HomeMy Public PortalAbout1968_01_10 154
MIIUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF LEESBURG-TOWN COUNCIL, JANUARY 10, 1968.
A regular meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in the Council
Chambers, 12 W. Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia on January 10, 1968, at-7:30
P.M. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Rollins, with Councilman Orr lead-
ing the group in prayer. Those present were : Mayor Kenneth B. Rollins, Council-
men C. Maloy Fishback, G. Dewey Hill , Frederick R. Howard, Walter F. Murray,
Robert A. Orr and John W. Pumphrey; also Town Manager James W. Ritter , Jr. and
Town Attorney George M. Martin.
The minutes of the regular meeting of December 27, 1967 were approved as
written.
Mayor Rollins recognized Mr. John Wallace, spokesman for a group of tax-
payers
present at the meeting, and stated that the editorial in the County
newspaper written by Mr. Wallace was in error. He said he believed that the
Council has made its position known publicly concerning its decision to con-
struct the treatment plant and that a lot of work and a number of years have gone
into this project, as well as a lot of negotiations with the State and County
concerning this decision. He asked that, before Mr. Wallace addressed the Coun-
. cil, Dr. Orr read a Statement by Council concerning its decision on this matter,
giving its reasons for this decision. He said that the Council believes that they
are saving the taxpayers a considerable amount- of money.
Councilman Orr then read the following Statement :
STATEMENT OF POSITION ON LOUDOUN COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY
PROPOSAL FOR JOINT SEWERAGE PROJECT TO EFFECT A
CONNECTION TO THE POTOMAC INTERCEPTOR SEWER
LEESBURG , VIRGINIA
The Town Council of Leesburg recently received a proposal from
the Loudoun County Sanitation Authority whereby Leesburg would par-
ticipate with the Authority in the construction of sewerage facili-
ties to effect a connection to the Potomac Interceptor Sewer. This
proposal contemplates that the Town of Leesburg would divert its
waste water through sewerage facilities owned by the Loudoun County
Sanitation Authority to the District of Columbia 's Potomac Inter-
ceptor Sewer and sewerage facilities for ultimate treatment of the
waste water at the Blue Plains Sewage Treatment Plant. -
The disposal of waste water from the Leesburg Area has been of
primary concern to the Town Council for several years. In every con-
sideration of alternative methods for disposing of waste water from
the Leesburg Area, the best interests of those residents of the Lees-
burg Area who are dependent upon the Town for many services have been
paramount in the minds of the Town Council.
After careful consideration of the many ramifications involved,
the Leesburg Town Council has reached the decision that it would not
be to the best interest of the Town to accept the Loudoun County Sani-
tation Authority's proposal for effecting a connection to the Potomac
Interceptor Sewer for the following major reasons:
1. Much has been said about the savings to Leesburg in initial
construction costs if Leesburg participates with the Loudoun
County Sanitation Authority in a joint program to go to the
Potomac Interceptor Sewer. But this is not the entire pic-
ture : Leesburg's initial financial contribution to the Proj-
ect has been estimated by the Authority to be $669,500. How-
ever , for this substantial financial contribution, Leesburg
would acquire virtually nonew facilities, nor would Lees-
burg have any ownership, control, or voice in management in
111
the sewerage facilities cohstructed by Loudoun County with
the contribution from Leesburg.
2. Leesburg would have no control over the cost of sewage dis-
posal to residents of the Town. Sewerage service rates
would be levied by the Loudoun County Sanitation Authority
and the District of Columbia. Once Leesburg has abandoned
its plan for constructing the Town 's own sewerage facili-
. ties, it would be a customer of the Loudoun County Sanitation
p` Authority 's sewerage system.
C
15-5
MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 1968 MEETING.
3. Leesburg would be required to comply with the rules and regu-
lations of the District of Columbia and the Loudoun County
Sanitation Authority concerning the character and volume of
the waste water discharged into the Potomac Interceptor Sewer.
In order to comply with the District of Columbia regulations,
it would be necessary to completely rehabilitate the Town 's
sewage collection system at an estimated cost of at least
$400,000 to $700,000, thus increasing materially the capi-
tal cost of the joint project to Leesburg. The total cost
to Leesburg as claimed in the Burns & McDonnell Report would
not be $669,500, but from $1,069,500 to 61 ,369,500 depend-
ing on the cost to rehabilitate Leesburg's sewage collection
system to comply to the present regulations of the District
of Columbia.
