Loading...
August 24, 1982 Joint Meeting with City Council and Service Authority6 2 G A Joint Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, the City Council and the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority was held on August 24, 1982, at 7:00 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PRESENT S. Roger Koontz, Chairman; Will L. Owings, Vice - Chairman; William H. Baker and Rhoda W. Maddox. Absent - Davi L. Smith and Kenneth Y. Stiles. WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL PRESENT Charles M. Zuckerman, Mayor; William Mote, President; Richard Kern; Elizabeth A. Minor; J. Thomas Kremer, Jr.; H. Delmar Robinson, Jr.; William Shendow; Donald E. Smallwood; Dr. H. George White; Betty Burkholder and John S. Scully, IV. Absent were Jacob Johnson and James R. Wilkins, Jr. FREDERICK - WINCHESTER SERVICE AUTHORITY PRESENT C. Robert Solenberger, Chairman; Wendell Seldon; Wellington Jones; Jay Givens and Jim Diehl. CAMP DRESSER MCKEE PRESENT Johnathan Curtis and Kenneth J. Snow. Mr. Larry W. Zimmerman, of the engineering firm of Smith, Hinchman and Grylls, was also present. Mr. Solenberger welcomed everyone to the meeting and requested that Mr. Koontz introduce the Board members and that Mayor Zuckerman introduce the City Council. Mr. Solenberger introduced the members of the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority along with Mr. Johnathan Curtis and Mr. Kenneth Snow of Camp Dresser McKee and Mr. Larry Zimmerman with the engineering firm of Smith, Hinchman and Grylls. HISTORY OF REGIONAL PROJECT PRESENT BY JOHNATHAN CURTIS Mr. Curtis gave an update of the history of the regional project dating back to 1977 when the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority first submitted its facility plan to the State Water Control Board. He stated that when Congress passed the law which repealed the industrial cost recovery provi- sions, that had previously been in effect, this legislature prohibited the use of Federal funds for that portion of the treatment facility, the capacity of which was attributed to industrial flow. As a result the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority voted that the additional cost would have to be paid by the affected industries. The industries then reevaluated the economics of the participation in the Regional Treatment Facility and only one industry decided to participate. In December, 1981 the Optimiza- tion Study was begun. In May, 1982 the Frederick - Winchester Service 623 Authority was notified that the State Water Control Board was requiring a tiered affluent limit for the alternatives under study, which would change the design criteria of the plants once again. In July, 1982 the Optimiza- tion Study was completed and submitted to the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority at the end of July and then to the State Water Control Board, EPA and the State Department of Health. The State Water Control Bord is now awaiting the selected treatment alternate on advice from the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority and now the Service Authority has to decide as to which alternate they will go with. Mr. Curtis stated that the two alternates studied were the upgrading of the existing City plant and the County's Abram Creek plant and the construction of the new Regional plant. The cost comparison between the two alternates at best is within an accuracy of something like plus or minus 100. The planning period of the work is twenty years from 1985 until the year 2005. The population data was also reviewed. REPORT ON OPTIMIZATION STUDY Mr. Kenneth Snow gave a report on the results of the Optimization Study. He listed the following major factors considered when looking at the various processes: 1. Labor requirements. 2. The flow change that resulted when the three fruit processors withdrew. 3. Future expandability of the plant. 4. Ease of flexibility of operation and maintenance. Mr. Snow stated that all costs are based on 1982 dollar values. He further stated that these costs are preliminary and are used for comparison between the alternates. Mr. Delmar Robinson asked what the cost would be to upgrade the City plant. Mr. Snow replied $25,128,000. Mr. Shendow questioned the maintenance cost at the City plant versus the Regional plant and how the cost narrows from 1985 to 2005. Mr. Snow stated this was due to the projected increase of use in the County, thus causing the flow to increase at the Regional plant and decrease at the City plant. Mr. Snow stated that one item that must be considered when choosing between the regional alternate and the upgrade alternate is that the 75% Federal funding will be reduced to 55% if the project plans and specifications are not submitted by June, 1983. He stated that a reduction in funding may result in an additional cost to the City of approximately 624 four million dollars. He further stated that an environmental assessment will be required by the SWCB if the existing plants are upgraded. He stated that the recommendations of Camp Dresser McKee is to construct a Regional plant. Mr. Givens stated that when the entire environmental assessment was done he was sure both the City and County plants were assessed and he felt that only an update would be necessary if this is the route the governing bodies decided to go with. VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY Mr. Larry Zimmerman presented a report on the Value Engineering Study. Mr. Zimmerman stated that his firm's scope was to analyze the optimization phase report