HomeMy Public PortalAbout1966_07_07 240 •
MINUTES OF PUBLIC .FARING 0_ LEESBURG T01Th1 COUNNCIL, JULY 7, 1966.
. A Public Hearing was held in the Council Chambers, Leesburg, Virginia at
7 :30 P.M. on July 7, 1966. Present at this meeting were Mayor Rollins, Council-
men C. Maley Fishbac'_t, h?aurice R. Lowenbach, Jr. , Walter F. Murray and John W.
Pumphrey; also Town Manager James W. Ritter , Jr. Absent -froth the_meeting '?;ere
Councilmen C. A. English Cole and Robert A. Orr.
•
IMayor Rollins 'stated• that this Hearing was for the purpose of hearing in-
terested citizens make comments concerning the $900,000 Sewer Bond Referendum
to be voted on ,on Tuesday, July 12, 1966 and to ask questions concerning same.
He explained that this referendum is for th_e .purpose of building a new sewer
line in the Dry Hill area; constructing an interceptor line from the present
sewage treatment plant down to the site of the new plant which will be con-
structed
135 to, 2 miles east of Leesburg. This 3900,000, coupled with the
Federal grant,- may or may not be enough, this is something hard to determine
until bids are actually in hand, but any extra amount needed will come from a
general obligation' bond, or perhaps out of a surplus in the General Fund of the
Town. At any rate, Mayor Rollins said he felt confident that whatever excess
remained would be small enough that any tax increase would be very slight, if
at all. Mr. Rollins said he thought the radio and newspaper had given ample
coverage to this matter, but that Mr. John R. Williams of Johnson and Williams,
Consulting Engineers, was present to answer any questions.
Hr. =rank Caldwell , one of about six interested citizens present for the
Hearing, addressed Council and asked if the bonds would be retired from sewer
and water revenue. The answer being "Yes, " he inquired whether there would be
an increase in these rates at the present time. Mayor Rollins said that ' slight
increase would be necessary in approximately 2 or 3 years; that under thepresent
schedule, the bonds will not be retired until beginning in 1968. He said there
would be a probable increase in rates at that time. Hr. Caldwell asked if there
l,es any projected amount of increase. Councilman Fishback replied that it is
projected that the sewer rate will be increased to be equal the water rate.
Mr. Douglas Pratt addressed Council next, pre_`acing his questions and state-
ments with the following:
"As a resident and tax payer of Leesburg, I have several questions that
I wish to ask relating to the latest proposal to construct a new sewage treat-
ment plant for the Town and the pending referendum on a 3900,000 bond issue
to be used for constructing said facilities. I would like it to be understood
prior to my questions, that I am not opposed in any manner to the much needed
improvement and/or replacement of the presently antiquated and overburdened
sewer system in the Town. I am concerned , however , as to whether the present
proposal is the most feasible from an economic standpoint and will bring the
greatest return to the Town taxpayers and sewer users per dollar spent."
His first question was as follows:
"It is my understanding from statements made by the Mayor on the radio
and from articles in the local newspaper that the cost of connecting the Town
of Leesburg to the Potomac Interceptor Sewer would be $3,000,000. Is this
figure correct?" Mayor Rollins said it is. Mr. Williams said that , in his
report in 1963, his firm had made a complete study of this matter , and the cost
estimate of connecting to the Potomac Interceptor at that time was 33,307,500.
This has been brought up-to-date and the present cost estimate would be $3,831 ,849.
Mr. Pratt 's second question: "From what source was this cost figure ob-
tained?" This was answered above.
Mr. Pratt asked what route and ultimate connection point to the Potomac
Interceptor this figure is based on? Mr. Williams referred to his report of
1963 and exhibited a map therefrom, showing the route, which would tie 1' to
the Potomac Interceptor where there is an existing 42-inch stub. It would
follow Tuscarora down to Goose Creek, along Goose Creek to the Interceptor.
._. . Pratt asked if he meant that it would flow by gravity line to the exist-
ing plant, then to Goose Creek, then via Goose Creek, along a portion above
the Potomac River to the Potomac Interceptor at approximately Broad Run. Mr.
Williams said "Yes. "
Mr. Pratt 's next question : "Was any alternative route and point of connec-
tion studied and were cost estimates obtained for these alternate routes?" Mr.