These additional costs, including the related debt ser-
vice costs, would increase the annual cost of sewage treat-
ment to Leesburg for participation in the joint project with
the Loudoun County Sanitation Authority to $688 .per million
gallons in 1970 - decreasing to approximately $267 per mil-
N _ - lion gallons in 1991. The total cost .to Leesburg for par-
ticipation in the joint project from 1968 through 1996 would
CQ be $5,677,518. The annual cost per million gallons to treat
sewage in Leesburg's waste water treatment facility would be
✓ 9653 per million gallons in 1970 - decreasing to $151 per
million gallons in 1991. The total cost to Leesburg of pro-
•
viding its own sewage treatment facilities from 1968 through
1996 would be $4,516,677. Thus it can be seen from this analysis
that the total savings to Leesburg in providing its own treat-
ment facilities would be $1 ,160,841 between 1968 and the year .
1996. . -
4. Leesburg sold its bonds at 31/4 . If it sold its bonds on to-
day 's market , the interest rate would be much greater. Lees-.
burg's Municipal Bond Counsel has indicated that participating
with the Loudoun County Sanitation Authority in a joint sewer-
age project would complicate the Town 's bond. position inasmuch
as funds from the present bond issue could not be diverted to
the joint project with the Loudoun County Sanitation Authority
without a referendum. Further , there is no authority in the
statutes which indicates that an election on the question of
the diversion of bond proceeds may be held. However , even if
a referendum could be legally held and the bond proceeds di-
verted, there would be the further problem that the bonds would
no longer be revenue-type bonds, which do not count against the
legal debt limit of the Town, but rather they would be general
obligation bonds which do count against the debt limit. It is
possible that the bondholders could object to the fact that if
the bonds are diverted to a non-revenue-producing project, then
one of the terms of the covenant on the bonds is being violated,
since the covenant includes the provision that rates are to be
levied to retire the principal of the bonds and the interest
charges. In this instance, it is not possible to relate di-
rectly the project revenues used to defray debt service with
the investment of the . proceeds of the bond issue. Such a move
would also, in effect, reduce the availability of funds for
non-revenue-producing projects within the Town, and could en-
danger the Town 's borrowing capacity as may be required to ex-
pand other public works such as the development of a new water
supply.
5. The Report prepared by Burns & McDonnell for the Loudoun County_
SanitationAuthority did not include financial feasibility in-
formation from the standpoint of providing a plan whereby the
Loudoun County Sanitation Authority would provide its share of
the cost of the system.
The cost of operation and maintenance of the joint sewer-
age system has admittedly been based upon conjecture. Further,
in view of the lack of reliable cost data in the Burns & McDon-
nell Report and the omission of the cost of rehabilitating the
15.6
MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 1968 MEETING. •
Town 's sewage collection system to comply with the regulations
of the District of Columbia, it is impossible to substantiate
that a significant savings in initial capital cost or the cost
of operation would accrue to the Town of Leesburg by partici-
pating with the Loudoun County Sanitation Authority in a joint
sewerage project. On the contrary, as shown in Item 3, parti-
cipation in the joint venture would cost the Town over a 28-
year period $1 ,160,841 more than constructing and operating
its own sewage treatment facilities.
6. The success of the joint project is predicated on substantial
connections and financial contributions from Developers and/or
the County Board of Supervisors being made to the sewerage fa-
cilities proposed to be constructed in the County. Further,
the Loudoun County Sanitation Authority bonds are secured only
by revenues from the facilities. If the connections and fi-
nancial contributions which have been projected by the Loudoun
County Sanitation Authority do not materialize, and revenues
do not meet the cost of the facilities, including operation,
maintenance and debt service costs, then it is required under
the Code of Virginia that • the Loudoun County Sanitation Au-
thority increase the rates for sewerage service to its custo-
mers - in this instance - to Leesburg, who may be the major
customer of the Loudoun County Sanitation Authority sewerage
facilities for some time. Thus the annual costs for sewerage
service to the Town of Leesburg could be substantially higher
than those indicated in the Burns & McDonnell Report.
7. The success of the joint project is predicated on substantial
connections being made to the sewerage facilities in the County.
Similar optimistic projections were made for the District of
Columbia in connection with the Potomac Interceptor Sewer Proj-
ect. Testimony before the Senate Subcommittee by Representa-
tives of the District of Columbia in connection with hearings
on Senate Bill 1633 indicated that actual connections to the
Potomac Interceptor Sewer were far behind those projections
made in the Burns & McDonnell Report, and that the Potomac
Interceptor Sewer Project was in serious -financial diffi-
culties. If similar errors in judgment have been made in
the Loudoun County Sanitation Authority Study, it would re-
sult in sewer rates substantially higher than those indicated
in the Loudoun County Sanitation Authority Report prepared by
Burns & McDonnell.
8. To date , the Loudoun County Sanitation Authority has not demon-
strated a strong financial position. Its financing has been
predicated on contributed capital, most of which has been do-
•nated by the Sterling Park Development and local bank loans.