that was prepared and make sure it was the most cost effective approach. The question was raised by Mr. Robinson, hir. Mote and Mr. Kerns about the present requirements and whether or not once the Regional plant is built what guarantee would the Authority have that once the doors were opened that these same requirements would not be changed by then and the plant would be obsolete. Mr. Robinson questioned the chart with reference to the percentages as outlined for this project and why the cost for this project was not given more than 10% consideration out of a possible 89 points. He asked if there was any land surrounding the City plant that could be acquired for possible extension of the City plant. Mr. Sam Lehman stated that there was 28 acres that adjoined the City property that was available. Mr. Zimmerman stated that in summing up the weighted criteria that the regional facility is the best way to go. REPORT ON USER CHARGES Mr. Snow presented the user charges and stated that these charges for the treatment plant are based on water consumption. He further presented the following chart with reference to the charges: SUMMARY OF UNIT COSTS OF SERVICE Alternate 1 Alternate 2a Alternate Upgrade Regional 2b Regional On City On County On City On County On Either System System System System System City Customers $12 /mo -- $12 /mo -- $14 /mo County Customers $12 /mo $51 /mo $12 /mo $43 /mo $14 /mo 61J This is for the average household using 5,000 gallons of water per month. STATUS OF STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD Mr. Jay Givens stated that the Optimization Study has been submitted along with the user charges to the State for their review. They have advised that the Authority will hear from them by September 3rd. He further stated that the costs are considered close enough that the State will fund whichever project is selected, either upgrading or regional at 75% of the eligible cost and that each jurisdiction can be funded seperately, but because of the deadline the project is under, the State recommends that the project continue through Step II which is the design stage as an Authority and then split up before going into construction. The project is already in Step 11 and approved through Step 11 and approved as a signatory Authority. He stated that if the decision is to go with the two existing plants that an environmental assessment review will have to be done and this could result in some delay. He further stated that any project that is not under construction by October 1, 1984 will result in 55% funding versus the current 75% funding. The State says that in order to use the funding from the State the project has to have plans and specifications for at least the first phase of the project to the Health Department for review by June 1, 1983. The plans have to go through the review process and be ready for construction by October 1, 1983. A decision is needed by September, 1982 by the governing bodies. At this time the City adjourned to the City Council Chambers and the Board remained in the Board Room for further discussion on this project. COUNTY OFFICIALS Mr. Wellington Jones presented a slide referencing the cost of the various alternates to County residents based on 1,000 gallons being used per month. Mr. Owings asked how many customers the County was servicing at this time. Mr. Jones replied 700 at the Abrams Creek plant. He stated that at present the County has an interim permit for the present County plant, however if it were upgraded then the County would receive a permit for a permanent plant. Mr. Jones further stated that the cost of upgrading the County plant and expanding would be $3,000,000.00 with 75% funding the cost would be reduced to approximately 1.5 million. The County share of the 626 Regional plant with our capacity pro -rated would be $3,545,162 for a total cost of $20,972,000. Mfr. Diehl stated that if the County decides to go regional they will still have to pay for the Abrams Creek plant. Mfr. Owings stated that the County would still have to pay for the Abrams Creek plant and it would be demolished if we go regional. Mfr. Jones stated that both plants will have to be upgraded or the two bodies will have to go regional. Mfr. Owings asked if Stephens City's present indecision on what they wanted to do with regard to their future sewer needs would affect this decision. Mfr. Jones stated that Stephens City would be given until January 15, 1983 to make their decision. He stated that the critical thing he would like to point out is that something has to be done. He stated that we have to have our plans in by next June and that is why the Authority is asking for a decision by next month. The question of the possibilities of the City upgrading their plant were discussed and what would happen if the City wanted to build a new plant and the County wanted to upgrade their plant. Mfr. Owings stated that he would like to lean on the Planning Commission and the Sanitation Authority for their opinions before the Board makes their decision and that a worksession should be scheduled in order to discuss this with them. Mfr. Baker concurred with Mr. Owings's suggestion. Mr. Diehl suggested that the meeting be held on Monday, September 13, at 7:00 P.M. The County Administrator's Office will check this date with the Planning Commission and the Sanitation Authority and get back with the Board. UPON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW ADJOURN. I rmo, Board iqnI s k-y. \?X:kt . jz.ems+ sors Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors