2010-01-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7 Ms. Mueller said that very few City residents use the Ivy Landfill, those that do are charged, and she does not see changing that. Ms. Edwards said she hopes as we review these services we have the opportunity to look at social justice issues, and how we can include all parts of the community in recycling. Responding to a question from Mr. Norris, Ms. Mueller said the remediation of the Landfill is not part of the RFP and there is a separate legal agreement on that, but noted that it does not have to be through RSWA. REPORT : WATER UPDATE/SCHNABEL ENGINEERING – RAGGED MOUNTAIN RESERVOIR Mr. Frederick reviewed the four studies authorized by the four boards (City Council, Board of Supervisors, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and Albemarle County Service Authority) which will be completed by this summer: 1) Development of the preliminary design of the dam which will also look at what is under ground (expected in May); 2) Dredging feasibility study, including bathometric surveys. He said a steering committee can be very helpful if it has balanced representation and it should also include other boards that have an interest. (a public meeting expected in late February, early March on the first phase, with June possible for completion); 3) Review of the conceptual pipeline design (report expected next month. He noted that staff has been asked for pros and cons of three pipeline (targeted for next month); 4) Interstate 64 embankment. He said strong technical data is needed (May target date). He said there are pending questions for Council: 1) The consultant have said that suspending the beneficial use study for dredged material might compromise the cost estimate and a complete recommendation and does Council want to revisit that decision?; 2) A decision is needed quickly on whether to proceed with a study on what would be the cost and scope to raise the existing Lower Ragged Mountain Dam by 13 feet, and if so does Council want to proceed with the Schnabel study or issue an RFP for a City managed study? He said this study could add three to four months to the time frame and the City may have to fund it 100%. Mr. Frederick said that Schnabel has said that there are ways to do this and stay within the plan and phase it in. Mr. Norris said he has asked the regulators about amending the existing plan, and they have indicated that it is not that onerous depending on the extent of the changes. Mr. Huja expressed concern that the other boards have what amounts to a veto and that the City is paying for most of the study. He said that does not seem fair. Dr. Brown said their point of view is they do not think the study is necessary and therefore they should not pay for it. Mr. Norris said this is the City’s property and dam, and the City wants to see alternatives fleshed out. He said significant money could be saved as a result of the study. He said he thinks it is a legitimate concern about the same firm doing the feasibility study when they have a financial stake in the outcome. He said he thinks it would behoove us to get an objective third party and manage it in-house and would result in a better outcome. He noted that it is possible that Schnabel could be the only or best bid. Mr. Huja agreed with Mr. Norris, but said he still resents that the City has to pay for the entire study. Dr. Brown asked when an RFP would be ready and when proposals would come back, and Ms. Mueller said it would take a couple of weeks to do the RFP, it would be out for 30 days, would take 30 days to interview, and a final report would likely be completely by November. Dr. Brown said we could wait until the dredging feasibility study is done before finalizing the contract. He said it makes sense for the City to hire the consultant.