Estimates by its Engineers have indicated that its potential
for supporting a revenue bond issue in 1970 will only be ap-
proximately $900,000 at an assumed interest rate of 4% over a
30-year term of issue. Under the circumstances, it would ap-
pear of questionable prudence for the Town of Leesburg to com-
mit its residents to participation in a project with such un-
stable financial support.
The Town Council of Leesburg believes that it has a responsibility to
the Citizens of Leesburg and those people living in the area adjacent to
Leesburg to act in a manner which is, in its judgment, to the best inter-
est of the Leesburg area. The Council wishes to- assure _the residents of
Leesburg that the proposal of the Loudoun County Sanitation Authority has
been given long and careful consideration. The financial-planning, of-
fered by Loudoun County Sanitation Authority and its Engineers, in sup-
port of the joint Project is incomplete in many important aspects. The
advantages claimed for the joint project are not conclusive and Leesburg,
by accepting the proposal , forever surrenders its initiative and voice in
management of its sewage disposal facilities. The proposed plan for cost
sharing appears to impose an inequitable proportion of the financial re-
sponsibilities on the residents of Leesburg. The Council further believes
that Leesburg has a great future if adequate water supply and sewerage fa-
cilities are provided for and controlled by the people of Leesburg. For
the reasons enumerated above, the Leesburg Town Council has decided to
proceed with its own plans for the development of water and sewerage fa-
cilities.
•
157
•
MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 1968 MEETING.
Mr. Wallace asked that his group be allowed to see a copy of this Statement
and be given a little time in which to rearrange their comments in view of this
• Statement just issued by the Council. In the meantime, other business was trans-
acted by Council.
On motion of Councilman Pumphrey , seconded by Councilman Fishback, the fol-
lowing resolution was unanimously adopted :
WHEREAS, the Town of Leesburg has negotiated for the purchase of Lees-
burg Motor Co. property on the south side of Market Street , between
King Street and Wirt Street , and a down payment has been made in the
amount of $1 ,000.00,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Lees-
burg, that the Treasurer be directed to draw a check in the amount of
$59,000, such sum being the balance due for the purchase of this prop-
erty, to be appropriated from the Public Improvement Fund.
On motion of Councilman Murray, seconded by Councilman Howard , and after
explanation by Mr. Ritter, the following resolution was unanimously adopted:
`v WHEREAS, an interest payment was due and payable on January 1 , 1968
CCQ�2 in the amount of $2,192.00 on the $157,000 Airport Bond , and
0
(� WHEREAS, insufficient funds were appropriated in the current Budget
V to meet this payment,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of
Leesburg, that $196.22 be appropriated from the Airport Fund to pro-
vide sufficient funds to meet the interest payment.
Councilman Orr asked that Item 3 on the Agenda be carried over in order to
allow another insurance company interested in providing hospitalization for Town
employees to present their facts to the Committee.
On motion of Councilman Orr , seconded by Councilman Pumphrey, a proposed
Dog Ordinance was placed on the Agenda for discussion. Mr. Dale Hylton, Pro-
gram Director for the National Humane Education Center in Waterford, addressed
Council regarding this proposed Ordinance , stating that the wording used re-
quiring a dog to be muzzled was inhumane. He said that this could cause suffer-
ing, starvation and even death of an animal. Councilman Howard said he had re-
ceived a call from a citizen, suggesting that perhaps a leash law could be en- r
acted for high density areas. He said he did not believe this could be done,
however. Councilman Hill asked if the County Dog Warden would assist us in the
enforcement of a Dog Ordinance. Councilman Howard said he would, with the cooper-
ation of the Town Police. Councilman Hill asked what would happen in the case
of impoundment. Mr . Hylton said that the Animal Shelter would be available,
just as it is for the County. Councilman Orr said he would like to see this mo-
tion tabled and invite Mr. Hylton to attend the Committee meeting next week at
11 :15 A.M. , with the hope that perhaps Mr. Hylton can help in the wording of a
proper ordinance for the control of dogs. Mayor Rollins said that the County
is getting ready to consider a rather stiff ordinance in this regard and it
might be well for the Council to delay its decision to see what the Board of
Supervisors does first. On motion of Councilman Orr, seconded by Councilman ,
Murray, Council voted unanimously to table this motion.
On motion of Councilman Fishback, seconded by Councilman Hill , the follow-
ing resolution was unanimously adopted:
WHEREAS, preliminary plans have been received from John C. Wright
and W. M. Crickenberger for the furnishing of water to a proposed
development on the west side of Rt. 15 and south of the corporate
limits of Leesburg, and
WHEREAS, said plans include the building of a pump house and a fu-
ture standpipe,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of
Leesburg, that the Town Manager be authorized to have Johnson and
Williams study said plan and to make such recommendations to the
Town that are pertinent to the building and development of the water
system in the aforesaid subdivision.
158
MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 1968 MEETING.
On motion of Councilman Howard , seconded by Councilman Murray; and after
Mr. Ritter explained that he had discussed this with Mr. Hager , the Chief Plumb-
ing Inspector, who thought it a good idea and said he would incorporate it in
the Loudoun County Plumbing Code, Council unanimously adopted the following reso-
lution :
BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Leesburg, that
Loudoun County be requested to make provisions in their Plumbing
Code for the enforcement of Town of Leesburg Standards requiring
the laying of cast iron pipe sewer lines with caulked or neoprene
joints between the building and the property line.
On motion of Councilman Fishback, seconded by Councilman Pumphrey, and
after explanation by Councilman Fishback of the problem caused by roots grow-
ing into the sewer lines and stopping them up, which could be eliminated by re-
quiring cast iron joints, the cost of which would be about double, Council unani-
mously adopted the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Leesburg, that the
following amendment and addition be made to the Town of Leesburg Stand-
ards, governing the design and construction of Sanitary Sewers, Storm
Sewers, Water Lines , Streets and all appurtenances thereto :
Page 2 - Sewer Pipe
Insert "Main Sewer Lines"
At the bottom of Page 2 , and following last sentence, add :
"Building Service Lines
All building service lines shall be of cast iron soil pipe and fit-
tings.
Building service lines in public roads, streets, pavements, alleys,
driveways, parking areas, rights-of-way or in areas subject to super-
imposed
loads shall be cast-iron pipe of the grade known as extra
heavy.
Type Joints for Building Sewers.
Caulked joints for cast iron soil pipe and fittings shall be firmly
packed with oakum or hemp and filled with molten lead not less than
one inch deep and not to extend more than one eighth inch below rim.
Neoprene compression type gaskets may be used as an alternate for lead
and oakum, provided the soil pipe and fittings conform to commercial
standard 188 and the gasket conforms to ASTM-C-564.
Where tees or wyes have not been installed in the main line , the method
of connection shall be by placing a cast iron saddle on the' main.
Mr. Wallace addressed Council at this time, stating that a group of tax-
payers had formed a "Taxpayer 's Committee , " and he submitted to Council a list
of the members of this group. This Committee was formed because they are genu-
inely concerned over the possibility of a $3,000,000 outlay for sewer service
which they feel possibly could be saved by using the Dulles Interceptor Sewer
Line. Mr. Wallace stated that this Committee is aware of the fact that several
meetings have been held between the various bodies concerned , but that the Council
had, so far , rejected the County 's offer and that , up until this meeting started
tonight, no reasons had been given by the Council for constructing its own pl
other than the statement made by Mr. Ritter last week. He said that they are
hopeful that the Council will delay making a final decision tonight and give
this move very serious consideration. He also requested that the Committee
be given a copy of this Statement made tonight and be given an opportunity to
study it. He said they did not mean to imply that this Statement is not honor-
able and the Council 's feeling of the best way this situation can be approached,
but that there are times when errors and mistakes can be made. He said they still
feel that the Dulles Interceptor Sewer is the route to follow.
159
MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 1968 MEETING.
Mr. Wallace said the Committee had several questions that they would like
to go over with Council, the first of which is as follows : "At the moment, you
are 3500,000 short of the total money needed to carry out your project. Where
is the additional money coming from, and will you have to have another bond issue
to raise this money?" Mayor Rollins answered this question by saying that there
is no way that anyone can tell how much over the Bond Issue will be necessary.
He said this $500,000 figure is erroneous and has no basis. No-one• can tell how
much the project will cost until the bids are received and accepted and, at that
time only, will you know how much the project will cost. If the bid is over the
amount of money the Town has, then the Town will have to have a General Obliga-
' tion Bond Issue to finish paying for it. Mr. Wallace said this 5500,000 figure
came from our engineers. Mayor Rollins said it came from an estimated $1 ,800,000.
These figures were ballooned in order for the Town to receive more money for a
grant to get the project financed. He said he had no idea the bids would be any-
thing like that high. $1 ,500,000 is the best estimate they can give.
Mr. Wallace said that , in comparison to that , if you use the Dulles Inter-
ceptor Sewer , you will have to have no General Obligation Bonds. Council mem-
bers answered that we would have to sell back the bonds and, if we own any of
that line , it would cost another $700,000 or 3800,000. Mr. Wallace said that
these bonds are not holding sewer lines as security and that most bonding com-
C9 panies are happy to go along with Towns. Councilman Hill interjected here that
CQ he had talked with the Bonding Attorney in New York and that they had discussed
(.7 whether we could change our present bond issue to cover this Interceptor Sewer.
V The Bonding Attorney said it was possible , providing that we own the lines to a
V point as far as the money would go. He said we could then lease the lines back
to the Sanitation Authority. Mr. Douglas Pratt asked Councilman Hill if he had
this opinion in writing. Mr . Hill said No, not unless our Attorney has it.
