Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-09-1999 - IIA• ORANGE COUNTY Board of Commissioners Action Agenda Item Abstract Meeting Date: March 9, 1999 Subject: WTMP Expansion Proposal Action Agenda Item No. H. A. Department: HEALTH Public Hearing Yes X No Budget Amendment Needed Yes X No Attachments(s): WTMP Expansion Proposal Information Contact: System & Inspection Estimates Health Director's Office X2411 Scenarios for Fees/General Fund Division Telephone Number Letter from OWASA Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Applicant Guide to Environmental Health Permits Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 Purpose: To review the proposal for the Wastewater Treatment Management Program (WTMP) Expansion and consider inclusion of the proposal as a BOCC adopted goal. If approved to go forward, additional work needs to be done regarding funding methods and detailed costs. • Background: The current Wastewater Treatment Management Program (WTMP) was approved by the Board of Commissioners in 1995. The program inspects non - municipal discharging wastewater systems and municipal sludge sites. These are commonly called "alternative systems" and include low pressure pipe systems, pump conventional systems, large systems, discharging sand filters, and non - municipal package plants, in addition to sludge application sites. That program has been in operation and that Board goal is complete except for the financial surety rules which are in the County Attorney's hands, and the delinquent fee actions which the attorney has advised us not to pursue at this time. In June 1998, the Board of Health formed an ad -hoc committee to prepare a proposal for an expansion of the WTMP to include gravity flow septic systems in the WTMP framework. These are commonly called "conventional systems." The impetus for this expansion came from two separate meetings in late springlearly summer of 1998. In a joint BOCC and OWASA meeting and in a subsequent Board of Health meeting it was recognized that existing failure rates are not likely to improve without action and that centralized wastewater disposal will not be a repair option in many areas of the county in the foreseeable future. The ad -hoc committee included representatives from OWASA, the BOCC, the Board of Health and the health department staff. The Board directed the committee to look at three components for the expansion; education, homeowner incentives and periodic re- inspections. The attached proposal was developed by the committee and presented to the Board of Health for action at their November meeting. The Board of Health thoroughly discussed the proposal and chose the Water Quality Critical Areas of the county as the preferred starting point of the program and felt that a hybrid model of funding would be an appropriate option. The plan has a heavy emphasis on homeowner education —both at the onset of the program and as part of the continuing effort. Since the Board of Health meeting in November, additional staff work has been done that estimates the numbers of systems within the Water Quality Critical Areas and in the watersheds as a whole in order to better predict the phase -in need for staffing. • 1 Staff met with an OWASA Board sub - committee who subsequently recommended that the OWASA Board support this proposal. Staff also presented the proposal to the Commission for the Environment that also expressed support for the program. • Recommendation: To receive the report. • • Orange County Health Department Wastewater Treatment Management Program Expansion 0 Orange County Board of Health Adopted November 19, 1998 W 4 O • H�r6 3 4 WTMP EXPANSION .BOARD OF HEALTH DECISION SUMMARY November 19, 1998 ' BACKGROUND — Earlier this year, the Orange County Board of Health sanctioned the formation of an ad-hoe committee to explore the expansion of the Wastewater Treatment Management Program. The Board directed the committee to look at 3 components for the expansion, education, homeowner incentives and periodic re- inspections. The full committee met twice and there was one meeting of a workgroup. The report from the committee detailing options for the 3 components along with a full education plan was presented to the Board of Health on November 19, 1998. After deliberation, the Board decided which options it wanted to be presented to the Board of County Cprnmicc. -s at their December retreat. WHY IS THIS EXPANSION NEEDED — 1. To protect and promote public health and preserve natural resources by: • Protecting watersheds and all. other surface waters. • Protecting groundwater. • Lessening the chance of disease transmission from failing septic systems. • 2. To lessen the financial impact of repairing individual septic systems by: • Extending the average septic system life countywide. • Preserve all available repair strategies on individual sites. 3. Public sewer extensions into certain areas of the County will not be a viable option in most instances in the future. Septic systems must then be viewed as a perpetual utility, not a stopgap until sewer arrives. BOARD OF HEALTH DECISIONS FOR — 1. Entry into the Program: The BOH chose option 3 (Water Quality Critical Areas) as the preferred starting point. The following reasons were cited: • This approach best effects the actions necessary to meet the goals of protection and promotion of public health for all citizens of the County and to preserve the natural resources by tackling older neighborhoods with higher rates of failures and also by starting with the water quality critical areas of the designated watersheds and expanding the coverage outward from the impoundments. Both rural and town dwellers benefit immediately from this approach and may realize cost savings over the long haul from increased average septic system life or relatively lower water treatment costs. • The latest draft of the Water and Sewer Boundary Task Force agreement allows for sewer extension only in dire circumstances in many areas of the County. This approach may be the best method for discovery of situations that are degrading but are still fixable so that public sewer extensions are not indicated. It also sets the stage for those systems going • in, either new or replacement, to realize a maximum life span and provides better assurance that all repair strategies are kept intact. 5 • New and 'M repaired system owner, while not set for re- inspection before 5 -10 years from the date of installation approval, would still get tailored educational materials at the time they begin to use their system. 2. Education Plan - The BOH supported the full education plan as presented with elements intended for general and target specific audiences. Emphasis was placed on the need for this comprehensive plan. < . 3. Re-inspection frequency — The BOH agreed with the committee that the 5 year frequency with the homeowner incentive to extend it to 10 years with proper maintenance was the preferred option. 4. Funding - The BOH chose the hybrid approach of partially paying for the expansion with general funds and making up the rest of the costs with annual operations permit fees for submission to the BOCC. The BOH did not stipulate in this choice what the percentage breakdown should be but felt that this would be the most equitable method of distributing the costs of the program to all those who will benefit from its implementation. PERSONNEL CONSIDERATIONS — To implement the program as approved by the BOH, the following personnel would be required at its inception: • One FTE educational specialist, grade 66 • One FTE Environmental Health Specialist, grade 68 • One -half FTE GIS /database specialist, grade ?? CAPITAL CONSIDERATIONS To implement the program as approved by the BOH, the following capital items would be required at its inception: • One vehicle - $15,000 • Three computers - $6,000 • Three sets of office equipment $3,600 • Additional space - $25- 30,000 — This figure is very rough until some rental comparisons are made and utility costs are assessed for particular sites. ADDITIONAL COSTS (Start-up or increased line item costs) • Mileage cost - $5,000 • Training materials - $15,000 • Phone - $1200 • Travel and Training - $500 • Equipment - $1,000 • 6 ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION WTMP EXPANSION COMNUTTEE MEETINGS September 30, 1998 October 21, 1998 November 3. 