2008-11-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

14 Mr. Gaffney agreed with Mr. Roberts’ suggestion and stated that a MOU concerning the items agreed upon today would be circulated among all the boards for approval. Mr. Gaffney further stated that consensus of the Boards on the Dredging Feasibility Study will await a report by the SFRR Stewardship Task Force on their recommendation as to whether or not to undertake this study. Mr. Gaffney also commented that the City and ACSA will each conduct a Water Conservation Study and report back to the four boards on their findings. At that time a decision will be made on whether to revisit the 50-year demand calculations. Ms. Ann Mallek, Board of Supervisors, asked if the four boards will reconvene after the SFRR Stewardship Task Force issues its report to discuss the Task Force’s recommendation in further detail on whether to conduct a Dredging Feasibility Study, and if so, the next steps in the process. Mr. Gaffney said he believes that the four board chairs requested that the SFRR Stewardship Task Force reports its findings at a meeting of the four boards. Mr. Rooker read the last sentence under item d in City Council’s resolution as follows: “The team, for comparison purposes, will also develop an updated cost estimate in current dollars to simply make required dam safety improvements to the existing Ragged Mountain Dams with no supply increase.” He asked whether the cost estimate had ever been made, and if not, what would it entail to have that cost estimate made as a separate matter. Mr. Frederick said that prior to the 2004 community water supply planning process, a study was conducted specifically to address dam safety issues as part of a study of the various alternatives. The study used 2002 to 2003 market values, so the cost estimates would need to be updated to reflect current prices. Although he was not at Rivanna during the time period of that study, he asked later and did receive confirmation that the Ragged Mountain Dam level would probably need to be lowered during the repair work. He said he feels that it is an important point that the community would be losing some water supply when demand would be reaching its safe yield number. He reiterated that he feels the cost estimate will need to be updated to reflect current market prices. Mr. Rooker asked if the results of the Dam Safety team’s assessment of the Ragged Mountain Dam related to addressing safety issues would be added to the scope of work of the expert panel. This item appears to have been added by the City. Mr. Norris said the City’s assumption is that the expert panel would double check all the assumptions made by Gannett Fleming related to all the needed dam work. Mr. O’Connell explained that this item was added to the proposal due to citizen comments about dam safety issues and the cost for repairing the dam versus full replacement. Ms. Thomas questioned whether the boards would ever agree on this item, and if not, why spend the money for engineering experts to determine a comparative cost. She said the Ragged Mountain Reservoir will be an almost unique reservoir that does not silt in and is such a good part of our community water supply that one could not imagine simply repairing that dam and not taking advantage of a situation where you are already going to have to do a lot of construction work there and yet not add to your water supply storage. She then asked if the other members agree with her position on this item. Mr. Norris agreed and added that under any reasonable scenario the water supply capacity would need to be expanded at the Ragged Mountain Reservoir. Legitimate questions have been raised about the dam height and at what point would the dam need to be repaired versus entirely replacing the dam. He said the City’s intent is to determine the amount of expenditure at various height levels.