Mr. Denny Gallagher asked at this time to see the list of names of this Com-
mittee. Councilman Orr read the names and Mr. Gallagher commented that it seemed
that most of these names are either real estate brokers or bankers. Mr. Wallace
said they were.
Mr. Wallace said that some Council members have indicated that Vienna is
I
not happy with its connection to the Dulles Interceptor Sewer. He asked if the
Council had contacted Vienna. Mayor Rollins and Councilman Orr both said No,
and Mayor Rollins asked Colonel James Lewis of the Johnson and Williams firm to
comment on this. Colonel Lewis said that there is a specific statement in the
Senate regarding the Town of Vienna, which says that , if they had to consider
this again, they would give it further consideration. Mr. Wallace said he talked
to the Director of Public Works of Vienna today and he gave a history of what
had happened in the Town of Vienna and stated that , although they had misgiv-
ings at one time , they were now quite happy with their connection to the Dulles
Interceptor Sewer. Mr. Wallace said that the Council has a choice of either
building its own plant or going to the Interceptor Sewer and the Committee feels .-
that it should take a long, hard look at this matter before making a decision.
Colonel Lewis said that the report given by Mr. Wallace re the Town of Vienna is
a direct contradiction to the statement given to the Senate. Mr. Pratt said that
he had read this statement today re the Town of Vienna and he gave a brief resume .
of it, concluding with the fact that he believed today 's statement by the Director
of Public Works indicates that they are not sorry now that they went to the Dulles
Interceptor.
There followed a period of discussion between Mr. Wallace and Colonel Lewis
regarding the rates for operating a plant , with Mr. Wallace giving specific amounts
over a period of years and stating that this did not include the revitalization of
the plant in 7 or 8 years when the population increases to approximately 20,000.
Colonel Lewis responded to this by stating that he did not know how they could
know this without having his computations, and he assured them that the revitali-
' zation of the plant had been included, along with many other things that would
have to be considered over the years. Mr. Wallace again renewed the plea of the
Committee for more time so that they could study the Town 's Statement.
Mayor Rollins chided Mr . Wallace regarding his editorial in the Loudoun
Times-Mirror , wherein he stated that a large surplus is collected by the Town
from sewage fees and is deposited in the Town 's General Revenue Fund and used
to cover other Town expenses. He asked Mr. Wallace 's basis for this statement.
Mr. Wallace said that Councilmen in the Town have told him that money from sewage
and water fees is transferred over to the General Fund. The Mayor and several
Councilmen said this is absolutely not true and Councilman Fishback stated that
the only thing that is transferred from this fund is administrative costs of the
Water and Sewer Department itself. Councilman Orr asked specifically who gave
160
MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 1968 MEETING.
Mr. Wallace this information, also stating that this is Town money and is pub-
lic and it is not hidden. He reiterated that the only money taken out of this
fund is for administration. He also asked that hereafter before such statements
are made the proper people be contacted. Mr. Wallace said that he recalls that
Mr. Cole made this type of statement.
Mr. Alton Echols, Jr. addressed Council at this time , stating that his rea-
son for coming here was to inquire as to what the rates might be , that he was
interested in trying to establish an average for each home owner or office. He
said he would like comparisons with other Towns and asked if the Town has any
rates in comparison if the Interceptor is used. Mayor Rollins said that Sterl-
ing Park is on the Interceptor and it is his understanding that their rates
are considerably more, on the average , than those of Leesburg. Mr. Echols
said he felt this an important factor to be established.
Mr. Herbert Sumney asked if the recent increase in sewer rates was to cover
a deficit in the operation of the disposal system. Mayor Rollins pointed out
that the reason for this increase was the decision made over a year' ago when the
Bond Referendum was approved by the voters of the Town. The bonds were sold at
a very opportune time and , since they have been sold, the Town has to start pay-
ing them back. Mr. Shmney asked if this money had been invested , to which Mayor
Rollins replied Yes. Mr. Sumney asked what heppens to the interest accrued on
this investment , if it might go into the plant costs. Mayor Rollins said this
interest remains with the Bond Issue money. Mr. Sumney said then the rates were
raised to pay the interest , that the costs have not changed materially today ex-
cept for this interest. Mayor Rollins said this is correct.
Councilman Orr brought out the fact that we have already expended approxi-
mately $98,000, $60,000 for land and 338,000 in engineering fees. He said we
have been discussing this problem for five years.