1998 "In our zeal to promote onsite and cluster systems as a more cost - effective method of wastewater management in small communities, we have focused too much on technologies. Our interest in technologies is performance and cost, while the potential user's interest is in service. To gain the attention of potential , users, we have often denigrated central sewerage in favor of decentralized treatment systems. This is a mistaken approach because onske and cluster systems are not perceived by the public as providing equal service.... What is good about central sewerage — central management —is what is bad about onsite systems... . When we are able to show that onsite systems can be designed and • operated over extended planning periods to meet water quality and public health objectives, onsite technologies will gain stature equal to conventional sewerage. This will be achieved only through centralized management. While decentralization of treatment is the outcome, centrah'zation of management must be the approach. " Richard J.' Otis, P.F. Y.P., Ayres Associates, Madison, WI 1998 ASAE Onsite Conference On September 30, 1998, the ad -hoc WTMP Expansion Committee met at the Southern Human Services Building in its first session to forge details for the proposal. In attendance were Brenda Crowder - Gaines and Rick Marinshaw of the Orange County Board of Health, Margaret Brown of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, Pat Davis and Barry Jacobs of the OWASA Board, John Link and Paul Thames of the Orange County Manager's office, Gene Bell of the Orange County Planning Department, Ed Kerwin of the OWASA sUA and Rosie Summers, Ron Holdway, Tom Konsler and Cornelia Ramsey of the Orange County Health Department. A work group also met on October 21 to further • discuss details of the expansion. A final meeting of the full committee met on November 3 and finalized some of the details for the proposal. Page 1 of 12 7 This group was formed under a directive from the Orange County Board of Health to provide input to the three main components of the expansion to include gravity flow septic systems in the WIMP framework The components are education, homeowner incentives and re- inspections. Outlines of the history of the current WTMP initiatives and the expansion were presented to the committee for consideration and guidance. Rosie Summers and Ron Holdway facilitated the discussions: The impetus to explore the expansion came from a joint meeting of the Board of Commissioners and the OWASA Board and an ensuing meeting of the Board of Health. All three boards recognize that existing failures rates (8 -10 %) are not likely to improve without action and that centralized wastewater disposal will not be a repair option in many areas of the county in the foreseeable future. Failures are caused by a variety of factors, most notably poor soils conditions, wetter seasons and individual household water habits. To prevent premature failures, long term management must be implemented to extend the usable lives of systems and preserve repair strategies. Since there are no programs in place in North Carolina which include management for all on -site systems, staff looked at examples from several other localities nationwide with a full management approach in place or under consideration. These localities included Georgetown Divide in California, Ten Towns jurisdiction in New Jersey, Cuyahoga County in • Ohio and Jamestown, Rhode Island. EPA recommendations were also reviewed for reference and applicability as well as information from state level agencies in North Carolina, Michigan, and Hawaii. After discussion by the committee, the proposal will be presented to the Board of Health for action pursuant to NCGS § 130A -39. If approved, the proposal` will then go to the BOCC for funding consideration. Staff would like for the BOCC to have the proposal for this consideration at their December retreat. In the meantime, staff will explore the possibility of preparing maps of recent septic system repairs both by township and in the OWASA service area. EDUCATION Current Efforts: The educational efforts in use in the WIMP area today are by individual contact, printed material given at the time of occupancy of new homes, other brochures for existing homes, and the Internet site. Mass mailings are also used, but are not routine. The emphases of the educational efforts are to promote and protect public health, preserve water resources, and extend the average life of septic systems in Orange County. One of the main facts that must be continually emphasized in this effort is that the systems must be viewed by all parties—homeowners, government • and private sector contractors —as a perpetual utility which must function for the life of the house, not just as a stopgap until public sewer arrives. Page 2 of 12 8 r� Individual contact with the system owner is the most effective means of education, but it is also the most labor intensive and sometimes difficult to coordinate. It is the surest way to familiarize homeowners with the location and fimctional aspects of their septic system to where they become more competent in its continued optimal operational performance. In many instances, this type of interaction reduces" both the perception of intrusion and the feelings of animosity while providing something more than a technical report in the mail to learn from. The dissemination of printed material, both for new septic systems and existing situations, is in place, but several aspects of its use need retooling. A primary problem is that, in many situations, the ultimate owners of the property are not known when the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the home and therefore they do not get the initial packet of information for their septic system. This same problem.also holds true when a property is sold or otherwise transferred from one party to another. Part of the solution to this dilemma will be targeting special groups for education as mentioned below in the future efforts section. Another way to approach this problem is the periodic use of mass mailings stressing the benefits of understanding and properly maintaining septic systems. The mailings can be individually sent or incorporated into the tax bill mailings. Regardless of the firture of the WTNT expansion, reviews and reworks of both the printed materials and the Internet site are underway and should be complete by the • end of the year. Future Efforts General — It is the opinion of the committee that several options should be explored to better "market" the educational materials. These included: • Videos on septic systems, especially maintenance • Education level oriented materials • Promoting a "conservation lifestyle" • Yellow Pages ads for repair advice and contact numbers • Promotion of septic systems as a safe and ecologically sound method of wastewater disposal • Promotion of onsite wastewater technologies as an integral part of the county's infrastructure Better Reports — Future post - inspection reports should be geared toward enhancing long -term performance of the system and education of the owner, not just providing advice for discovered non-compliance and failures. This effort will be made regardless of the WTW expansion. Target Groans — Several specialized groups targeted for specific educational go efforts will help eliminate some of the current problems and prevent future problems in the expansion. Because of the health department unique role in the Page 3 of 12 involvement in all aspects of wastewater systems, it will become the local educational resource for technicians, homeowners, pumpers and other groups with connections to permitting and management issues. 1. Lending Institutions, Developers, Builders, Realtors and Attorneys: These getups are targeted for education because they are crucial in passing on information about septic systems during property transactions, home sales, closings or even listings of property. The first step of the education could be accomplished by the Environmental Health staff asking for an appearance before executive committees or full session meetings of local affiliate groups on a periodic basis. Update meetings and regular mailings of specific printed literature will be needed to keep all members current. The committee wanted somehow to include Realtors and lending institutions in the chain of disclosure of system type and management requirements, but there was no firm agreement on how this could be accomplished. In the work group session, a focus group With representatives from this array of professions was suggested by Margaret Brown to elicit ideas. on educational efforts. 2. Homeowners Associations: All of these associations would be targeted for education and all will be encouraged to view ongoing septic system maintenance as a community effort and a community benefit. The group also wanted to explore whether, in new developments, requirements for system . operation can be incorporated into subdivision covenants. A listing may be available from the "Community Watch" program. 3. Septic System Installers: These contractors are now subjected to a simple registration process before they can install septic systems in Orange County. There is no current requirement for licensure or certification either here or elsewhere in North Carolina. If the expansion goes forward, routine continuing educational sessions sponsored by the Health Department could be considered either as a condition of the registration process or to be put on a `Preferred list" of contractors and his information would be provided to permit applicants. Some method of sanction and removal of renegade or incompetent contractors must also be implemented so that frequent violators of installation standards can be effectively managed. 