Laserfiche WebLink
10 <br />  <br />Others worry about growth, nature, and a beli ef that spending mone y is foolish because <br />con ser vation will decrease our need. This is a bout the cost share agreement. The City and <br />County have different needs from the agreement, and we can both get wh at we need without <br />detracting from the other. This plan ensures adequate water and prot ects our investment. <br /> <br /> Ms. Galvin said she respects Ms. Smith 's devotio n and intelligence. The point of the cost <br />allocation plan is to allocate the cost of the infrastructure for future use. We are paying for <br />double the water storage capacity th an what the dredge only plan would give us. The plan also <br />incentivizes conservation, and we do not pay anythi ng more if we are successful in conserving. <br /> <br />Ms. Smith asked what the term limit was for this agreement. Mr. Brown said it stops at <br />$72 million for the City. Ms. Smith said the loss of South Fork Ri vanna Reservoir is a problem. <br />We cannot use the water in our reservoir toward our own allocation, and th at leaves us with no <br />financial benefit to restoring or preserving this area. We should require Rivanna to restrict its <br />clear-cutting to avoid essential breeding season. She asked for information on metering. Mr. <br />Frederick said we will not know the cost until we develop a metering plan, which will take a <br />detailed study of the system. Ms. Smith sa id we do not know how we will pay for it. <br /> <br />Ms. Galvin said there was a stewardship fund idea, which is something we could use to <br />manage the area around our facilities . Ms. Szakos said she agreed. <br /> <br />Mr. Norris asked why no provision was put in fo r the county to conserve water, allowing <br />it 130% of the water they need while giving the C ity less water than the projections say we will <br />need. <br />Mr. Huja called for a vote on the resolutions. <br /> <br />On motion by Ms. Szakos, seconded by Ms. Galvin, the resolution to Amend the <br />Resolution on Approved Height of Ragged M ountain Dam passed. (Ayes: Ms. Szakos, Ms. <br />Galvin, Mr. Huja; Noes: Ms. Smith, Mr. Norris.) <br /> <br />Ms. Smith proposed an amendment that the City be given allocation ri ghts to the existing <br />water proportionate to the city’s capital investment in the existing infrastructure, by the same <br />formula as the county is given allocation rights to the new water proportio nate to their capital <br />investment in the new infrastructure. Mr. No rris seconded. The motion failed. (Ayes: Ms. Smith, <br />Mr. Norris; Noes: Ms. Szakos , Ms. Galvin, Mr. Huja.) <br /> <br />Ms. Smith moved that we recalculate the ba seline safe yield and more importantly the <br />projected safe yield for 2055 based on the mo re recent HDR bathymetric data. Mr. Norris <br />seconded. The motion failed. (Ayes: Ms. Smith, Mr . Norris; Noes: Ms. Szakos, Ms. Galvin, Mr. <br />Huja.) <br /> <br />Ms. Smith moved that the City retain allo cation rights to the SF RR over and above the <br />agreed to split with ACSA for as long as this agreement is in place. Th e City’s allocation worth <br />at least $80 million dollars today will be based on the most recent bathymetric information and <br />revised only after a new bat hymetric study of the SFRR is c onducted. Mr. Norris seconded. The <br />motion failed. (Ayes: Ms. Smith, Mr. Norris; No es: Ms. Szakos, Ms. Galvin, Mr. Huja.)