Loading...
2004-11-11A November 11, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on th November 11, 2004, at 11:45 a.m., Meeting Room B, at COB-5 Street, 1600 Fifth Street Extd., Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from November 10, 2004. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and Clerk, Ella W. Carey. Following lunch, the meeting was called to order at 12:17 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier. The purpose of the meeting was to hold a joint session with members of Charlottesville City Council to discuss water supply and transportation issues. City Councilors and staff present: Mr. David Brown, Mr. Blake Caravati, Ms. Kendra Hamilton, Mr. Kevin Lynch, Mr. Rob Schilling, City Manager, Gary O’Connell, City Attorney, Craig Brown, Clerk, Jeanne Cox. _________ The following agenda was provided for the meeting: ? Water Supply Overview and status of Water Supply – Tom Frederick. ? Buck Mountain – Overview of Environmental Review – Bill Ellis. ? Discussion of Water Supply Issue by Board and Council. ? Wrap-up of Water Supply Discussion by Chair and Mayor. ? Transportation Overview – Larry Davis and Craig Brown. ? Discussion of Transportation Issue by Board and Council. ? Wrap-up of Transportation Issue by Chair and Mayor. __________ Mr. Tom Frederick, Executive Director of Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, gave a brief overview of the goal to increase the water supply. He said that questions had been raised recently about Buck Mountain Reservoir not making the short list of alternatives, and he asked Bill Ellis to give the reasoning behind this decision. Mr. Bill Ellis, Legal Counsel to RWSA, said that the Buck Mountain Reservoir does not satisfy the legal requirements to be licensed. He said the Clean Water Act sets forth permitting programs and the Environmental Protection Agency publishes guidelines. He said permits are given only for the least environmental impact and most practicable project. He said State law applies the same standards. He said the key thing it means is that each project is judged on its own merits. Mr. Ellis said it would be difficult to make the case that Buck Mountain is the least environmentally damaging and practicable alternative. He said it affects 55 acres of wetland, a linear stream channel, and has a documented finding of an endangered species. Mr. Ellis said the cost of Buck Mountain, including the value of the land and facilities to pipe and treat water is estimated at $110 million. Even if we own the land we have to include the value of the land. He said other alternatives are expanding Ragged Mountain Reservoir, which involves 4.8 acres of wetland and some stream impacts, at a cost of $82 million, with an identical capacity to Buck Mountain; and James River pipeline, which involves five acres of wetland, has little stream impact, and at cost of $110 million. Mr. Ellis said that engineers who have studied the alternatives have said that these other alternatives are technically feasible, so they cannot be rejected as impracticable. Because of that, Mr. Ellis said it would be hard to say that Buck Mountain is the least damaging and most practicable. Responding to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Frederick said that the land for Buck Mountain cost $3 million. Mr. Lynch asked if there is a breakdown of costs for all the alternatives, adding that the estimates are higher now than earlier presented. Mr. Frederick said that there is a report available with this information on RWSA’s website. Mr. Ellis said it is his opinion that it would be very difficult if not impossible to get a license for Buck Mountain. In response to questions raised about how other jurisdictions are getting their reservoirs licensed, he said it is driven by the unique alternatives available or not and their environmental effects and practicability. Mr. Brown asked if there are significant environmental differences between Ragged Mountain expansion and the James River pipeline. Mr. Ellis said there are differences, but he does not know if they are significant. Responding to a question from Mr. Lynch, Mr. Frederick said that without the treatment, the pipeline for South Fork Rivanna Reservoir costs $18 million, which includes environmental mitigation. He said we would have to determine what other project that would be combined with as it provides less than one third of what we need. November 11, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) Mr. Lynch said he finds that alternative attractive because the raw numbers are less and are included in the current water rates. He thinks it is a cheaper and a financeable alternative. He said we will have to figure out how to pay for the 50 year project. He said doing three projects incrementally would be easier to pay for. Mr. Rooker said that combining South Fork Rivanna Reservoir with Beaver Creek would come close to providing enough water. Mr. Frederick said that we have to add the cost of the treatment plant to the $18 million for the Reservoir crest. It is a feasible project, but we have not concluded where we get other water when you add up with other projects. Mr. Boyd agreed with Mr. Lynch about phasing in with ten year increments. Mr. Frederick agreed that projects can be phased in. Ms. Thomas said that on a day to day basis we have plenty of water, and we are only limited by our treatment capacity. She said the identified need is based on the drought of record. Mr. Brown asked for more information about using Beaver Creek only during droughts. Mr. Frederick said that over 3 million