Williams replied that an alternate route was mentioned; that it was first men-
-241
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING OF JULY 7, 1966.
tinned by the Loudoun County Sanitation Authority. Mr. Williams quoted from a
letter from the Sanitation Authority dated March 12, 1964, in which they said
they had no plans at that time and were in no position to make any plans. He
said there was a possibility that the connection through the Russell Branch
area could be made a permanent connection by enlarging the Russell Branch sewer;
this would cost approximately 31 ,700,000. This would include a shorter route,
but would require pumping. hr. Pratt called attention to the Burns & McDonnell
report and said he hoped Mr. Williams had had an opportunity to read it. Mr.
'Williams -said that getting to the Potomac Interceptor is just one problem. The
rates in 1980 would cost 3214.00 per day, or $78,110 per year, just for the use
of the Potomac Interceptor , this would not include the additional cost for im-
provments to the existing system. It would also not include the estimated cost
of $700,000 to rehabilitate the Town 's collection system so that the District of
Columbia would accept the Town 's sewage. Mr. Pratt asked again the cost in 1980.
Mr. Williamssaid that, based on rates as proposed for the Town of Herndon, the
cost would be3242 per mill gallons. Mr. Pratt asked Mr. Williams what figure
his firm has given to the Town as to cost to maintain its own treatment plant in
1980. He answered about 550.00 a day. Mr. Pratt asked if this includes amorti-
zation. MT. :Williams said this cost is of treatment and transporting sewage from
Town to the plant. Mr. Pratt stated that this did not include the cost of the
plant and the lines to it. He asked if the figure of 3242 per day included the
cost of the Potomac Interceptor amortized and if it is a comparable cost. Mr.
00 Williams said it is not, that the 3242 is for the use of the Potomac Interceptor
ht
O only and does not include the cost of getting sewage to the Potomac Interceptor.
O Mr. Pratt 's next question was as follows : "Has the Town 's consulting en-
. gineer submitted to the Town Council a study together with cost estimates for
such a connection via a gravity line from the existing treatment plant to
Goose Creek; a lift station and force main from Goose Creek along Route 7
eastward to the top of the Russell Branch Watershed and thence a gravity line
down Russell Branch to the Potomac Interceptor Sewer to a point a short dis-
tance west of Sully Road and south of Route 7? This alternate possibility, you
may recall , was suggested in Exhibit #7 of the "Record of Hearing Tuscarora
and Goose Creek Watersheds, May 4, 1965 before the State Water Control Board"
in Richmond. My question is, in other words, has the Town's consulting engineer
submitted a cost estimate on this alternate possibility for connecting to the
Potomac Interceptor?" Mr. Williams replied that they had not submitted one.
Mr. Pratt said that it would make sense to explore this alternative proposal.
Based on the cost of treating the sewage in the District of Columbia and the
31,700,000 cost, which was made by the Loudoun County Sanitation Authority, he
would think that this would not take much study, these figures being based on
a letter from Burns and McDonnell.
Mr. Pratt 's next question: "Statements have been made by the Mayor and
the local newspaper that the State Water Control Board has approved the Town's '
proposal to construct a new sewage treatment plant. Is this correct, or is it
rather the staff of the State Water Control Board that has said it ':Pill rec-
ommend such a proposal to the Board?" Mayor Rollins answered this by saying
that it is the latter.
Mr. Pratt : "Likewise, statements have been made that the State Water
Control Board has assured the Town that upwards of $480,000 will be forthcomins
from Federal grants. Is this correct , or is it that the staff of the Water Con-
trol Board has said it will reco'mr end such grants to the Board?" Mayor Rollins
also answered this question by saying that the recommendation of the staff,
especially the Director , is practically never overturned. They recommend al-
location of the funds to the Board in approximately this amount.
Mr. Pratt : "Has the State Water Control Board stated that it will not be
necessary to build a holding pond in addition to the proposed treatment plant?
111
israther that the staff of the State Water Control Board has said that
Or - t t- a t
it will recommend that the requirement for a holding pond be deferred until
such time as it may be needed, depending on whether the new treatment plant
achieves and maintains.95% treatment capability?" Mayor Rollins said that this is
the recommendation of the staff. Mr. Pratt : Then the possibility exists that
if the treatment is not up to par , the Water Control Board can reouire you to
put in a holding pond? Mayor Rollins : If the quality of the water becomes un-
safe or hazardous. Mr. Pratt said that he understood the Mayor to say in May
of 1965 that .the cost of this holding pond would be $500,000 to 5400,000, so that,
in addition_ to the $1,600,000 needed now, there is a possibility that there
would be another $300,000 to 13400,000 needed later.' Mr. Williams said that the
estimates of the holding pond and the pumping station were $125,000.
242
M=MUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING OF JULY 7, 1966.