4. Septic System Pumpers: When a citizen calls a septic pumper today for routine maintenance of a system, the pumper, in most cases, empties the tank without regard for the actual level of the biosolids. In some instances, the removal of biosolids before they reach a detrimental depth is unnecessary and may adversely affect the biology of the tank. The pumpers would be encouraged through education to check the biosolids and empty them only when necessary . An upside of this process is that the pumper could charge a lesser fee when the tank is not cleaned because they save the costs of disposal at the accepting wastewater treatment plant plus the travel there to dump the load The homeowner saves by paying a lesser amount for the pumper's service and the expected increase of the volume of septage needing disposal is minimized The startup and equipment costs for the pumpers to implement this practice are • minimal. The group went further to say that more information is needed from each pumper on the origins of the septage and on those systems which are Page 4 of 12 19,. 10 frequently pumped. Staff could prepare and provide to the pumpers a simple, self carbon, standardized report form to use and submit as they check and empty septic tanks. This information might give clues to where the septic system "trouble spots" are in the county. Pumpers are the logical choice to provide this information as part of the dump report to the accepting utility. As the information from these reports is compiled, homeowners with frequent pumps would be sent educational mailers on how to deal with problem systems. 5. Wastewater System Operators and Management Entities: These groups are mentioned because of their wide range of activities and impacts in multiple areas. All area municipal wastewater treatment plants will be encouraged to accept septage, principally because, if the expansion is implemented, the volume of this material will increase manifold. There may also be some grant monies available for construction upgrades for municipal plants in the near future which might be available for a septage receiving station. Other operators and management entities are included for periodic education because of the ever changing technologies in the wastewater disposal field. A preferred. list of these firms could also be produced in conjunction with a quality assurance program crafted by staff. HOMEOWNER INCENTIVES Types of Incentives: • Many incentives were discussed and the following were put forth as options for consideration. These incentive examples generally assume that fees will be the sole or partial base of funding the expansion. Extension of the Re- inspection Fregnency — Homeowners who check and pump their systems according to recommended guidelines would be eligible for an extension of the minimum review period for inspection by the Health Department. For example, if the review frequency is set at 5 years, any septic system checked and. pumped as necessary would not be inspected by the Health Department for 10 years provided the owner supplies proper documentation to our office. The extension would be granted only once during each re- inspection cycle, meaning the Health Department would inspect the system at least every 10 years. Similarly, owners who opt to become certified in system operation, manage their systems and. report findings to the Health Department could be granted extensions, but not exclusions. This certification generally requires attendance to a school for 4 days and passing a exam on the presented material. Checking the system would involve measuring the solids depths in the septic tank and pumping if necessary; assessing the condition of the filter and cleaning or replacing as needed and reporting this information either directly or indirectly to the Health Department. Community Benefits — Another type of benefit discussed was reduction of septage • dumping costs for citizens located in designated watersheds. This benefit is a consideration because the individual watersheds will be further protected with the Page 5 of 12 11 • implementation of the WTUP expansion. The imp xp granting of this benefit would be strictly at the discretion of the owner of the particular impoundment, either OWASA, the Town of Hillsborough or the City of Durham. Each governing board would be approached and asked about its willingness to entertain such a move before any details are worked out It is probably not feasible to consider this approach in the case of Jordan Lake because of the multi jurisdictional watersheds and water allocations. Volunteers for B= into the Program — It was suggested that one incentive to draw existing systems into the program could be the waiving of fees for the first consultation and inspection for volunteering owners. Sliding Fee Scale. — This incentive was mentioned not only in the context of having differing fees for various sizeJtypes of systems, but also when the ability to pay is a factor. At this time, Environmental Health does have varying fee charges in . permitting of systems based on the design wastewater flow of the structure and this procedure can easily be extended to re- inspections. Generally, all systems sized at 600 gallons per day and under are assessed like fees and those above that figure are based on the total gallonage. The issue of developing sliding fee scales based on ability to pay presents a different challenge however, as there is no staff ability in place for qualifying • applicants. Even if some method of initial qualification evolves, the ability and mechanics for re- certification for each round of inspections is onerous and problematic. MANAGEMENT RE- INSPECTIONS Entry into the Program — There seemed to be consensus on new and repaired systems being automatically entered into the program and that taking on all systems in the county immediately or in a short period of time is not practical. Volunteers will always be accepted as staffing allows, even without the expansion being approved. Requiring entrance for properties having just been transferred was also discussed, but there was no agreement on this option because the housing turnover rate for rural Orange county was not known by any member of the committee and therefore the impact of this requirement is not known. Staff will try to extract some figures from the overall county turnover rate and then estimate the yearly number of homes this requirement would affect The mechanics for this requirement are still discussed below. New Systems — In the current WT NIP rules, all newly installed alternative and pump systems are automatically entered into the re- inspections cycle as part of the • permitting process. The main classes of systems which now require entry are low pressure pipe systems (LPPs), pump conventional systems and large residential Page 6 of 12 12 and non - residential systems. The frequency of the re- inspection cycle can vary r from every six months to once per five years. This proposal would add all new gravity flow systems and the review frequency time would start' at the time the operation permit (final approval) is issued for the system. In-the past few years, the average number of new gravity flow systems has been approximately 500 per year. Repaired Systems — As with the new systems, all repaired systems can be included in the programs during the permitting and implementation of the repair strategy. In the past few years, the average number of repaired systems has been approximately 90 per year. Volunteers - As stated above, there will be nothing to prohibit volunteers from entering into the program, and, in practice, it will be encouraged. There will need to be some type of perpetual legal authorization given by the owner for the right of entry to avoid misunderstandings during the re- inspections in the future. A yearly "cap" on volunteers may be needed so that resources can be adequately maintained. Post Sale — The cause for the requirement of an inspection at or after title transfer for homes with septic systems is touted by EPA in their on -site wastewater recommendations for State and local governments' consideration.. According to • EPA, many states are considering this mandate and all states or localities should "develop a program for regular inspection" of on-site systems. It must be decided whether the post sale inspection, if adopted, should happen immediately or within a given time window after the transfer (e.g., six months) or if the home should enter into the program and have its first inspection at the first review frequency. If an inspection is to be required immediately, the cost could be integrated into the closing fee. The, work group also suggested that the type and age of the systems might determine whether the inspection is immediate or delayed. The advantage of making the requirement at transfer or post sale is that the Health Department 'will not be a party to the transaction negotiations between the buyer and seller and consequently not be subjected to the artificial pressures of closings and other financial transactions. There are now adequate private sector inspectors available for the pre -sale functionality assessments and systems needing repairs should be flagged during that process. Ovtions — At the last meeting, the committee decided the following three options should be considered for implementation. New and repaired systems (option 1) should be a part of either of the other two options, if selected 1. Only New and Repaired Systems — This option offers the easiest transition into management of gravity flow systems and is similar to the way alternative systems are entered into management now. But it does not address the issue of immediate watershed protection nor is there any consideration for • Page 7of12 13 • targeting neighborhoods with older systems or those with poor soils. All of r ' the funding options would be feasible for this option. .2. Systems at the Time of Sale of the Home — This option was explored by the group with the fimding method being the assessment of an inspection fee at closing and afterwards, the fimdmg for future inspections could come from the variety listed below. With the housing turnover in the State estimated at just over seven years, and the County's likely higher, most homes should be included by the end of the second turnover period or approximately 15 years. At the end of this 15 year period, all non - participating homes would be entered into the program. 