Mr. John W. Clemens addressed Council , stating that he had been' a taxpayer
in this Town for many years, actually longer than anyone in the room other than
one person, and that he certainly has an interest in the Town. He said he has
heard so many figures and read so much information from two very reputable en-
gineering firms that he has come to the conclusion that they either' do not agree
or else they are not talking about the same thing. He said he had two ques-
tions, one being that , if a new plant is built- now to serve a population of
10,000 (which he would estimate could happen in 5 or 6 years) , does the Town
know now what costs might be at the end of that time when another plant would
have to be built? Two, he said he understands that the State Water Control Board
has not yet promised that holding ponds would not have to be built, as well as
the new plant, and , if this is true , has the cost of building a holding pond been
included in this money? He said he has heard a great deal about the County want-
ing to enter into a joint venture , but apparently one of the principal disagree-
ments has been over ownership of the line beyond the Town limits. He said that
he feels that, regardless of who owns the lines beyond the Town limits, this will
definitely be of benefit to the County. The area between the Town limits and
the Interceptor Sewer is without sewer and anything built there will have to do
business -with the Town and certainly a Town that increases its business would not
be hurt. He said he had never known of any project that cost less than esti-
mated. He did not believe that, if the present -.Bond Issue had to be rescinded
in order to go into a joint venture , the taxpayers would mind voting for a lesser
Bond Issue. He said he would much rather pay a higher property' tax and not so
much sewer charge, the property tax can be deducted.
Councilman Orr said he had figured up the average increase of the sewer
rate to each home owner and that , for the average family of 31 people, it would
run about 13'i¢ per day per individual and that the Council did not feel that this
was too much of an increase. rr
Councilman Murray said that , regarding Mr. Clemens statement fleLadded
cost be placed on property, we must specify for the Bond Issue that rates will
be reviewed periodically and that the debt service will be derived from that
service. Mr. Clemens said he would still prefer to have the tax on his property.
Councilman Fishback called attention to the fact that there are some houses in
Town that are not on the sewer.
Mr. William Cox also addressed Council , stating that the raise in sewer
rates did not affect him tremendously, but that he does object to having to
pay sewer charge on -the water that he uses in the summer just to water his lawn.
161:
MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 1968 MEETING.
Mr. Douglas Pratt directed several questions to either the Council or a
representative of Johnson and Williams. First , he asked whether the Statement
read by Dr. Orr as being the Statement of the Town Council was based on figures
and computations prepared by Johnson and Williams. Mayor Rollins said this State-
ment was made by the Council , with the assistance of the engineers. Mr. Pratt
also asked if the Town 's consultant firm is refuting the cost estimates and the
rate costs as set out in the Burns and McDonnell Report, which was done as a
joint request by the Town Council and the Sanitation Authority. Colonel Lewis
of Johnson and Williams answered this question. He said that they are giving the
Town the benefit of their analysis of the Burns and McDonnell Report and that they
might not entirely agree on these estimates. He said it would be well to consider
that they have developed certain figures and Burns and McDonnell others. He said
this is not a refutation of the Burns and McDonnell estimates. He also said he
would suggest that Mr. Pratt reduce his question to writing and they would be
glad to answer his question after further study and in more detail.
Mr. Pratt also asked if the Statement read by Dr. Orr is based on figures
and computations or analysis by the consulting firm reduced in writing, or was
the Statement itself prepared by Johnson and Williams? Mayor Rollins said these
figures are those of the engineers. Mr. Pratt asked if this Statement is avail-
able to the public. Mayor Rollins said it will be made available to the press
N and these figures are available to the taxpayer. He requested a copy of these
N figures at this time.
N
Mr. Sumney said that Dr. Orr read this Statement as an expression of the
Council. Councilman Orr said this has not come to a vote yet, but it is the
consensus of the Council.
Mr. Pratt quoted •from the Public Hearing on the $900,000 Bond Referendum
held on July 7, 1966 for approximately half an hour, concluding with the fact
that the figure given by Mr. Williams on that date to connect to the Potomac
Interceptor would be $3,831 ,849.00. He pointed out that these costs were based
on the river route , not on the route given in the Burns and McDonnell Report.
He asked if any effort was made since that date, up until September of 1967, to
work out any alternative possibility in order to try to save money for the tax-
, payers. Councilman Fishback said that the only comparative costs made were those
received since the Burns and McDonnell Report. Colonel Lewis said that Mr. Pratt
had the advantage of having a copy of the record and that Mr. Williams had handled
this matter personally at that time. He asked that Mr. Pratt reduce his question
to writing and let Mr. Williams give him a complete answer. Mrs. daCruz , also
a member of 4hettJohnson and Williams firm, asked Mr. Pratt to repeat his ques-
tion , and Mr./areplied with the following question : "Between the dates of July 7,
1966 and the time in September , 1967 in which the Town Council of the Town of .
