Goochland staff ask board to bankroll Ridgefield booster, expand THM controls; staff warn of rate impacts

Goochland County staff asked the Board of Supervisors on Dec. 19 to approve a multi‑year funding plan for several water and sewer capital projects, including a $16.7 million Ridgefield booster pump station and ground storage tank that staff say is needed by 2030 to preserve fire flows and system capacity.

The county’s Department of Public Utilities (DPU) presented a slate of projects that have been completed under budget and a second group that will require new or additional funding. Elizabeth, presenting for DPU, said the Ridgefield project was identified in earlier master plans and that engineering work now supports accelerating the schedule: “This project was partially funded in fiscal year 2025 for $800,000. An additional $4,150,000 was funded in fiscal year 2026. The project cost inclusive of design, plan acquisition, and construction is estimated to be $16,700,000, which, just under $12,000,000 is being requested in fiscal year 2028,” she said.

DPU also requested an additional $145,000 in FY27 to install an air‑stripping system at the Goshen Courthouse elevated storage tank after monitoring showed elevated trihalomethane (THM) levels in the system in 2024. “In 2024, our THM levels were elevated to the point that the parameter actually had an exceedance in the [Goshen Courthouse] water system according to the EPA’s mandated maximum contaminant levels,” Elizabeth told the board, and she added the project is recommended by the Virginia Department of Health to reduce future health risks.

Board members pressed staff on how the utilities would pay for the work. Staff framed options as (a) financing through utility operating debt paid by water/sewer users, (b) general‑fund support, (c) use of existing utility fund balances and connection fees, or (d) borrowing. The county ran a financing scenario for the $16.7 million Ridgefield package that assumed a 5% interest cost and showed peak additional debt service of about $2.0 million in FY29. Staff then estimated a residential rate impact that, if the project were debt financed, could amount to roughly a 6% increase spread across water and sewer users.

Several board members argued that commercial growth that benefits from expanded capacity also delivers countywide benefits and said that argued for at least partial general‑fund support. Others urged caution about adding a general‑property tax burden and asked for detailed analysis of alternatives and timing.

Staff emphasized operational prudence in some cases: for a West Creek River Road flow‑control project funded across multiple years, Elizabeth said DPU and operations staff have implemented changes that may render the capital project unnecessary and recommended pausing release of allocated funds until an assessment is completed.

What’s next: staff said the full 2025 Utility Master Plan will be presented to the board in January and that the Ridgefield booster project design and site work are under way. The board requested more detailed financial modeling — including alternatives for spreading costs between utility customers and the general fund — before taking final action.