Evening star., 1949-08-23
SewerPurchase
|sFoughtb by
U. S. Asked to Halt
Fuirfux Plans for
Holmes Run Trunk

Holmes Run Trunk
The Falls Church City Council
last night voted to petition the
Federal Government to halt the
proposed purchase of a Federal
trunk line sewer by Fairfax
County.
The action came as residents Of
Sanitary District No. in Fairfax
County were preparing to vote
next Tuesday on $3,0O0,0 900 bond
issue to acquire the Holmes Run
sewer and construct a disposal
plant.
The council questioned consti-
tutionality of the proposal based
on an alleged Overlapping" of
charges for purchase and use of
the sewer.
Consultation Requested.
In another petition the Coun-
Gil requested the Fairfax County
Board of Supervisors to arrange
for consultation between county
and city officials before the
referendum is held.
The Council asked johnson &
Williams, consulting engineers, to
be present at a special meeting
Friday to report on methods Of
city sewage disposal other than
connecting with the Holmes Run
trunk.
Falls Church is not in the san
itary district, which includes
heavily populated areas of Fair
fax County adjacent to Arlington
and Alexandria. The Falls Church
system, which is maintained by
the city, now connects with the
Holmes Run sewer for disposal.
At present the city pays approx
imately 81 customer per year
for use of the trunk line. James
j. Corbalis. Fairfax County sani-
tary engineer, has said that if the
county installs a sewage treat
ment plant. the city will have to
pay a larger amount for use Of
the system.
In another action the council
voted to write to Mitchell g. Per-
shing, bond counsel for the coun-
ty, and ask whether the bond firm
had given an opinion on the con-
stitutionality of the proposed
charges.
Bond Issue in Doubt.
"The published statements Of
the ecounty's) financial plan in
support of the bond ISSUE" the,
letter said, appear to be of doubt
full legality" The communica-
ton also declared that "the vague
and conflicting statements with
respect to the charge to be i'm
posed on the City of Falls Church
put the city on notice that
it must make plans for its own
disposal plant" .;-..
The petition to the Federal Gov
rerm1ent asserted that mo conSid-
Grafton has been given to the
city's equities in the matter" The
transfer should be refused, tho
tConncil asserted, pending a de-
termination as to whether the pro-
posed financing will insure fair
treatment both to the property
owners and sewer users in sanitary
district No. and the City of Falls
Church"
In asking the Board of Super
visers for joint meeting to dis
cuss the proposal, the council de-
clared that, mo effort has been
made by county officers to &C
quaint the city with the facts and
figures of the proposed acquisi-
ton"
Bond Proposal Described.
The councils assertion that
charges will overlap" was based
on brochure describing the bond
issue proposal published by the
county sanitary engineer. The
Falls Church city attorney, La
Rue Van Meter. contended that
the county would not be legally
bound to the charges proposed
in the brochure.
The brochure lists proposed
charges of three types. A use
charge of $3.50 per month for
residential connections would be
made. A front foot assessment
ranging from $3.50 to $500 also
would be included. This charge,
the council said in its letter to
the bonding firm, appears to be
high enough to serve the double
purpose of covering the use to
abutting property owners and
contribution to the cost Of ac-
QUESTION of the existing system"
Thirdly, special assessment is
to be imposed upon all property
owners in the sanitary district.
The city pointed out that this
Assessment is to be made regard
less of whether the property own
->.S3