Evening star., 1953-11-05
Joint Sewage
Disposal Plan
Nearer Accord
Officials of Foirfux
And Alexandra
To See Stute Board

| Alexandria ana Falr1aX Ott1-
cialS were nearer agreement on a
Joint sewage disposal project to-
day. as they prepared to appear
before the Virginia State Water
Control Board.
The Alexandria Sanitation Au-
thority yesterday presented the
Fairfax Board of County Super
viSors long-term sewage treat
nent contract ready for signi-
ture. The authority gave the
supervisors until November 10
to accept or reject the contract.
The supervisors referred it to
their legal advisers for recon-
mendationS, and indicated they
were still very much interested in
the joint project.
Extended Is Days.
Previously. the authority had
stated it wanted action on the
contract by today but decided to
extend the time another Is days.
The joint system would provide
service for portions of Sanitary
districts No. l and 6 in Fairfax
County.
To finance an integrated sew
age system for the rest of the
county, the supervisors instructed
attorneys to prepare a reSolu-
ton requesting a $40 million
sewage bond issue referendum
December Is.
The action was the first for
NAL step to call the referendum
although the supervisors earlier
had announced one would be
held in December.
Part of the bond issue would
help finance sewer lines in Sani-
tary district No. 6, around An
nandale, which would be con-
nected with the proposed joint
Alexandria Fairfax line.
"Only" Plan for Annandale.
County Executive c. c. Massey
said the joint project offered the
only practical way to provide
sewers in the Annandale area.
Mrs. Anne wilkins, supervisor
from Mason district, asked what
would happen if the countrywide
bond issue failed and there was
no money to install lines in An
nandale to connect with the
joint Alexandria Fairfax system.
Mr.. Massey replied that An
nandale then could have a sepa-
rate referendum within it's own
sanitary district for the needed
sewerrlines. F-~ .~
The Supervisors spoke more
favorably of the joint plan than
they did two weeks ago when
they decided to re-evaluate the
idea
Greater Savings Indicated.
One persuading factor was a
new revised engineering report
showing even greater savings
through the joint plan than
originally anticipated.
The new report, compiled by
consulting engineers for the
county and city, now places total
cost of the joint project at $10.4
million. The old estimate was
$9.4 million. Total savings in
dicated by the new report ale
$2.6 million over the amount
separate facilities would cost.
Originally, savings of $2.4 million
were estimated.
James j. Corbalis, jr., engineer
director of the Alexandria San
itation Authority, explained that
the higher total cost was brought
about by increased construction
expenses since last February
when the first report was pre-
pared.
Il sincerely hope we can work
out this joint contract to the
satisfaction of both Alexandria
and Fairfax" said Albert A.
Smoot, chairman of the Alex
andria Authority. II feel we are
doing our duty to the taxpayers
of the two communities by Of
fering them the best possible fl
nancial proposal"
Supervisor Arthur Shaffer
complained about the new fig
ureS. He said it looked as II
someone made some mistakes in
the beginning.
There weren't any mistakes.
It's just that construction costs
have gone up since we first
started talking about this" said
Mr. Smoot.
Calls Joint Plan Fair.
Mr. Massey reminded the su-
pervisors that the county's own
consulting engineers, Alexander
Potter Associates. considered the
Joint plan "eminently fair" to
Fairfax County and concurred
that there would be considerable
savings.
Il feel the engineering con-
Sultants employed by the county
have done an excellent job.
There never has been a more
thorough analysis of the coun-
tvs needs. Relying on the engi-
neers' advice, the joint plan
seems the cheapest by far from
the long-range point Of view."
said Mr.. Massey.
G. Wallace Carper. chairman
of the Board of Supervisors, said
the county may not need the
Alexandria facilities right away
but the county must plan for
future growth.
Harry He'll. county sanitary
engineer, replied that additional
sewage facilities soon will be
needed in sanitary district No /.
Mr.. Corbalis said existing facili-
ties in sanitary district No. l
would remain sufficient only
through 1856.
Mr.. Massey said he is not con-
cerned that Fairfax will not own
a part of the Alexandria system.
This objection was raised by