08-18-2020 Work Session Agenda Packet
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
WORK SESSION
Tuesday, August 18, 2020 – 4:30 PM
Gallery Room - Chatham Community Center
115 South Main Street,
Chatham, Virginia 24531
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER (4:30 PM)
2. ROLL CALL
3. AGENDA ITEMS TO BE ADDED
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
For the citizens’ convenience, all Work Session and Committee Meetings are now being
recorded and can be viewed on the same YouTube location as the Board of Supervisor’s
Business Meetings. Please remember that the Board’s Work Session is designed for
internal Board and County Staff communication, discussion, and work. It is not a
question and answer session with the audience. Accordingly, during the Work Session,
no questions or comments from the audience will be entertained. Respectfully, any
outbursts or disorderly conduct from the audience will not be tolerated and may result in
the offending person’s removal from the Work Session. As a reminder, all County
citizens, and other appropriate parties as designated by the Board’s Bylaws, are permitted
to make comments under the Hearing of the Citizens’ Section of tonight’s Business
Meeting.
5. PRESENTATIONS
a. Department Head Spotlight (Parks and Recreation Department); (Staff Contact: Mark
W. Moore); (30 minutes)
b. Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams Rehabilitation Update (Staff Contact: Richard
N. Hicks); (Presenter: David Krisnitski, P.E.); (30 minutes)
6. STAFF, COMMITTEE, AND/OR CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER REPORTS
a. Finance Committee Recommendations (Staff Contact: David M. Smitherman); (10
minutes)
7. BUSINESS MEETING DISCUSSION ITEMS
Work Session - August 18, 2020
8. CLOSED SESSION
a. Consultation with legal counsel employed or retained by a public body regarding
specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel.
(1) Legal Authority: Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A)(8)
Subject Matter: Franklin County/Cool Branch Fire and EMS Service
Purpose: Consultation/Advice from Legal Counsel Regarding
Related Contract Negotiations
9. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION & CLOSED SESSION CERTIFICATION
a. Closed Session Certification
10. ADJOURNMENT
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title: Department Head Spotlight (Parks and Recreation Department); (Staff
Contact: Mark W. Moore); (30 minutes)
Staff Contact(s): Mark W. Moore
Agenda Date: August 18, 2020 Item Number: 5.a
Attachment(s): Parks and Recreation Board Presentation
Reviewed By:
Mark W. Moore, County’s Park and Recreation Director, will provide the Board the latest
installment in the County's Department Head Spotlight.
5.a
Packet Pg. 3
5.a.a
Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: Parks and Recreation Board Presentation (2119 : Department Head Spotlight
DEPARTMENT
HISTORY
The Department
April 2011
Added first staff in 2015
Current staff
What We Do
Youth Sports
School System Partnership (JUA)
Capital Projects
Community Center
Social Media presence over 4k
5.a.a
Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: Parks and Recreation Board Presentation (2119 : Department Head Spotlight
YOUTH SPORTS
147 teams, 2,365 kids ages 5-15
FY19 Revenue -$45,000 (Gate fee is $2)
22,500 paying attendees
Administered with help from 4 recreation clubs
(Gretna, Chatham, DR and Tunstall)
Youth Sports Board for each sport
Board makeup
5.a.a
Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: Parks and Recreation Board Presentation (2119 : Department Head Spotlight
SCHOOL
SYSTEM
PARTNERSHIP
JUA, foundation for the department
Renews annually
Evolved into a partnership
$15,000 toward mutually beneficial
projects
PCTC partnerships –Dog Park sign,
LOVE sign
5.a.a
Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: Parks and Recreation Board Presentation (2119 : Department Head Spotlight
CAPITAL
PROJECTS
$500k+ grant funding for middle school park project
$800k+ grant funding for Wayside Park renovations
$2.1 million in revenue & grant funding since 2011
Capital Projects Include:
Current Wayside Park project
5 public parks (Numerous state awards including top VACO award in 2018)
8 new athletic fields, renovation to 3 others
Ringgold Rail Trail renovations
Walking track at Brosville Elementary
Gretna Town Trail -$100k grant from RGG
5.a.a
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Parks and Recreation Board Presentation (2119 : Department Head Spotlight
COMMUNITY
CENTER
Storefront for Parks & Recreation
Nearly doubled rental revenue in first year (FY19 $31k+, last year of Chatham Cares $18k+)
Programming including Y daycare, yoga, pickleball, aerobics, dance, karate, camps, clinics, etc.
