Loading...
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