3. Systems Radiating from the Designated Watersheds — In this option, the systems in the water quality critical areas of all designated watersheds would fall under inspection in the first 5 years. In the next 5 years, the systems in the rest of the designated watersheds would be brought in and in the next 5 years, the rest of the systems in the County would be inspected. This approach is most effective for watershed quality management. Subdivisions with older homes and poorer soils could also be defined and prioritized for inclusion, also. The group discussed that this method might be best fiuided with an annual operations permit fee charged to all those affected households. Eventually, all homes in the County with on-site systems would be assessed this annual fee. • Frequency — Perhaps the most difficult aspect of this proposal to define is how often the gravity flow systems should be inspected. There are varying opinions on the recommended frequency, of pumping, usually based on tank size and population served, but most sources recommend checking an average septic tank every 3 -5 years and pumping if necessary. Additionally, a new State General Statute, effective 1 -1 -99, requires that each new or repaired septic system installed in North Carolina be equipped with an effluent filter on the outlet end of the septic tank These filters are to "Be designed and constructed so as not to require maintenance more frequently than once in any three -year period under normally anticipated use." (House Bill 1462). These conditions lend considerable argument to establishing the re- inspections frequency at three years. The committee debated extensively whether to set the review frequency at 3 years or 5 years during the meeting. It was finally decided that 5 years would be the more reasonable approach if the standards for effluent filters met certain design and maintenance standards beyond the minimum required in the State rules. The agreement on the best way to approach the visit was to set the re- inspection frequency at 5 years with a notice going to each homeowner in the initial maintenance packet and also in the second year of operation. These documents • would state the necessity of checking/pumping the septic tank and the allowance of a 5 year extension if the tank is checked If the homeowner provides evidence of Page 8 of 12 14 checking/pumping before the fifth year of operation, the inspection would be r postponed until the end of the tenth year and a new cycle starts from that inspection. The extension would be granted only once during each inspection cycle, so the longest period of time a system would go without departmental inspection is 10 years. It may also be prudent to not grant exemptions to systems over a,certain age (e.g., 15 -20 years) because aging systems present more problems and are more susceptible to failure. If no response is received by the Health Department, the fifth year visit from the health department would proceed on schedule. Once the expansionbegan, a sampling of systems could be inspected in 2 -3 years to determine if the filters will be problematic before the fifth year inspections are due. If the sampling indicates high numbers of problems with the filters, then the review frequency could be revised as appropriate by the Board of Health. It is important to keep in consideration that this expansion will require a commitment to significant resources, especially personnel, in the coming years, if re- inspections are part of the framework. There will also be some start up Personnel costs involved which may not be subsidized if fees .are the payment basis. Some models detailing resource needs will be put together by staff for review on the entry mechanism is established.. • Other Issues Water and Sewer Boundary Task Force Document — This agreement will allow water and sewer extensions to many areas of the county only to alleviate declared adverse public health conditions. In some areas, extensions may not be a. possibility under any circumstances. Therefore on -site sewage systems must be considered the primary and perpetual method of wastewater treatment and disposal in any unsewered area. With the finalization of this document supposedly imminent, it is imperative that all aspects of on -site sewage disposal, from permitting to installation to long term management, be given proper consideration to assure system life is maximized, repair areas maintained and users educated as to their responsibilities in helping achieve these goals. Accordingly, the "toolkit" which matches repair /response options for failing systems to all designated areas of the county must be put into place concurrently with the WSBTF document and understood by all governmental/utility agencies with jurisdictional authority in those areas. Space for Housing Personnel — If approved and implemented, this expansion will require additional personnel. Presently, the space to house additional employees in the Environmental Health office is severely limited. Additional office space will be needed for this expansion. • Page 9 of 12 • 15 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Costs When the cxxisting WTMP proposal was presented in the late 1980'x, David K Griffith and Associates conducted the study to establish the fee level and other related financial considerations. The fees approved for the implementation of the program were approximately one -half of the DMG recommendation and one FTE was funded to start the work. At present, the direct fees account for approximately one fourth of the FTE salary costs and the percentage of fee reimbursement gradually increases each year. Because the DMG methodology was based primarily on direct costs, staff doesn't believe it to be the best way to approach the estimation of costs for the expansion. The Institute of Government is conducting a study of the costs for environmental health services in several counties across North Carolina which is based on a more comprehensive cost allocation model. The first draft of this study is due out soon and should offer a more accurate way to look at the actual costs of providing education and inspections. When finalized and if fees are part of the funding mechanism, staff will prepare a fee schedule for the committee's review based on the IOG methodology and findings. CIP needs ' such as computers, technical equipment and vehicles will also be figured into the fee base. The direct costs for each inspector will be salary and fringes, vehicle, computer equipment, field equipment, and office furniture. Funding — There are several options for paying for this program expansion. It is staff's recommendation that the option selected also be used to fund the existing WTMP activities. 'General Fund — The general fund is the first option for covering the expenses of this program. The principal argument against using the general fund is that municipal citizens would be paying for inspection of county resident's septic systems. However, it must be considered that the watersheds for the three main impoundments (and a proposed fourth) serving the Towns of Catrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough are mostly comprised of county lands served by on -site septic systems. This expansion will be a benefit in the protection of those reservoirs. The general fimd approach would also eliminate take the "ability to pay" and non- payment issues and be much easier to administer from the Health Department's perspective. Special Fund — Although a special fund, even an enterprise fund, could be • considered, there was not much support for its use with the committee. This method would allow for the charging of a monthly fee to each enrolled owner for Page 10 of 12 r" 16 the management oversight of their system. One of the localities studied in California use this method and the monthly fee was $12.50 in 1992. Service District — The county engineer proposed a "sewer tax district" for consideration. Although there are limitations for its use, it would help address the inequities and ability to pay issues. This tax district would be developed as a service district as prescribed in GS 153A -300 and applies only to certain parts of the County. If the district extends into municipalities, it must be approved by those affected towns or cities. The formation of these districts is a BOCC responsibility and there is a limit on the amount of tax that can be levied in their use. Fees — WTMP was originally approved to be a fee - sponsored program with the first years augmented by the general fund until the numbers of inspections reached a sustaining level. If the expansion is to be financed by fees, an