Mr. Pratt : "Has the Town 's consulting engineer submitted to the Council
detailed cost estimates of the proposed sewage treatment, including annual
maintenance and operation costs? If so , what are these figures?" Mr. Williams
said these figures have been submitted and are contained in a financial report
which he did not have with him. Mr. Pratt asked if these figures are available
to the public. Mr. Williams said yes, if the Town has them.
i'•Ir. Pratt : "Has the Ton Council investigated the possibility of partici-
pation in the cost of constructing these facilities by the County of Loudoun,
as recommended by the firm of Johnson and Williams on page 2 and on pages 27
thru 31 of said consulting engineers ' report to the Town entitled "Financial
Feasibility Study Sera e System Improvements," dated January 1965?" lir. Wil-
liams said they had been in touch with the Sanitation Authority many times and
that in 1964 they said they were unable to participate in any of these plans.
About a year ago, the Town authorized Johnson and Williams to proceed with a
different program. Mr. Pratt asked if this was not dealing with the holding
pond and not building a treatment plant. Mr. Williams said that Mr. Hallett
was familiar with all of the plans, in fact , he had use of the reportnade by
Johnson and Williams and Mr. Williams said he would assume that Mr. -Hallett 'eas
familiar with all facets of this plan. Mr. Pratt asked, since the 1966 (or
current) proposal has been made public , has the Town of Leesburg or has Johnson
and Williams made any effort to contact the Sanitation Authority or the Board of
Supervisors as to whether they would or could provide any assistance? Mr. Wil-
liams said that he and the Town Manager had discussed the procedure they would
need to go through and said that Mr. Ritter said he would contact them about
the present plan and requested that Johnson and Williams send them the plans.
Mr: Pratt said that , as of 5 o 'clock this afternoon , he specifically asked Mr.
Hallett about the willingness of the Sanitation Authority to assist in this prog-
ram in line :•,ath the recommendations of Johnson and Williams that the County
be solicited for its support. Mr. Hallett advised me that on June 16, 1966, a
letter was written by Mr. Gheen offering assistance and that, as yet, no reply
had been received. I asked a similar question of the Board of Supervisors and
they said no. The engineering firm recommended that this be done. Loudoun
County 's proportionate share is estimated to be $284,208. Mayor Rollins said
he acknowledged receipt of the letter from Mr: Gheen, but he believed that that
letter said if the Town wished any assistance to contact them. Mayor Rollins
• went on to say that he thinks it would be wholly unwarranted for the people
• of Lovettsville or Mt. Gilead to participate in the Town's sewage system.
He believes this is a Town problem and should be paid for by the Town's resi-
dents. ::e thinks it would be ridiculous for the County to participate in this.
Mr. Pratt said that his point is that the Board of Supervisors and the County
Sanitation Authority have not been asked -to participate and he thinks they
should have been. Mayor Rollins said, speaking politically and realistically,
he does not think there would have been any participation by either the Board of
Supervisors or Loudoun County. Mr. Pratt believed there would have been.
Mr. Pratt said that he would urge the Council , before they commit the tax-
payers, residents and citizens of the Town to a 42,000,000 obligation, that they
be sure it is to the best of their knowledge and ability and of that of the con-
sulting engineers.
•
Councilman Fishback remarked that when you use a $2,000,000 figure, you are
talking about the interceptor here , their plant about 1,1800,000 and the holding
Pond at $125,000, for a total of $925,000. The rest would have to be spent,
even if you went to the interceptor Sewer. -
Mr. Pratt asked if the Council had looked into the possible alternative
route suggested by a competent engineering firm. He said we are still talking
about $1 ,600,000 and the possibility that , even if the plant is constructed,
the mater Control Board and the Health Department can still come back and say
you have to put in the holding pond at $300,000 or $$400,000. Mayor Rollins
reminded Mr. Pratt that the engineer has just finished saying that the figure
for the holding pond would be 5125,000, not 3300,000 or 3400,000. Councilman
Fishback said he still disagrees with these figures.
Mr. Pratt then quoted excerpts from the report of 1963. Mr. Williams said
these are not comparable figures; that the trunk line to the Kincaid property
would still have to be built ; that to the $1 ,700,000 estimated by Burns
McDonnell, there would still have to be added $800,000 down to Goose Creek. hr.
Pratt then quoted the editorial from today 's Times-Mirror. Mr. Williams said
the fi3ure of 31,600,000 is correct.
There being no further comments or questions, the meetins adjourned at 8:25P.M.
1-3j
1 I.: yor
Clerk of the Council