Laserfiche WebLink
PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFICATION IN'THE <br /> <br />ORDINANCE ADOPTED RE= <br />AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF <br />BONDS - ~3,000, 000.00 <br /> <br />MATTER RE: JUNE 12TH <br />REFERENDUM <br /> <br />REPORT RE: <br />PROPOSED WATER <br />PROJECT 1962 <br /> <br />CALL AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS <br /> <br />OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE IN THE SUH OF THREE MILLION DOLLARS <br /> <br />(~3,000,000.00) FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTIONOF A WATER IMPOUNDMENT DAM, <br /> <br />FILTER PLANT AND STORAGE TANK, WITH APPURTENANCES, ON THE SOUTH FORK OF THE <br />R.IVANNA RIVER IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA,ABQUT::FOUR M:I'LES:NOETH~OF THE C!iTY <br />LIMITS OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND INCLUDING THE INSTALLATION OF SUPPLY LINES TO THE <br />CITY'S DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FOR THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, FROM WHICH UNDERTAKING <br />THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE WILL DERIVE A REVENUE") WHICH WAS READ AND OFFERED <br /> <br />AT THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL O.N APRIL 20, 1962, WAS AGAIN READ AND UPON MOTION <br /> <br />BY MR. HAGGERTY).SECONDED BY MR. MOUNT, WAS AMENDED BY CHANGING SECTION (3) TO <br /> <br />READ AS FOLLOWS: <br /> <br /> "(3) THAT SAID BONDS SHALL SEAR INTEREST AT A RATE OR RATES <br /> (NOT, HOWEVER, EXCEEDING FOUR (4) RATES) NOT EXCEEDING <br /> FIVE PER CENTUM (5~) PER ANNUM) PAYABLE <br /> AND EVIDENCED BY INTEREST COUPONS ATTACHED TO SAID BONDS~~T <br /> <br />AND AS AMENDED WAS ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING RECORDED VOTE= AYES= MR. HAGGERTY, <br /> <br />MR. LEE, MR. MOUNT, MR. PONTON AND MR. SCRIBNER. NOES: NONE. <br /> <br /> MR. MOUNT STATED THAT AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES <br /> <br />OF THE JUNE 12TH REFERENDUM, HE CONSIDERED THE MAIN DISADVANTAGE TO BE THAT THE <br />PEOPLE IN THE PROPOSED ANNEXED AREA WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE. HOWEVER) IF THE <br />REFERENDUM WERE DELAYED UNTIL THEY COULD VOTE) IT WOULD MEAN ABOUT A YEAR~S DELAY <br />IN STARTING THE PROJECT. THE PRIMARY ADVANTAGE OF THE JUNE i2, ]962 REFERENDUM IS <br />THAT THE PROJECT COULD BE STARTED IMMEDIATELY IF APPROVED BY THE VOTERS. HE STATED <br />THAT IN HIS OPINION THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DELAYED LONG ENOUGH AND HE WOULD OPPOSE <br />ANY FURTHER DELAY SINCE IT WILL BE ~965 NOW BEFORE WATER IS AVAILABLE. THE OTHER <br />MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL WERE IN AGREEMENT WITH MR. MOUNT~S VIEWS AND AGREED* THAT THE <br />PUBLIC SHOULD B~ INFORMED OF THE N~CESSITY OF GETTING THE PROJECT STARTED IMMEDIATE- <br />LY, AND REQUESTED THAT A RESOLUTION BE PREPARED TO THIS EFFECT. <br /> <br /> ON MOTION BY MR. HAGGERTY, SECONDED BY MR. LEE, THE FOLLOWING REPORT OF THE <br /> CITY MANAGER WAS ACCEPTED AND ORDERED SPREAD IN THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING= <br /> <br /> PROPOSED WATER PROJECT 1962 <br /> <br /> IN 1956 THE CITY COUNCIL EMPLOYED THE ENGINEERING FIRM OF POLGLAZE <br /> AND BASENBERG TO STUDY AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN ADDITIONAL SOURCE <br /> OF WATER SUPPLY TO THE CITY'S SYSTEM) <br /> <br /> ~N THE LATTER PART OF 1959 THIS FIRM SUBMITTED A REPORT TO THE COUNCIL <br /> WHICH RECOMMENDED THAT THE SOUTH FORK OF THE RIVANNA RIVER BE DEVELOPED AS <br /> A SUPPLEMENT TO THE CITY'S EXISTING WATER SYSTEM. <br /> <br /> BEFORE SELECTING THIS STREAM A STUDY WAS MADE OF THE FOLLOWING SOURCES <br /> OF SUPPLY · <br /> <br /> 1. MOORMA NS R I VER <br /> MECHUMS R i VER <br /> 3. JAMES RIVER <br /> RIVANNA RIVER <br /> 5. SOUTH FORK OF RIVANNA RIVER <br /> <br /> THE SOUTH FORK OF RIVANNA RIVER WAS SELECTED BECAUSE OF (]) INITIAL <br /> CONSTRUCTION COST, (2) ANNUAL PUMPING COSTS) (3) RELIABILITY OF THE SOURCE, <br /> (4) FEASIBILITY OF FUTpRE EXPANSION, AND (5) THE EFFECT THE NEW SOURCE WOULD <br /> HAVE ON THE EXISTING SYSTEM. <br /> <br /> (~) THE INITIAL CONSTRUCTION COST OF THE SOUTH FORK PROJECT WAS <br /> ESTIMATED AT $3~863~600. OO INCLUDING A 5 MILLION GALLON PER DAY FILTER PLANT) <br /> TRANSMISSION LINES AND IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PRESENT DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. THIS <br /> AMOUNT iS SMALLER THAN FOR ANY OF THE OTHER SOURCES EXCEPT HECHUMS R~VER AND <br /> THAT SOURCE WAS ELIMINATED BECAUSE IT DID NOT OFFER FUTURE EXPANSION <br /> POSSIBILITIES. <br /> <br /> (2) THE PUMPING ~OSTS PER YEAR FOR ~ MILLION GALLONS PER DAY FROM THE <br /> SOUTH FORK WAS ESTIMATED AT ~73~310.00'~OR ABOUT THE SAME AS FROM MOORMAN~S <br /> RIVER SOURCE) WHEREAS THE PUMPING COSTS FROM THE ~AMES RIVER SOURCE WAS <br /> ESTIMATED AT ~130~336.00, FROM MECHUMS RIVER AT ~8~)380.00 AND FROM RIVANNA <br /> RIVER AT ~80) 955.00 PER YEAR FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF GALLONAGEo <br /> <br /> (3) THE STUDIES SHOWED THE SOUTH FORK SOURCE TO BE VERY RELIABLE. THE <br /> DRAINAGE AREA ABOVE THE DAM SITE CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY ~60 SQUARE HILLS AND <br /> <br /> <br />