accurate cost allocation model, developed with help from the Institute of Government study, should be used. Advantages to using fees -are: they can be structured differentially so that larger or more complex systems pay more; they are easily adjusted to meet operational expenses; and have little or no impact on the County's tax raze. Disadvantages to using fees are the cost and methods of their collection, delinquent and non - payment remedies, and that benefits are realized by citizens who don't participate in the fee payment. There were two basic models of fees discussed by the group. The first was a "per • inspection fee which is billed after the inspection service is rendered. The second was an annual "operations permit" fee which would be part of the annual tax bill and spreads the cost of the re- inspection over the length of the 5 years review frequency. Hybrid — During the first meeting, the committee seemed to support a combination of fees and general fund monies to finance the program. The advantage to this approach is.that all citizens, as beneficiaries, help support the costs of the work but the individual system owner bears the majority of the costs. The disadvantages of 'fee administration, payment collections and non- payment/delinquencies remain with this system. It must be also be assured that the proportions and mechanisms of funding are well understood by everyone involved and that the commitment to using general fund monies for this purpose is strong. At the final meeting, however, the group was leaning more towards the annual "operations permit" fee with the caveat of providing some relief or options to those with limited ability to pay.' Fee Collection Methods Current Method - Fees are now assessed, billed and collected through the Environmental Health office. There are some type inspections which are not being • Page 11 of 12 17 • billed on advice from the county attorney. No remedies for delinquencies and non- r, payments are being used, also based on the attorney's advice. ManUer's Method — The manager has suggested the use of the annual tax mailings as a vehicle for billing and collecting the fees. According to him, this is similar to billings from other county agencies on the tax bill. While all the remedies for collection of delinquent taxes would not apply if the fees go unpaid in this setup, the collection rate would probably be much higher than it now is and current remedies for non - payment would not be lost. This method would be applied to both the `per inspection" and the annual "operations permit" options. Financial Security The final aspect of the expansion proposal discussed by the committee was the financial security for repair of septic systems when they fail. The types of security requirements discussed were bonding, revolving funds, escrow accounts, up front replacement money, initial dual drainfield installation, and a low interest/no interest capital reserve fund coming from fee augmentation. The committee reached no agreement on whether a security plan was necessary for all systems, which method would be better or how any plan would be implemented. There was general agreement that larger and higher risk systems • should be under some sort of security plan for eventual repairs and that lower income citizens should have access to grants or low interest loans for system replacement. The county attorney will also provide guidance on this matter before the plans are finalized. • Page 12 of 12 ORANGE COUNTY WTMP SYSTEM AND INSPECTION ESTIMATES TOTAL SYSTEMS IN WATER QUALITY CRITICAL AREAS IN ORANGE COUNTY: Approximately 1,600 Estimated time to inspect all with one FTE - Approximately 2 -3 years TOTAL SYSTEMS IN WATERSHEDS CURRENTLY SERVING ORANGE COUNTY TOWNS (CANE CREEK, UNIVERSITY LAKE AND UPPER ENO): Approximately 5,800 Estimated time to inspect all with one FTE - Approximately 7 -8 years TOTAL SYSTEMS IN ORANGE COUNTY (ALL WATERSHEDS): 189000- 20,000 Estimated time to inspect all with one FTE - Approximately 25 years SOURCES: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATA ORANGE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION DATA NC OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FILES P" 00 POPULATION: Total County Population 107,240 Municipal Population 63,340 Non - municipal Population 43,900 AREA: Total County 399.8 Mil Non - municipal* 374.3 Mil Municipal 25.5 Mil DENSITY: Overall County Density 268.2 Persons/Mi2 Non - municipal* 117.3 Persons/Mi2 Municipal 2,483.9 Persons/Mi2 PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD Chapel Hill 2.17 (From OSP) Carrboro 2.04 (From OSP) Hillsborough 2.50 (From OSP) Overall Orange County 2.24 (From OCEDC) (107,240/399.8) (43,900/374.3) (63,340/25.5) ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF SEPTIC SYSTEMS IN ORANGE COUNTY 18,000- 20,000 (19,000 used in watershed estimate calculations) * - Includes ETJs and JPAs 19 • • • ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBERS OF SEPTIC SYSTEMS WATER QUALITY CRITICAL AREAS AND CORRESPONDING WATERSHEDS ORANGE COUNTY, NC ORANGE COUNTY WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS SQUARE MILES ACRES % OF NON- MUNIC. COUNTY LAND AREA #SYSTEMS IN WQCA BASED A SYSTEMS /M12 (METHOD 1) # SYSTEMS IN WQCA BASED ON POPULATION DENSITY (METHOD 2) # SYSTEMS IN TOTAL WATERSHED BASED ON SYSTEMS /Ml2 (METHOD 1) #IN TOTAL WATERSHED BASED ON POPULATION DENSITY (METHOD 2) Upper Eno River WQCA 22.3 14272 6.0% 1132 1169 Watershed outside of WQCA 36.6 23424 9.8% Total Watershed 58.9 37696 15.7% 2990 3087 Cane Creek WQCA 7.5 4800 2.0% 381 393 Watershed outside of WQCA 21.7 13888 5.8% Total Watershed 29.2 18688 7.8% 1482 1530 University Lake WQCA 1.5 960 0.4% 72 79 Watershed outside of WQCA 22.1 14144 5.9% Total Watershed 23.6 15104 6.3% 1198 1237 TOTALS 1585 1640 5670 5854 ro 0 21 • METHOD 1 - Number of systems in a given area (WQCA or watershed) = Percentage of square miles of non - municipal county land in that area times the estimated total number of systems in Orange County (19,000) EXAMPLE: For Cane Creek Water Quality Critical Area # SYSTEMS = 2.004% * 19,000 or 381 METHOD 2 - Number of systems in a given area (WQCA or watershed) = Overall number of persons per square mile in non - municipal Orange County (117.4) times the number of square miles in that given area divided by the average number of persons per household in Orange County , EXAMPLE: For Cane Creek Watershed # SYSTEMS = 117.4 * 29.2 _ 2.24 or 1530 • • SCENARIO NOTES These scenarios represent three different methods for funding the WTMP expansion. Since the existing WTMP activities are proposed to be folded into a comprehensive approach with the expansion, their numbers are included in these figures. The mechanism for entry into the program is to include all newly installed systems, repaired systems, alternative systems and those gravity flow conventional systems which are re- inspected each year. The gravity flow system re- inspections would begin in the Water Quality Critical Areas in the County, expand into the corresponding watersheds and eventually into other watershed areas not serving as water supplies for Orange County citizens. The projection is that entry of all systems in the County would take 15 -20 years. Because the Board of Health recommended splitting the cost of the program between the system owners and the general fund, each of the three scenarios has been broken down into 60/40 and 80/20 percentage splits. These splits were arbitrarily chosen by staff. The first alternative of an annual operations permit fee originated in the WTMP Expansion workgroup and was the one endorsed by the Board of Health. This fee would be charged to systems owners after their system is installed, repaired or re- inspected. The fee would subsidize the cost of the next re- inspection in five years. If new system owners took advantage of the incentive and voluntarily serviced their system before the fifth year, the fee could be waived for years 5 -10 since no re- inspection would • be necessary before year 11. The second alternative would continue fee collections according to the current setup of billing each existing system owner after their systems are re- inspected. The current WTUT fee is $60 and does not approach full recovery of the service cost. The last alternative is one offered by the County Manager which spreads the pro -rated cost to system owners of the program to all homes/busmesses in the County served by on -site wastewater systems. It has the advantage of minimizing the financial impact of the program to individuals while eventually providing for the re- inspection of all existing systems. Please note that all three paradigms assume 100% collection rates and include only direct personnel and operating costs and- that revenue collection could lag behind the implementation of the program. Furthermore, if extensive failures are discovered, there may be more staff requirements for repair permitting and installation inspection. All system figures are generally based on projected growth rates and estimates from system installations in the 1990's. Finally, the educational and database positions are included in the cost estimates but they are not part of the staff requirements listed on the system estimates spreadsheet. • 22 System Inspection Estimates 1999 -2014 SYSTEMS YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 YEAR 11 YEAR 12 YEAR 13 YEAR 14 YEAR 15 1999 -00 2000-01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 200405 2005 -06 2006-07 2007 -08 2008-09 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 NEW 600 609 618 6271 637 646 656 666 676 686 696 707 717 728 739 REPAIRED 100 102 103 105 106 108 109 111 113 114 116 118 120 121 123 TOTAL REINSPECTED GFC 750 750 750 750 750 1100 1105 1111 1116 1121 1477 1486 •1499 1510 1522 16799 REINSPECTED ALTER. 