Laserfiche WebLink
Executive Session <br /> <br /> A motion by Mr. Gatewood, seconded by Mr. Albro that <br />Council meet in executive session to discuss a matter <br />exempted by Section 2.1-344(a)(2) of the Virginia Freedom <br />of Information Act, was adopted by the following recorded <br />vote. Ayes: Mr. Albro, Mr. Brunton, Mr. Buck, Mr. Gate- <br />wood and Mrs. O'Brien. Noes: None. <br /> <br /> On motion the meeting adjourned. <br /> <br />48'3 <br /> <br />Regular Meeting <br /> <br />Approval of minutes <br /> <br />Appointment: Architectural <br />Review Board <br /> <br />Presentation re: Resource <br />Recovery Commission <br /> <br />Clerk <br /> <br />Pres iden~t <br /> <br />COUNCIL CHAMBER - MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, <br /> 1979 <br /> <br /> The Council met in regular session on this date with the <br /> following members present: Mr. Albro, Mr. Brunton, Mr. Buck, <br /> Mr. Gatewood and Mrs. O'Brien. Absent: None. <br /> <br /> The minutes of the meeting of January 8th, January 15th <br /> and January 16th were approved as presented. <br /> <br /> On motion by Mr. Gatewood, seconded by Mrs. O'Brien, <br /> <br />Mr. Warren Martin was reappointed to the Architectural Review <br />Board, by unanimous vote. <br /> <br /> Mr. C. E. Anderson, Chairman of the Resource Recovery <br />Commission addressed the Council and presented a report of <br />that commission prepared by the engineering firm of Metcalf <br />and Eddy. The primary question the engineers dealt with was <br /> <br />can the Charlottesville Albemarle County area recover resources <br />from solid waste presently.! buried in. sanitary landfills.~ The <br />report concludes that ~he project is feasible provided tmat <br />certain negotiations can be successfully concluded by the <br />Resource Recovery Study Commission and the University of <br />Virginia and between the University of Virginia and the <br />Commonwealth of Virginia. The four alternative systems, all <br />generating steam, were selected as the cost promising based <br /> <br />on Metcalf and Eddy's experience. <br />1. Mass fired boiler plant; 2. <br />spreader stoker boiler plant; 3. <br /> <br /> The systems are as follows: <br />MSW processing plant and <br />Controlled air boiler plant; <br /> <br />and 4. MSW processing plant and coal/fired, spreader stoker <br />boiler plant. The report concludes that alternative number <br />four appears to be the best solution to the two communities <br />and to the University of Virginia. Mr. Anderson presented <br />a letter from Dr. Frank Hereford, PreSident of the University <br />agreeing with the recommendations in the report and stating <br />that the University would continue its discussions with the <br />State on the construction of a new boiler plant and stated <br />that if the State does agree to fund a new boiler plant he <br />feels they would wish to share the cost with a regional <br />solid waste disposal authority. Mrs. O'Brien stated that she <br />hoped in the implementation phase that serious consideration <br /> <br /> <br />