gallons a day is available in Beaver Creek. He said .3 million gallons is used now, and the need is projected to increase to 1.1 million in 2055. If the industrial area is re- established, .5 million gallons a day would be added. He said water could be supplied now from Beaver Creek to the urban area without impacting Crozet. Mr. Dorrier asked about the plan to prioritize the short list. Mr. Frederick said no decisions will be made about the preferred alternatives until public meetings are held. He said meetings will be held in late January and early February. Mr. Boyd expressed concern about the lack of elected officials on RWSA. He thinks the Board and Council need to look at whether they want to restructure the Board. Mr. Lynch said that is a reasonable decision we might make, though he expressed concern that it is a time consuming board. From a governance perspective it makes a lot of sense. Mr. Lynch said we may also want to look at combining the RWSA, Albemarle County Service Authority, and City water services. Mr. Dorrier suggested setting up an ad hoc committee to discuss the issue. Mr. Caravati suggested the Chairman and Mayor meet to discuss and report back to their respective bodies. Mr. Lynch said we have a 16 million gallon treatment capacity, and peak usage of 12 million gallons a day in the summer, which leaves 4 million gallons excess capacity. He would support enhancing the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Mr. Frederick said he can take that information into consideration. Mr. Lynch asked about the amount of bond issue built into the current rates. Mr. Ellis responded $15 million. __________ Mr. Davis said he and the City Attorney were asked to discuss the practicality of a transportation district. There is existing legislation to allow this, but the drawback is there is no taxing authority. He said revenue bonds would need to be issued with a dedicated funding source. County bonds would have to be approved by referendum. He said there could be overlapping service districts. Mr. Davis said property taxes for transportation purposes could be imposed, and could be the basis for issuing new bonds. He said transportation districts are interesting tools, but need a funding mechanism. Mr. Craig Brown, City Attorney, said there is no advantage to a transportation district absence a funding pool, unless there is a real property tax increase to fund it. Mr. Rooker said the Metropolitan Planning Organization has been talking about the issue and has been watching State funding decline and an increasing number of projects with no funding in sight, including the Meadow Creek Parkway interchange, Southern Connector, Hillsdale Drive, Eastern Connector, and Route 29/250 interchange. He said VDOT, through Butch Davies, has said that if we got authority to impose a gas tax we could get $3.5 million in a year and VDOT would match it by one-third. He said this would allow us to leverage our funding. The MPO, at the request of the 5C’s organization, formed a committee to look at options for funding and projects that could be included in a transportation district. Mr. Lynch said the MPO is beginning to work with the State on next year’s TIP. There are $5 million in unmet needs, and the first choice is to get this funding from the General Assembly, but added that is unlikely. Mr. Rooker said broad based community support is needed, and we need to build this base of support. Mr. Lynch said it is important to acknowledge that since 1985 we have told VDOT that Pantops Mountain will be gridlock absent a connector. Mr. Rooker said that three years from now based on VDOT’s plans, we will have only one-third of the money we had four years ago. Mr. Boyd said he agrees with the need but takes exception with the idea that we have to impose November 11, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) new fees rather than shift the priority of where we are spending now. He said transportation should be put on top of the priority list. Mr. Lynch said that in the next six years all the available money will be used for the Meadow Creek Parkway and Hillsdale Drive. Mr. Caravati said, in response to Mr. Boyd’s comments, that we need to get the authority as a first step, and encouraged the County to add this item to their legislative package. He said if we get the authority then we can deal with the issues. Mr. Rooker said he thinks there is danger in the future of not getting legislation if we ask for it now without broad-based support. The groundwork for getting the community and state legislators on board has not been laid. Mr. Rooker noted that a gas tax would be paid by people who use the roads. Mr. Lynch said he would like the Council and Board of Supervisors to agree on a list of projects and a price tag of $5 million a year. His first choice for funding would be to ask the State to provide this funding, second choice would be to impose a gas tax, and the third choice would be to come up with it elsewhere. Mr. Rooker said he would not want to pre-empt the Committee that was just charged with this task. Mr. Brown said he thinks the Committee is a good way to start. Mr. Brown asked that suggestions be given for future meetings between Council and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Dorrier suggested that Council and the Board meet every two or three months. __________ At 1:35 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. The Board invited City Councilors to take a tour of the new County Office Building. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by Board Date: 03/02/2005 Initials: DBM