225 250 275 3251 375 425 500 575 650 750 850 950 1075 1200 1325 TOTALS 1450 1461 1471 1482 1493 1854 1871 1887 1905 1922 2289 2313 2336 2360 2384 TOTAL RE- INSPECTIONS DUE 975 1000 1025 1075 1125 1525 16051 1686 1766 18711 2327 24381 2574 2710 2847 STAFF REQUIRED FOR FIELD INSPECTIONS (1 POSITION ALREADY EXISTS) 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 GFC - Gravity flow convntional wasterwater systems ALTER - Alternative wastewater systems - LPPs, discharging systems, spray irrigations and sludge sites ro w • SCENARIO I -A Annual Fees /General Fund for New, Repaired and Re- inspected Systems 60/40 YEAR ONE OPERATING COST - $225,000 DRAFT • Annual Fee Share - $135,000 • General Fund Share - $90,000 NUMBERS OF SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO ANNUAL FEE • 1,675 • Includes all new systems, repaired systems, inspected existing gravity flow systems, and inspected existing alternative systems. • Annual fees would begin to be assessed after installation, repair, or inspection to cover the cost of the re- inspection in the sixth year of operation after installation or last inspection. ANNUAL FEE ASSESSMENT - Approximately $81 total or $17 per year for the five year minimum inspection interval. These are direct personnel and operating costs only. • SCENARIO I -B Annual Fees /General Fund for New, Repaired and Re- inspected Systems 80/20 YEAR ONE OPERATING COST - $225,000 • Annual Fee Share - $180,000 • General Fund Share - $45,000 NUMBERS OF SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO ANNUAL FEE • 1,675 • Includes all new systems, repaired systems, inspected existing gravity flow systems, and inspected existing alternative systems. • Annual fees would begin to be assessed after installation, repair, or inspection to cover the cost of the re- inspection in the sixth year of operation after installation or last inspection. ANNUAL FEE ASSESSMENT - Approximately $108 total or $22 per year for the five year minimum inspection interval. These are direct personnel and operating costs only. • 24 25 DRAFT SCENARIO II-A • Fee Per Inspection/General Fund for Re- inspected Systems 60/40 YEAR ONE OPERATING COST - $225,000 • Inspection Fee Share - $1352000 • General Fund Share - $90,000 NUMBERS OF SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO INSPECTION FEE • 975 • Includes inspected existing gravity flow systems and inspected existing alternative systems. • Inspection fees would be billed for personnel and operating cost recovery after inspections are completed. No indirect costs are included. FEE PER INSPECTION - $140 SCENARIO II -B Fee Per Inspection/General Fund for Re- inspected Systems 80/20 YEAR ONE OPERATING COST - $225,000 • Inspection Fee Share - $180,000 • General Fund Share - $45,000 NUMBERS OF SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO INSPECTION FEE • 975 • Includes inspected existing gravity flow systems and inspected existing alternative systems. • Inspection fees would be billed for personnel and operating cost recovery after inspections are completed. No indirect costs are included. FEE PER INSPECTION - $185 • DRAFT • SCENARIO III -A Annual Assessment/General Fund for All Systems in Orange County 60/40 YEAR ONE OPERATING COST - $225,000 • Annual Assessment Share - $135,000 • General Fund Share - $90,000 NUMBERS OF SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO ANNUAL ASSESSMENT • Approximately 19,000 • Includes all on -site wastewater systems in Orange County. • Annual fees would be assessed at the inception of the expansion to cover the cost of inspections. It is estimated that all existing systems in the County would be inspected in 15 -20 years. ANNUAL FEE ASSESSMENT - Approximately $8 per year. These are direct personnel and operating costs only. SCENARIO III -B Annual Assessment/General Fund for All Systems in Orange County 80/20 YEAR ONE OPERATING COST - $225,000 • Annual Assessment Share - $180,000 • General Fund Share - $45,000 NUMBERS OF SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO ANNUAL ASSESSMENT • Approximately 19,000 • Includes all on -site wastewater systems in Orange County. • Annual fees would be assessed at the inception of the expansion to cover the cost of inspections. It is estimated that all existing systems in -the County would be inspected in 15 -20 years. ANNUAL FEE ASSESSMENT - Approximately $10 per year. These are direct personnel and operating costs only. is 26 r� U 0 9 27 OWASA January 7, 1999 ORANGE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY Dr. Alice Gordon, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Chairs Gordon and Ives: Quality Service Since 1977 Mr. Tim Ives, Chair Orange County Board of Health Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 i am writing to express support for continued development of a program for on -site wastewater treatment management by the Orange County Department of Health and-to endorse the program concepts scheduled for presentation at the Orange County Board of Commissioners' retreat. At the invitation of the Health Department, the OWASA Board' assigned Messrs. Pat Davis and Ed Kerwin to the ad hoc committee convened to explore the Wastewater Treatment Management Program. We were pleased to join in this effort because we firmly believe that such a program will extend the effective life of septic and alternative wastewater systems in Orange. County; will protect public health and environment; and will preserve water quality both in drinking water wells and in watersheds. The ad hoc committee presented a report to the Board of Health in November. This report described the elements of an expanded program and offered options for program expansion. OWASA supports the report. If the Board of Commissioners determines that the program should be implemented, OWASA would like to be included among the potential partners in developing certain components of program expansion. For example, OWASA could assist the Health Department in developing GIS and other program information and data management systems. OWASA could also assist in identifying and articulating the benefits of the program. Currently, we are expanding the data monitoring for septage discharged at our Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant by local haulers. This information will further support the Health Department's surveillance system. Finally, we are particularly enthusiastic about the option suggesting that the program focus initially on septic and other alternative treatment systems in watersheds in Orange County. Clearly, this option would both add to the protection of our water supply and to the surface and ground waters that will eventually serve the new Hillsborough reservoir. I want to thank the staff of the Board of Health for including OWASA in this important activity and congratulate them for an excellent first step expanding the program. Sincerely 1yo�� , ursr� 0Cr� V "--r�^}� l �I -A" sty Dan VanderMeer, Chairman Board Of Directors c: Horace Johnson, Mayor, Town of Hillsborough Michael Nelson, Mayor, Town of Carrboro Rosemary Waldorf, Mayor, Town of Chapel Hill Board of Directors, OWASA Cal Horton, Town Manager, Chapel Hill Ed Kerwin, Executive Director, OWASA • John Link, Manager, Orange County Bob Morgan, Town Manager, Carrboro Eric Peterson, Town Manager, Hillsborough Rosemary Summers, Director, Orange County Department of Health 400 Jones Ferry Road Equal Opportunity Employer Voice (919) 968 -4421 PO Box 366 Printed on Recycled Paper FAX (919) 968 -4464 Carrboro, NC 27S 10 -0366 trTrtt: o1Vasa.Oro H1�fis ...N. EveryWhere. EveryDay. EveryBody. Acknowledgements Department Environmental Health Division )epartment Office of Community Education rth Carolina School of Public Health M M p ff � Applicant Guide to Environmental Health Permits T L°3QW 7 Orange County Health Department Environmental Division What's the Purpose of this Guide ? ?? This guide is made to help you understand your customer rights and responsibilities and to take you through the steps of applying for environmental permits. What if I Have Questions? If you have questions about any of the contents of this booklet or any other questions about the permit process contact the: Orange County. Health Department Environmental Health Division P.O. Box 8181,306-C Revere Road . Hillsborough, NC 27278 www.statenc.us/Orange/envhlth/ Hillsborough (919) 732 -8181 ext. 2360 Chapel Hill (919) 967 -9251 ext. 2360 Mebane (919) 227 -2031 ext. 2360 Durham (919) 688 -7331 ext. 2360 Office hours are 8-5 Monday through Friday for walk in service. The field staff is normally in the office 8-9AM and 4:30 -5PM 2 NOTES Other Orange County offices you may wish 1 Coop ext. 732• Planning Department and 732• Building Inspections 'ERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY Who Issues? luation of soil OCHD ) would occur use ind septic system struction ►stems- )peration Permit OCHD OCHD Building Inspections OCHD OCHD Building Inspections Table of Contents Customer Service Policy What to do first? Frequently Asked Questions How Much do Permits Cost? Environmental Health Fee Plan Legal Definitions Appeals Procedure Checklist for Certificate of Occupancy Notes 4 6 10 16 17. 