Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />THE WATER RATE AND INCREASING THE SEWER RATE" was offered and <br />carried over to the next meeting for consideration. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox asked if the water bills can show the number of gallons of water used as <br />well as cubic feet and if usage can be tracked on the bi lls. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scott said that the bills show the number of gallons used, and while the bills <br />cannot track usage, a message has been added to the bills letting people know they can <br />call the City to find out their past usage. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE <br />: ABANDON MENT OF WATER LINE ON <br />PAGE STREET <br /> <br /> Mr. Brown explained that in 2001 the City donated a lot on Page Street to <br />Piedmont Housing Alliance, and they have combined the lots to construct two houses. <br />The old City water line needs to be vacated and abandoned. P HA has deeded a new <br />water line to the City. <br /> <br /> The public hearing was opened, but as there were no speakers, the public hearing <br />was closed. <br /> <br />On motion by Mr. Caravati, seconded by Mr. Schilling, "AN ORDINANCE <br />AUTHORIZING THE ABANDONMENT OF WATER LINE EASEME NT ON <br />PROPERTY OWNED BY PAGE STREET, LLC ON PAGE STREET" was offered and <br />carried over to the next meeting for consideration. <br /> <br />REPORT/RESOLUTION <br />: DESIGN STATUS OF MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY; <br />SCOPE OF WORK FOR INTERSECTION <br /> <br /> Mr. O'Connell explained that informatio n will be provided to Council on the <br />Meadowcreek Parkway, but noted that the only action required is on the scope of work <br />for the intersection design. Mr. O'Connell said that the City requested that VDOT study <br />the intersection and VDOT has approved the st udy. <br /> <br /> Mr. Jim Tolbert, Director of Neighborhood Services, presented a draft RFP which <br />will be used to solicit designers for the intersection. Mr. Tolbert said that the designers <br />will be asked to present options for the interchange; to do an environment al overview of <br />the options; to do a traffic analysis of the options; determine the cost of the options; <br />present a sequence of construction and traffic management plan; review existing studies; <br />and provide a development plan. Mr. Tolbert said that while it is not in the RFP, a <br />steering committee could be appointed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said it is not clear in the RFP that the consultant should review the <br />preliminary study for the interchange, and Mr. Tolbert said this can be added. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said that bridge s that would be compatible with the area go beyond <br />what VDOT generally provides, and suggested that the consultants provide a comparative <br />cost of veneers and materials assuming a bridge is recommended. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said his assumption is that the three option s provided by Rieley and <br />Associates and will be evaluated, and feels that there is not a clear enough signal in the <br />RFP that the consultants are to begin with those options. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch agreed with Mr. Cox, and suggested that the three options be <br />reference d specifically. Mr. Lynch said that Council could also indicate their top choice <br />of these three options, noting that his preference is for option #6. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said that the RFP is for professional engineering services and she is <br />looking for guidance regarding the three options, but does not want to make a judgment <br />on them. <br /> <br />