity and the interest, I did express the concern that taking short-cuts could lead to an inability to [make a decision,” Frederick said.

Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio) asked if the dredging feasibility study should even begin given that the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is currently modeling water supply plan alternatives to determine if the federal and state permits could be modified to accommodate the “Norris Plan.”

In July, Slutzky and Norris asked regulators to model use of a smaller dam at Ragged Mountain combined with dredging at South Fork.  They are expecting a verdict from DEQ before the end of November.  An unfavorable decision would make the reliance on dredging as a key component of the water supply plan a remote possibility.

Frederick said he was concerned that the DEQ’s model might not provide an apples-to-apples comparison given that it may not make the same assumptions used in The Nature Conservancy model on which the water supply plan is based. 

Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) expressed frustration that the study was turning into a mockery.

“Unfortunately, [the RWSA] has been put into a position of having to chase after things and spend time and money on them that don’t have a realistic return,” Rooker said.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

01:00 – Report from Judy Mueller, City’s Public Works Director
07:50 – Huja asks for clarification of the City’s share
08:05 – Norris asks for details on what the beneficial use is
16:30 – Councilor David Brown explains what he wants out of a study
20:30 – Norris negotiates with Councilors on what to include in the scope
26:00 – Frederick briefs Board of Supervisors on Council’s actions
30:20 – Slutzky asks question about feasibility of using quarry as dewatering site
34:00 – Thomas asked question about role “opportunistic dredging” might play
35:30 – Rooker addresses abou
37:00 – Slutzky addresses stream-flows and his recent trip to the DEQ
43:20 – Thomas expresses concern about Slutzky’s request to DEQ

Samuel Miller District Candidates Forum

On September 30, 2009, the three candidates vying for the Samuel Miller District of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors met at a Candidates Forum sponsored by Charlottesville Tomorrow and the Free Enterprise Forum. Democrat Madison Cummings, Independent John Lowry and Republican Duane Snow answered nine questions on land use, transportation, and growth in the County. The candidates also answered several questions submitted by members of the audience. The event, held at Murray Elementary School in Ivy, was co-moderated by Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum and Brian Wheeler of Charlottesville Tomorrow.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090930-CT-FEF-Samuel-Miller-Forum

WATCH THE VIDEO:

20090930-Samuel-Miller from Charlottesville Tomorrow on Vimeo.

Question 1:
According to the Albemarle County Strategic Plan, “the County desires to maintain a strong, sustainable economy, increase business activity in the urban cores of development areas, and ensure all citizens of the County are able to participate fully in a vibrant economy.” How would you assess Albemarle’s economic condition today? As a Supervisor, what specific strategies would you pursue
to generate new jobs and economic vitality? What is your vision for the county addressing economic development opportunities?

Question 2:
How would you assess Albemarle County’s growth management strategies? What other steps would you advocate be taken to discourage development in the rural countryside and encourage development in the growth areas? Are the existing incentives adequate?

Question 3:
Should we start the planning process over on the fifty-year community water supply plan? Why or why not?

Question 4:
Albemarle County has expectations for the development community to build or pay for affordable living choices in new developments. Do you agree with that approach? How do you believe the County should address the need for not just affordable housing, but also workforce housing?

Question 5:
The Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission have both held work sessions on the transportation elements of the Places29 Master Plan. If there is an opportunity to receive a significant developer proffer related to Berkmar Drive Extended in exchange for an expansion of the County’s designated growth area, should that be pursued as part of the Places29 Master Plan?

Question 6:
Do you support the proposed grade separated interchanges on Route 29 as major components of the Places29 master plan? Why or why not?

Question 7:
Do you agree with continuation of the current land use tax program in the rural areas and with the revalidation process that was recently initiated by the BOS? Why or why not?

Question 8:
How do we ensure the community infrastructure—roads, sidewalks, fire/rescue facilities, libraries, etc.—is in place to support our current population, new development and redevelopment in our designated growth areas? To what degree should this infrastructure be funded by the real estate property tax, a gas tax, developer proffers, or new service districts?

Question 9:
An emotional issue that has divided the community is before the Board of Supervisors. How should an elected official balance citizen input, staff input, and the goal of making decisions that are in the best interests of the community as a whole?

Audience question 1:

What is your position on public transportation in Albemarle County, including a Regional Transit Authority with Charlottesville? How would you fund it? Would you support rapid public transit such as light rail or bus rapid transit?

Audience question 2:
A new economic development office and a Regional Transit Authority are two new government agencies I've heard proposed tonight. Where will you cut County government to fund these agencies, or would you propose new taxes during an economic downturn?

Audience question 3:
Would you revise the current barking dog ordinance to provide more restrictions in the entire County, and or the barking of multiple dogs?

Audience question 4:
There has been a significant retail sales tax shift out of Albemarle County. Do you believe the loss of sales tax revenue is a serious issue? How do you view neighboring counties' commercial development activities?

TIMELINE FOR VIDEO AND PODCAST:

• 01:00 - Introduction from Brian Wheeler of Charlottesville Tomorrow
• 01:45 - Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum reads the rules  
• 03:00 - Question 1
• 10:20 - Question 2
• 18:45 - Question 3
• 25:00 - Question 4
• 32:30 - Question 5
• 40:00 - Question 6
• 48:00 - Question 7
• 52:30 - Question 8
• 1:00:00 - Question 9
• 1:09:00 - Audience question #1
• 1:16:30 - Audience question #2      
• 1:22:45 - Audience question #3 
• 1:28:15 - Audience question #4    
• 1:35:00 - Madison Cummings' closing statement
• 1:38:15 - John Lowry's closing statement
• 1:40:35 - Duane Snow's closing statement