18 20 22 23 3 Customer Service Policy Orange County Health Department Environmental Health Division CUSTOMER RIGHTS All services of the Orange County Environmental Health Division will be provided according to the following principles of customer service. • All clients will be treated with respect and courtesy, regardless of their age, race, ethnicity, religion, economic status, lifestyle, nationality, or gender. • All clients will have the requested service completed in a timely manner with consideration to the department's current workload, staff demands and adverse weather conditions. • Clients with requests involving a public health or medical emergency, or disasters, will be given priority. • All clients are encouraged to be present when the services are performed. • All clients will be given'full explanation of any performed service and, if appropriate, a- written report may be provided.' • All clients will be provided with an appeals process if they are not satisfied with the findings or decisions of the Division Staff. 4 (c) A person who wishes to contest a decision o: Health under subsection (b) of this section shall ha, ange County District Court within 30 days after the board. The district court may affirm, modify or rev, for the reasons stated in N.C.G.S. 150B -51. Judicia administrative penalties shall be de novo by the dis Please call or write the office if you have questic assistance. kLS PROCEDURE )cedure, for actions brought before the Orange ease note that the purpose of an appeal is with 3 enforcement of the regulations. An appeal is the regulations. The appeals procedure is as ange County Board of Health. Policy adopted by 4 and incorporated in Board's By -Laws: iretation and enforcement of rules adopted by the end concerning the imposition of administrative lealth Director shall be conducted in accordance zle. The aggrieved person shall give written )unty Health Director within 30 days of the ill contain the name and address of the aggrieved -nged action and a statement of the reasons why Upon filing of the notice, the Orange County working days, transmit to the Orange County ►eal and the papers and materials upon which 'Health shall hold a hearing within 15 days of the 'ie board shall give the person not less than 10 place of the hearing. On appeal, the board shall or reverse the challenged action. The Orange ae a written decision based on the evidence pre - >n shall contain a concise statement of the reasons Customer Service Policy (cont.) CUSTOMER RESPONSIBILITIES Residents and other dients using services of the Environmental Health Division are expected to. • Treat the Division staff with respect and courtesy. • Complete all applications and provide supporting documents as required by laws and rules. • Pay applicable fees at the time of application and before any service is .performed. • Comply with any conditions of applications, permits, authorizations or other documents generated in the Dnrislon. W1 WHAT TO DO FIRST? Pre- Construction Process The proper siting and installation of wastewater and groundwater systems is important for the protection of the environment and public health Whether you plan to build, add to a home, or alter the use of your property you must past apply for the appropriate permits and authorizations The permitting process can take some time and involves visits to both the Environmental Health Office and the Planning Department. Below is a list of permits you may need. 1. IMPROVEMENT PERMIT If you are building a house or subdividing a lot and there have been no prior evaluations of the lot, you need to begin with an IMPROVEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION. Along with the application and fee, you will need to: • provide a site plan or plat and have property lines located • show where you plan to place the house • make sure that all property lines are visible on the site 1 Septic Tank System- means a subsurface wastewa settling tank and a subsurface disposal field. Sewage- means the liquid and solid human body w by water -using fixtures and appliances, including f foodhandling. The term does not include industrial that is combined with industrial process wastewate Site plan- means a drawing not necessarily drawn and proposed property lines with dimensions, the 1, appurtenances, the site for the proposed wastewate ter supplies and surface waters. Wastewater- means any sewage or industrial proc transmitted, or collected from a residence, place of assembly, or other places into .a wastewater system Wastewater system- means a system of wastewat posal in single or multiple components, including lic or community wastewater system, wastewater r ical or biological wastewater treatment system, an, chemical toilet used only for human waste. )EFINMONS initions of some of the terms used in this book r Chapter 130A of the General Statutes of r.ment for occupancy of a residence, place of ably. routine maintenance including replacement of ment to an existing wastewater system. repared by a registered land surveyor, drawn to a than 60 feet, that includes: the specific location urtenances, the site for the proposed wastewater r supplies and surface waters. `Plat' also means, the local planning authority and recorded with )py of the recorded subdivision plat that is Ls drawn to scale. ater System- means a single system of and disposal owned and operated by a sanitary listrict, a water and sewer authority, a county or teration, replacement, or relocation of existing tem. ie, dwelling unit in a multiple family structure, ho- work camp, manufactured home, institution or any 2. WASTEWATER SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION If there have already been evaluations of the lot and /or an IMPROVEMENT PERMIT has been issued, your next step is to apply for the WASTEWATER SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION. In addition to filling out the application, you will need to: • submit the plat or site plan of property, showing the proposed driveway and house site • submit a floor plan of the house, and • stake out the house on the lot and clearly Identify the property lines. Both applications must contain the signature of the property owner or the owner's legal representative. 3. WELL PERMIT Apply for this permit if you are drilling a new well or replacing an existing well. 4. BUILDING PERMIT An application for this permit is provided by the Planning and Inspection Department upon issuance of the IMPROVEMENT PERMIT and the WASTEWATER SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION. 7 S. OPERATION PERMIT There is no separate application for this permit. It is issued upon approval of the septic system. 6. EXISTING SYSTEM INSPECTION You will need an EXISTING SYSTEM INSPECTION if. • you are subdividing property that has an existing house on a parcel. This insures that a repair area for the septic system will remain with the existing house. • you are adding on to an existing house, or making Improvements that require a BUILDING PERMIT. If you plan to add on any room that could function as a bedroom, the septic system may need to be upgraded.* • you are moving a mobile home onto a vacant lot or into a mobile home park. *Before Buiidi-ng Permit issued. 8 ENVIRONMENTAL I FEE PLAN I. All fees will be assessed according to the of proper application to the Environmental Health Orange County Health Department 2. Any protest or appeal concerning, the pays a final determination made before any service is i 3. All fees must be paid in full before the ser 4. A refund can be given for any service not where more than one fee has been paid for the s quired additional field trips to a site or property v% appropriate fees. S. No refunds will be given if any portion of t permit issued, inspection made). 6. Any wastewater permit or authorization is will be for a specific site, lot or property as define rules along with any conditions stipulated. Any us documents has the responsibility to reimburse thE their Issuance. The Orange County Health Depart responsible for refunds or reimbursements in sud party in such negotiations. 