Hub for county activities including:
All county public meetings (COVID)
Youth sports award banquets
Numerous employee events & Christmas party’s
Sheriff’s national press conference on Ringgold tragedy
Elected office candidate forum
Voter Registrar –Poll worker training
5.a.a
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Parks and Recreation Board Presentation (2119 : Department Head Spotlight
Cavalier Park at CMS
5.a.a
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Parks and Recreation Board Presentation (2119 : Department Head Spotlight
Titan Park at TMS
5.a.a
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Parks and Recreation Board Presentation (2119 : Department Head Spotlight
Wildcat Park at DRMS
5.a.a
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Parks and Recreation Board Presentation (2119 : Department Head Spotlight
Hawk Park at GMS
5.a.a
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Parks and Recreation Board Presentation (2119 : Department Head Spotlight
Brosville Elementary Walking Track & Ballfield
5.a.a
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Parks and Recreation Board Presentation (2119 : Department Head Spotlight
Ringgold Rail Trail
5.a.a
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Parks and Recreation Board Presentation (2119 : Department Head Spotlight
Wayside Park
5.a.a
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Parks and Recreation Board Presentation (2119 : Department Head Spotlight
Wayside Park
5.a.a
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Parks and Recreation Board Presentation (2119 : Department Head Spotlight
THANK YOU
FOR YOUR
SUPPORT!
Seed Funding for Capital Projects
Quality of Life & Connection to
Economic Development
One of the most tangible ways to
show citizens their tax dollars at
work
5.a.a
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Parks and Recreation Board Presentation (2119 : Department Head Spotlight
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title:
Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams Rehabilitation Update (Staff
Contact: Richard N. Hicks); (Presenter: David Krisnitski, P.E.); (30
minutes)
Staff Contact(s): Richard N. Hicks
Agenda Date: August 18, 2020 Item Number: 5.b
Attachment(s): Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary
Reviewed By:
David Krisnitski, P.E., Froehling and Robertson, will be present to provide the Board an update
on the Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams Rehabilitation Projects.
5.b
Packet Pg. 19
FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Cost Savings Analysis
Cherrystone Dam #1 and #2a
VA DCR ID# 143002 and 143003
Froehling & Robertson, Inc. –August 18, 2020
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
F&R/Dewberry Team Members
David Krisnitski, P.E., CFM
•F&R Dam Engineering Section Manager
Kevin Hylton
•F&R CAD Design Manager
Scott Erhardt
•Dewberry Project Manager
Geoffrey Cowan, P.E.
•Dewberry Water Resources Engineer
Fred Tucker, P.E.,
•Dewberry Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Steve Hjelle, P.E.
•F&R Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Samuel Barnes, E.I.T.,
•F&R Staff Engineer
Amber Kidwell, M.S., E.I.T.
•F&R Staff Engineer
Don Sipher, P.E.
•F&R Regional Vice President
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
•NRCS identified several required upgrades on Dam #1 and #2a
•We agree both dams do not meet the required Factor of Safety (FS)
criteria for these items
•It’s an easy answer to go straight to armoring the embankment but we
feel that option should be the last resort
•At the core of our thinking is that many of the identified problems are
already close to meeting the requirements.