Leesburg agreed that the firm of Burns and McDonnell would be suitable for a
feasibility study of the current question of tying into the Potomac Interceptor
Sewer, did either the Town or the consulting firm of Johnson and Williams make
a feasibility study of what it would cost to tie into the Potomac Interceptor
Sewer to be used as a comparison with the alternative of building its own sewage
treatment plant?" Mrs. daCruz answered Mr. Pratt by saying that, some months
ago, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in Charlottesville
double-checked their figures in their 1963 report and called and said they thought
these figures were slightly low. She said Yes, that has been thoroughly in-
vestigated. Mr. Pratt said his question relates to the time between July 1966
and September 1967. Colonel Lewis again requested that Mr. Pratt reduce his
question to writing and let Mr. Williams answer it.
Councilman Murray said that , at the joint meeting with the Board of Super-
visors held over a year ago, Mr. Hallett stated that the County had no funds.
Mr. Kirkpatrick also implied that they had no funds to go into such a project.
Mr. Wallace said that the purpose in that meeting was to work on this project,
then they would work on getting the funds. He said the taxpayers feel that not
enough consideration has been given to this joint venture.
Mayor Rollins stated that he hoped that the majority of this community
realizes that we have spent considerable time trying to resolve a pressing prob-
lem to the best advantage of the community. He said the Council is not concerned
with resolving the problems of the County, that, first of all, we must be con-
cerned with solving the problems of the Town. The people voted to build a
sewage treatment plant and it has been said time and time again that the County
had nothing to offer. Leesburg couldn 't just sit still. Now we have gotten to
the point of letting bids and you people bring this up. He said that it was the
.162
MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 1968 MEETING.
unanimous feeling of both bodies that there is no other course that can or
should be taken. He said this figure of how much money can be saved is a figure
in the air , that there is only one course of action to be taken. There is a
tremendous gap between Leesburg and Broad Run and, when it is developed, you
will have thousands of people. You can' t close this gap overnight, you have
to build from the Towns out and let your planned communities spread.
Mr. Pratt said it seems that the Town 's consulting engineering firm refutes
the figures of the Burns and McDonnell Report. He talked on an on along these
same lines, finally stating that engineering studies since 1963 have indicated
that it would be cheaper for the taxpayers to use the Dulles Interceptor Sewer.
Now the Council has chosen to go a more expensive engineering route. He again
requested that Council seriously consider this before making a mistake that
will irretrievably involve the taxpayers. Mayor Rollins said they had talked
about conjecture, but that this whole matter is constantly changing. He said
we do not even know how sewage will be treated 10 years from now.
Mr. Pratt said he appeared before the Council on July 7, 1966 and set out
all of these questions and this is why he asks the Council whether they have done
anything about this. Councilman Murray said that Mr. Pratt 's appearance at that
meeting had been given wide public recognition and still the Referendum passed
by an overwhelming majority that the Town would build a sewage treatment plant.
Mr. Sumney asked if the Mayor had made a statement that the contract had
been let. Mr. Rollins said that we were to the point of letting bids.
Mr. Cox stated that , with reference to the majority by which the Bond Issue
carried, he voted for it on the trust of the Council. However , he said that,
although he did not know the details of this case, it would seem that the Council
has taken a somewhat unreasonable stand in favor of carrying out a course of ac-
tion, based on the fact that no alternative was available to the Town. He said
that , if he is to retain his confidence in 'his Council , he hopes that they are
more flexible than he has anticipated. If a better course is available, he hopes
they will fully investigate it.
Mr. Donald W. Devine said he came here tonight to learn just what this is
all about, and that he assumes that , if he could show the Council that one
course is better than the other , they would vote that way, however, he has
found that there seems to be some conflict as to which is the better course
for Leesburg. He said he had just been through this with the Town of Hamilton
insofar as building a plant is concerned. He thought the Interceptor Sewer
should at least be very seriously considered. He said he did not care what
happens in Broad Run District, he is looking out for the Town, not the County.
He seemed to think that , if there is any chance of hooking into the Interceptor
Sewer, even if it costs more money, the Council should give it serious considera-
tion for this reason : He would support Mr. Wallace in his plea not to take hasty
action until perhaps this can be further studied.
Colonel Lewis said that not much has ever been said about the fact that
you can have problems with expense in going to the Potomac Interceptor. He
said this is covered in the Burns and McDonnell Report and they (Burns and
McDonnell) pointed out that it may cost $55,000,000 to expand the Blue Plains
facilities as early as 1985 , and they have acknowledged that they have designed
their lines on certain criteria, and even a possibility that you might have to
divert the flow.
Councilman Hill asked Mr. Devine if he could give some idea of what it cost
the Town of Hamilton. Mr. Devine said it was about 33-1/3% higher.
Mr. Pratt said he would like to reiterate his question on the refutation
of the Burns and McDonnell Report , and asked that the written review be made
public , and that the Statement made by Dr. Orr be given to the Taxpayer 's Com-
mittee for review before action is taken on this matter. They would like to
review this Statement and reply to either the Council and/or the firm of John-
son and Williams relative to their review of the Burns and McDonnell Report.
