2008-11-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

11 to the plant, you cannot treat the water. RWSA suggested in the plan that in the 2020 to 2021 time period that the new pipeline should be under construction. Mr. Frederick further noted that the current permits have provisions for releasing water to streams, including the South Fork and Moormans River. He said if this community was to decide later that it would like to implement the Sugar Hollow pipeline option instead of a South Fork pipeline, you will not be able to put the water into the Sugar Hollow pipeline to the Ragged Mountain and meet the provisions for releases included in the current permits. This would require substantial modifications to the permits, and based on the current thinking by the regulatory agencies, he did not believe that those modifications would be approved. Dr. Brown said what he would like to see as a result of experts reviewing GF’s pipeline work is for no one to be able to come back later and state that they really underestimated the cost of that project. If the cost of the dam has increased from $37 million to about $70 million, he does not want find out later that the original pipeline estimate has risen 50% or more. Dr. Brown also stated that he feels a lot of City residents feel a sense of ownership over the natural resources in Albemarle County, including the Moormans River, and maintaining flow in that river is valued as well and is considered an important component of this plan. Ms. Thomas said the South Fork River also has a guaranteed flow in this plan so it had a direct relationship with the enjoyment of the Rivanna River by the City residents too. Mr. Gaffney, referring to the earlier discussion that included Mr. Frederick’s input about whether it was feasible for the experts that would be reviewing the dam work to also review the pipeline data, said he feels it makes sense to have a separate engineering firm look at the pipeline work if that is the consensus of all four boards and make those two separate studies. Mr. Rooker said if he understands correctly from the previous discussions that the scope of the analysis would be to determine that the cost numbers that are being included in the plan are reasonably accurate. Mr. Gaffney said yes, and added that the analysis would be to confirm the original assumptions made by Gannett Fleming on the pipeline. Mr. Gary Fern, RWSA member, said he is hearing mixed messages from City Council. First, he heard statements that City Council wants to know about the cost, but then he heard that maybe they do not want to know about the cost. The estimates prepared somewhere in the 2004 to 2006 time frame for the pipeline project would be different now than when it was originally proposed. He asked how much of a difference would be agreeable to City Council, and if the numbers are considered too high, what would be the alternative to filling the Ragged Mountain Reservoir if it was still less expensive to use the South Fork pipeline than the Sugar Hollow pipeline. Dr. Brown said he feels it is less about the cost than it is about reviewing the work to ensure that the methodology and the estimates are valid. Mr. Fern said if that is all the review would entail an engineer could do that in a very short period of time. If more is requested from the reviewer, then the scope and the price of the study will both increase. Mr. Slutzky asked if he understands correctly that the significant increase in the cost estimates for the dam is not attributable to bad math or defective methodology on Gannett Fleming’s part but on the findings from engineering data that was not previously available when the estimates were prepared, plus adjustments to reflect current construction costs. Mr. Huja said he feels that Gannett Fleming made bad assumptions at that time.