•We looked at how the existing conditions could be improved to increase
the FS of each element
•The previous analysis does not appear to have spent enough time on
that question and just presented more drastic and costly design
concepts
Cherrystone Dams Cost Savings Analysis
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
•Our goal is to save all stakeholders from unnecessary expenditures of
money, effort, and frustration
•We have developed a less expensive option where NRCS can still provide
support and funding
•From our review the item that could most likely lead to the worst case
embankment failure is the downstream slope stability of Dam #1
•That one issue is easily solved by adding embankment fill to strengthen
the downstream slope
•The remaining deficiencies would most likely not result in total
embankment failure
Cherrystone Dams Cost Savings Analysis
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dams –Current Conditions
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Original Construction –circa 1968
1.Significant Hazard Classification
2.135 foot wide x 10 foot deep Vegetated Spillway
3.50% PMP Auxiliary Spillway Capacity
4.2.5:1 Upstream Embankment Slope
5.2.5:1 Downstream Embankment Slope
6.Traditional Type Principal Spillway Tower
Cherrystone Dam #1
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
DCR Required Inundation Study in 2010
1.Used required National Weather Service HMR-51 PMP data
2.Used the USACE HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS software
3.Determined dam was now High Hazard
4.Determined auxiliary spillway capacity was about 50%
5.Auxiliary Spillway capacity is now inadequate
Cherrystone Dam #1
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
DCR Revises VA PMP in 2016
1.In 2016 VA DCR studied the PMP rainfall data in Virginia
2.This required changing from using NWS data to VA PMP
data set for analysis
3.50% capacity w/ NWS PMP = 75% capacity w/ 2016 VA PMP
4.Auxiliary Spillway capacity is still inadequate
Cherrystone Dam #1
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
2018 NRCS Preliminary Engineering Study
1.Revised the capacity analysis
2.Used required 2016 VA PMP rainfall data
3.Used SITES software (typical for spillway erosion prediction)
4.Evaluated auxiliary spillway capacity
5.Evaluated Auxiliary spillway integrity
6.Evaluated seismic stability of the Principal Spillway Tower
7.Evaluated the existing toe drains
Cherrystone Dam #1
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Identified Deficiencies
1.Auxiliary Spillway Capacity
2.Auxiliary Spillway Integrity
3.Downstream Slope Stability
4.Top of dam width
5.Rapid Drawdown Upstream Slope Stability
6.Seismic Stability of the Principal Spillway and catwalk
7.Toe Drain Replacement
8.Upstream development below the spillway elevation
9.Inadequate stream capacity at Hodnett’s Mill Rd.
Cherrystone Dam #1
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
2018 NRCS PER Results
1.Spillway capacity 75% (insufficient)
2.Vegetated spillway integrity (fails under design loads)
3.Downstream slope stability insufficient
1.Dam originally built with this condition but not far from acceptable
4.Dam top width is too narrow for High Hazard classification
1.Built this way presumably since originally was Significant Hazard
5.Upstream slope at 2.5:1 Factor of Safety is insufficient
1.Dam originally built with this condition but not far from acceptable
6.Principal spillway tower seismic Factor of Safety insufficient
1.Dam originally built with this condition but not far from acceptable
7.Toe drains are beyond service life
8.Homes were allowed to be built upstream below 100 yr elev
9.Drainage at Hodnetts Mill backs up water to the dam
Cherrystone Dam #1
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
NRCS Recommended Repairs
1.Construct wider spillway on the dam to solve #1
2.Armor spillway with Roller Compacted Concrete to solve #2
3.Add fill to strengthen downstream slope to solve #3
4.Add fill to widen top of dam to solve #4
5.Add fill to flatten upstream slope to solve #5
6.Demolish tower and rebuild further upstream to solve #6
7.Install new toe drains to solve #7
8.Construct barriers or move houses above 100 yr to solve #8
9.Make offsite improvements to Hodnett’s Mill Rd.
Estimated construction cost $12.9M (local share $4.5M)
Cherrystone Dam #1
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
NRCS Repair Risks and Impacts
1.The spillway directly on the dam means if the spillway fails
the embankment fails
2.Filling on the downstream slope is a minimal impact
3.Widening top of dam affects upstream and downstream
4.Fill on the upstream slope requires draining the lake totally
1.Environmental impact
2.Loss of use of the lake for extended period
1.Loss of water supply temporarily
2.Loss of fishery
Cherrystone Dam #1
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
NRCS Repair Risks and Impacts (cont.)
5.Relocating tower requires draining the lake totally
1.Environmental impact
2.Loss of use of the lake for extended period
1.Loss of water supply temporarily
2.Loss of fishery
3.Requires new site investigation and design AFTER draining the lake
1.Extends time the lake is drained
6.Adding new toe drain is a minimal impact
7.Moving or modifying three upstream residences is disruptive
8.Offsite road modifications reduce backwater on the dam
Cherrystone Dam #1
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #1 -F&R Approach
F&R Cost Savings Analysis -Questions we explored:
•Can the existing spillway be armored more effectively than the dam?
•Can a cutback protection wall be used instead of an armored channel
(favored option)?
•Can the downstream embankment slope be modified to pass stability FS?
•Can the upstream slope be modified to improve FS?
•Can the drawdown rate be reduced to improve FS?
•Can the tower be modified without draining to meet the seismic Factor of
Safety?
•Can any improvement to one element also help another one?
•Can the project be completed without draining the lake?