Mr. Clemens said that , with regard to the possibility of this S55,000,000
additional cost on the Potomac Interceptor , he understands this is quite possible
and that it might be more. He said Congress gives money everywhere else, so he
would think they would give it here also. He also said that he has still not
gotten an answer as to whether or not the Water Control Board has said that the
Town will need a holding pond. Mayor Rollins said that no holding pond will have
to be constructed as long as the treatment is satisfactory, Councilman Murray
asked where Congress is getting all this money, but there was no reply.
163
MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 1968 MEETING.
Mr. Echols said that he believes the Town of Leesburg has a quite favor-
able real estate tax rate, lower than some other Towns in the County. He said
he detects a feeling from the audience that the Council , as a body, has not given
careful consideration to all aspects of this problem. He said he considers this
Council an excellent body and has found that it is always fair and always quite
well prepared. He also said that over half of the audience are real estate men
and that , with the exception of one, they all work heavily in the Broad Run area,
so he feels they are justified. However , he said that, in the midst of all that
has been heard tonight , he would feel proud to be a resident of this Town.;
On motion of Councilman Fishback, seconded by Councilman Pumphrey, the fol-
lowing resolution was presented for discussion:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Leesburg, that John-
son and Williams be authorized to proceed with the advertisement of
bids for the construction of a new Sewage Treatment Plant on the Kin-
caid land ; the Tuscarora Interceptor Sewer , and the Dry Mill Run Sewer,
plans for which have been prepared.
Councilman Murray asked what the status of the Westinghouse plans are at ht his time.
N Mayor Rollins said he had talked to Mr. Clark about the DECO facilities aned/sug-
N gested that the best way would be for the Town to put this in the form of a pro-
N posal and he would take it up with the proper persons. The Mayor said he thought
C� it would be fair to offer them the same basis as the County had offered, to let
' them buy the capacity of the line. Councilman Murray said he believes we should
V pursue this if we pass this resolution , and he would hope that the Town can get
together with Westinghouse very soon. Mayor Rollins asked if there would be any
objection to the Town Manager writing a proposal to Westinghouse, whereby they
would pay so much for the hook-ons and so much for the use of the lines and DECO
would pay their share for the capacity of the line. This would be the same propo-
sition offered by the County. There was no objection to this being done by the
Town Manager.
Councilman Hill stated that he did not know of anything on which he had put
more time and study than this matter of the sewage treatment. He said he thought
111 it unfortunate that these figures were not developed at least a year ago and some
decision made at that time , however , under the present time element , he has had
to arrive at a decision on the basis of the information he has had to go on.
Councilman Howard said he also had studied this problem from all aspects
as much as possible.
Councilman Murray said he had not been a member of this body for five years,
but he places a great deal of credence in the former members of this Council. He
said he has been in on the joint meetings and he recalls that one Board member
said he was not interested and that the Sanitation Authority any number of times
stated they had nothing to offer to go into this joint venture, then the Board
closed the meeting by saying the Town was justified in taking its planned action.
The new Burns and McDonnell Report contained a statement that he said he could not
in true conscience vote for because it did not give the Town any ownership of any-
thing. He said the newly elected Board was most sympathetic to the problem.
They did state , however , that , by assuming ownership of a portion of the line,
our proportionate cost would go out of range of our financing. They also agreed
that the time element and the amount of money would take a year, so it would prob-
ably be two years before bids could even be let. He said that the land we bought
and the trunk lines would not be lost if we eventually have to go to the Inter-
ceptor, the only thing that would be lost would be the plant itself.
Councilman Fishback said that three members of this body have been on the
Council for five years and that he did not know of any alternative that they had
not discussed to the best of their ability with their engineers, and they have
always come back to the same decision. He said , if at some future time it be-
comes feasible to hook into the Interceptor , there would be no need to lose the
plant, it could still be used for what it would take and the increase put into
the Interceptor. He said the Town could not afford to lose its Federal Grant
and he did not think they were prepared to make a change.
The resolution above was then adopted by a unanimous roll call vote.
t&4
MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 1968 MEETING. .
Mayor Rollins said that , if there is no objection, he directs the Town
Manager to make the proposal to Westinghouse , stating the amount of money for
hook-ups and the amount of money for rates and the position of the Town that
Westinghouse will pay, for their capacity of the line, to be determined by the
line and the pumping station, and to be determined by their engineers and ours.
Mayor Rollins said that there will be a meeting with the Board of Supervisors
and the Hospital Board on January 23rd, the next regular meeting of Council on
the 24th and, on the 25th at 7 :30, he and Mr. Leach have planned a joint meeting
between the Planning Commission and the Council.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
I
• i • �L-
Mayor
Clerk of to Council
1
II