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
F&R Cost Savings Analysis Results
1.Widen auxiliary spillway to solve #1
2.Construct Concrete Cutback Protection in the spillway to
solve #2
3.Add fill to strengthen downstream slope to solve #3
4.Add fill downstream to widen top of dam to solve #4
5.Excavate to flatten upstream slope to solve #5
6.Modify tower in place without draining to solve #6
7.Install new graded filter blanket to solve #7
8.Modify spillway control section to set 100 yr pool below 2
houses and modify last house to solve #8
9.Make offsite improvements to Hodnett’s Mill Rd.
Estimated construction cost $7.6 (local share $2.7M)
Cherrystone Dam #1
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
F&R Repair Risks and Impacts
1.Widening the existing spillway is a minimal impact.
2.The hardened spillway remaining off the dam means if the
spillway surface fails the embankment still does not fail
3.Placing all fill on the downstream slope is a minimal impact
4.Widening top of dam to the downstream is minimal impact
5.No filling on the upstream slope no longer requires draining
the lake totally
1.Reduces environmental impact
2.Saves the cost of the dewatering and temporary cofferdam
3.Loss of use of the lake greatly reduced
1.Loss of water supply impact greatly reduced
2.No loss of fishery
Cherrystone Dam #1
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
F&R Repair Risks and Impacts
6.Modifying tower without draining the lake totally
1.Same benefits as #5 above
2.Does not require site investigation for new tower construction
7.Lowered spillway control section eliminates modification of 2
of the upstream residences
8.Third upstream residence still requires modification
9.Replacing the toe drain is a minimal impact
10.Offsite road modifications reduce backwater on the dam
11.Both the dam and spillway will appear similar to today but
solves all of the dam safety concerns
Cherrystone Dam #1
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #1 Spillway Today
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #1 –Clearing Trees Toward
Dam
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #1–Widen Spillway to 165ft
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #1 –Excavate to Bedrock
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #1 –Construct Concrete Sill
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #1 –Add Concrete Slope
Armor
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #1 –Bury Concrete Sill
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #1 –Embankment Today
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #1 –Clear Trees
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #1 –Install Graded Filter
and Extend Conduit
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #1 –Add Downstream Fill
From Dam #1 Spillway
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #1 –Add Downstream Fill
From Dam #2 Spillway
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #1 –Post Construction
Cross Section
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #1 Estimate
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #1 Estimate (cont.)
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Original Construction –circa 1968
1.Significant Hazard Classification
2.200 foot wide x 6 foot deep Vegetated Spillway
3.50% PMP Auxiliary Spillway Capacity
4.3.0:1 Upstream Embankment Slope
5.2.5:1 Downstream Embankment Slope
6.Traditional Type Principal Spillway Tower
Cherrystone Dam #2a
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
DCR Required Inundation Study in 2010
1.Used required National Weather Service HMR-51 PMP data
2.Used the USACE HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS software
3.Determined dam was now a High Hazard
4.Determined auxiliary spillway capacity was about 50%
5.Auxiliary capacity is now inadequate
Cherrystone Dam #2a
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
DCR Revises VA PMP in 2016
1.In 2016 VA DCR studied the PMP rainfall data in Virginia
2.This required changing from using NWS data to VA PMP
data set for analysis
3.50% capacity w/ NWS PMP = 85% capacity w/ 2016 VA PMP
Cherrystone Dam #2a
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
2018 NRCS Preliminary Engineering Study
1.Revised the capacity analysis
2.Used required 2016 VA PMP data
3.Used SITES software (typical for spillway erosion estimates)
4.Evaluated Auxiliary spillway capacity
5.Evaluated Auxiliary spillway integrity
6.Evaluated Seismic stability of the Principal Spillway Tower
7.Evaluated toe drains
Cherrystone Dam #2a
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
2018 NRCS PER Results
1.Spillway capacity 85% (insufficient but close)
2.Vegetated spillway integrity (fails under design loads)
3.Principal spillway tower seismic Factor of Safety insufficient
1.Dam originally built with this condition but not far from acceptable
4.Toe drains beyond service life
Cherrystone Dam #2a
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
NRCS Recommended Repairs
1.Construct wider spillway on the dam to solve #1
2.Armor spillway with Roller Compacted Concrete to solve #2
3.Drain lake to modify tower to solve #3
4.Install new toe drains to solve #4
Estimated construction cost $7.8M (local share $2.7M)
Cherrystone Dam #2a
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
NRCS Repair Risks and Impacts
1.The spillway directly on the dam means if the spillway fails
the embankment fails
2.Proposed tower modifications requires draining the lake
totally
1.Environmental impact
2.Loss of use of the lake for extended period
1.Loss of water supply temporarily
2.Loss of fishery
3.Adding new toe drain is a minimal impact
Cherrystone Dam #2a
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone #2a -F&R Approach
F&R Cost Savings Analysis -Questions we explored:
•Can the existing spillway be armored more effectively than the dam?
•Can a cutback protection wall be used instead of an armored channel (favored option)?
•Can the tower be modified without draining to meet the seismic Factor of Safety?
•Can any improvement to one element also help another one?
•Can the project be completed without draining the lake?
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
F&R Cost Savings Analysis Results
1.Raise dam to increase spillway capacity to solve #1
2.Construct Concrete Cutback Protection in the spillway to
solve #2 (Proven to not be feasible)
2a.Construct Concrete Chute in the existing spillway instead of
on the dam to solve #2
3.Modifying the tower under water no longer requires
draining the lake totally to solve #3
1.Reduces environmental impact
2.Saves the cost of the dewatering and temporary cofferdam
3.Loss of use of the lake greatly reduced
1.Loss of water supply impact greatly reduced
2.No loss of fishery
4.Install new toe drains to solve #4
Estimated construction cost $7.6 (local share $2.7M)
Cherrystone Dam #2a
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
F&R Repair Risks and Impacts
1.Placing fill on the top and downstream slope is a minimal
impact and adds to its strength
2.The hardened spillway remaining off the dam means if the
spillway surface fails the embankment still does not fail
3.Modifying tower without draining the lake totally
1.Reduces environmental impact
2.Saves the cost of the dewatering and temporary cofferdam
3.Loss of use of the lake greatly reduced
1.Loss of water supply impact greatly reduced
2.No loss of fishery
4.Replacing the toe drain is a minimal impact
5.Both the dam and spillway will appear similar to today but
solves all of the dam safety concerns
Cherrystone Dam #2a
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #2a Estimate
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #2a Estimate (cont.)
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #2a Spillway -Today
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #2a –Clear Trees Toward
Dam
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #2a –Grade Spillway Slope
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #2a –Excavate for Concrete
Chute
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #2a –Concrete Control
Section
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #2a –Concrete Chute
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #2a –Bury Concrete Chute
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dam #2a –Bury Concrete Chute
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dams –Pre Construction
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Cherrystone Dams –Post Construction
5.b.a
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Cherrystone Dams Cost Reduction Summary (2128 : Cherrystone and Roaring Fork Dams
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title: Finance Committee Recommendations (Staff Contact: David M.
Smitherman); (10 minutes)
Staff Contact(s): David M. Smitherman
Agenda Date: August 18, 2020 Item Number: 6.a
Attachment(s):
Reviewed By:
David M. Smitherman, County Administrator, will review with the Board Finance Committee
recommendations for potential action at the August Business Meeting.
6.a
Packet Pg. 75
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title:
Consultation with legal counsel employed or retained by a public body
regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by
such counsel.
Staff Contact(s): J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.
Agenda Date: August 18, 2020 Item Number: 8.a
Attachment(s):
Reviewed By:
(1) Legal Authority: Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A)(8)
Subject Matter: Franklin County/Cool Branch Fire and EMS Service
Purpose: Consultation/Advice from Legal Counsel Regarding
Related Contract Negotiations
8.a
Packet Pg. 76
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title: Closed Session Certification
Staff Contact(s): J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.
Agenda Date: August 18, 2020 Item Number: 9.a
Attachment(s):
Reviewed By:
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CLOSED MEETING CERTIFICATION
BE IT RESOLVED that at the Meeting of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors
(the “Board”) on August 18, 2020, the Board hereby certifies by a recorded vote that to the best
of each Board Member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the
Open Meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (the “Act”) and
identified in the Motion authorizing the Closed Meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in
the Closed Meeting. If any Board Member believes that there was a departure from the
requirements of the Act, he shall so state prior to the vote indicating the substance of the
departure. The Statement shall be recorded in the Board's Minutes.
Vote
Joe B. Davis Yes/No
Timothy W. Dudley Yes/No
Ben L. Farmer Yes/No
William (“Vic”) Ingram Yes/No
Charles H. Miller, Jr. Yes/No
Ronald S. Scearce Yes/No
Robert (“Bob”) W. Warren Yes/No
9.a
Packet Pg. 77