7. Denial, suspension or revocation of any pt necessitate the refund of any fee paid for the per 8. All refunds will be made in accordance wit procedures. .H DO PERMITS COST? acre site)* $190 )N $100 $140 $50 $30 with 5 bedrooms or less. Larger houses or teflow may be subject to higher fees. Itions prior to subdivsion, or in the concept stage idividual's best interest to hire a private licensed ary soil evaluations. rivate licensed soil scientists which can be made E FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS The permitting process for septic tank systems and wells has gone through several changes in recent years This information will provide some answers to common questions about the permitting process If the lot has never been evaluated before, which permits do I need to get in order to build a house or to subdivide a lot? You will, need to start with an application for an IMPROVEMENTPERMITfor each proposed septic site. Since you will be charged for each proposed site and if you have a large tract of land, it may be in your best interest to first hire a private licensed soil scientist to do preliminary evaluations on the suitability of the soil. What does the Orange County Health Department (OCHD) do to issue an IMPROVEMENTPERMIT. The OCHD does a site evaluation to determine the suitability of your soil for a septic tank system. The "site evaluation" has replaced the "pert test" as the method to determine if there is a large enough area of suitable soil to support a septic system and a repair area. This area must be free from any proposed buildings, driveways, wells, or other improvements. In general, an area of 1/4 to 1/2 of an acre is needed just for the septic system and repair area. The IMPROVEMENTPt:RMITwiil Indicate that a site has been found that is suitable for the system installation, provided that the house location, number of bedrooms, wasteflow restrictions, and other conditions are met If the property is to be subdivided, or separated from another tract, The Planning Department requires that the site evaluation be done before the plat can be recorded. 10 What if I am looking at a subdivision lot or a tract that has already is system is installed? been through the Improvement Permit process? 3s installed the system and called for Your next step is to apply for a WAS7FWA7FR SYSTEM CONS7RUC7Z0N end verifies the installation and issues an AUTHORIZ477ON. The CONSTRUC7I0NAUMOR0477ONis the permit that is the system to be placed into use and allows needed in order to obtain a building permit and to install the septic system. The and a Certificate of Occupancy from Building building permit will not be issued unless you have a valid CON_ STRUCTION ccially those with pumps, require several visits AU7HORIZ477ON. on septic tank system care refer to '777e Needs chure (available at OCHD Environmental Health Will I need to get a survey of the property? Each site will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. The existing and proposed property lines must be dearly identified in the field. If the survey is recent, a new survey may not be needed. For properties where identifying property lines affect site approval, a current survey will be needed in order to issue an IMPROVEMENTPERMl7. Depending on the property, you may need to provide known reference {mints in the field, such as existing buildings or surveyed benchmark points. 11 Where can I get a PLATor M7EPLAN? The owner of the property may have a current survey of the property, or for recent subdivisions, our office may have file information or resources that will assist in the development of your site plan. For lots under 3 acres a 1=50' scale would be appropriate, for larger lots 1=10W is fine. SITE PLAN 175' TN PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM 275' Future �j Iml F;O7U$0 1 w0' 7v (D H WY 54 12 Can the OCHD give me some idea of suitabilil velopment potential of lots? The OCHD no longer performs PRELIMINARYSOIL like to have some idea of your ability to develop a subdivision, you will need to be in contact with the With a private licensed soil scientist who is familiar systems. OCHD can provide a list of licensed soil 9 How long are permits valid? ' An IMPROVEMENTPERMITis valid: • for 5 years if site plan is submitted, or • without expiration if a plat is provided. A CONSMUC 7ONAU7HORIZ477ONis valid: for up to 5 years and as long as that site has after permit expiration, another application m All permits and authorizations will become t revocation if: • information submitted on the application is Inc • the site is altered; or • the intended use changes • issuance was based on incorrect or inadequab NMI PRESENTED 3 -9 -99 JOINT ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTHAND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING WHYNEE • Promote and protect public health • Extend septic system life • Preserve septic repair areas • Protect designated watersheds and other surface waters • Protect groundwater • Prevent disease transmission • The cavalry - public sewer - isn't coming WHO BEN • Everyone in the County • Septic System Owners — Longer system life — Less exposure to pathogens — Groundwater better protected • Towns' Water Consumers — Watersheds better protected — Treatment costs may be lower over the long haul coMPo • Education — Basic education plan for systems owners — Specialized education for certain groups • Lending institutions • Neighborhood associations • System installers, operators and pumpers • Realtors and homebuilders • Homeowner incentives • Re- inspections of systems METHODS OF ENTRY INTO THE PR( Three options: • New and repaired systems only • All homes at property transfer — Including new and repaired systems �• Starting with WQCA's of watersheds and radiating outward — Including new and repaired systems — Including other older developments PERS ; 5 Personnel requirements will be larg . dependent on the method of entry selected. It is important to consider that long range requirements (15 -20 years) will be considerable. Technical, educational, database and support staff could total 15 -20 or more in the future, depending on the framework selected PER SIO Option 1 - New and Repaired Sys 0, — One education specialist immediately — One -half GIS /database specialist in 2 -3 years — One EHS in 2 -3 years —1 -3 more EHS's to be added in 5 years as the first round of re- inspections come due • Personnel • Equipment • Training materials • Space PERS ; 5 Personnel requirements will be larg . dependent on the method of entry selected. It is important to consider that long range requirements (15 -20 years) will be considerable. Technical, educational, database and support staff could total 15 -20 or more in the future, depending on the framework selected PER SIO Option 1 - New and Repaired Sys 0, — One education specialist immediately — One -half GIS /database specialist in 2 -3 years — One EHS in 2 -3 years —1 -3 more EHS's to be added in 5 years as the first round of re- inspections come due PERS. Option 2 - At Property Transfer — One education specialist immediately — One- halfGISIdatabase specialist immediately — At least one EHS immediately — More EHS's to be added as workload dictates PERS Option 3 - Watersheds Areas Our — One education/database specialist immediately — One- halfGISIdatabase specialist immediately — One EHS immediately — More EHS's to be added as workload dictates There is very little room for expanslo` e current Environmental Health offices. If approved, new space will be needed. FUNDING Q v Mw • Generalfund • Special fund • Service district • Per inspection fees • Annual fees • Hybrid - Any funding option must be approved by the BOCC upon recommendation by the HD and BOH GENERAL- Advantages • Everyone in the County pays equally • No staff requirement for collection and tracking • Eliminates some of the "ability to pay" and non-payment issues Disadvantages • Everyone in the Count pays equally • Adds to the tax rate SPECIAL (ENTERPRISES Advantages • Does not add to the tax rate • No other distinct advantage for this scale program Disadvantages • Ability to pay is not considered • Department/division responsible for billing/collections/non-payments SERVICE DIS, Advantages • Applied equally in designated areas • No staf j requirement for collection and tracking • Eliminates or lessens impacts of "ability to pay" and non-payment issues Disadvantages • Increases tax rate in the designated areas • Must be approved by towns if the area extends into corporate limits �.e Advantages • Direct payment for inspection service • Can be structured for size and complexity of systems • Can be collected through tax mailings • If an annual fee is chosen, the cost of the service can be spread over many years Disadvantages • Some citizens who benefit from the program don't pay (towns' water consumers) • Collection/non-payment issues can be a headache if E. H. staff bills and collects • Ability to pay is not an automatic consideration CONCLLa • BOH may approve, amend or not' • BOH may elect to chose options or forward to the BOCC as is for funding consideration • BOH has responsibility for making the rules for the program • Funding issues must be approved by both the BOH and the BOCC BOH DECISION 11 MIL Education and Re- inspections - Op — Comprehensive education plan for all systems — Start inspections of existing systems in the WQCAs and expand outward — Include new and repaired systems for review in S /10 years BOH DECISION 1. Funding Option - Hybrid — A combination offees with some unspecified percentage of the total operation cost paid for out of the general fund — Fee should be structured as an annual operational permit fee SCENt • Based on full year's cost - $225,061 — 60/40 split = $135,000590,000 — 80/20 split = $180,000/45,000 • Based on direct costs only • Existing WTMP cost included SCEN I • Annual Fee /General Fund Split — For 60/40 ratio, annual fee would be $17 /year — For 80/20 ratio, annual fee would be $22/year • Fees are based on cost recovery for inspection every five years and the yearly prorated share to be included with the tax bill or similar mailing. SCENA I • Fee Per Inspection/General Fund Sp — For 60/40 ratio, fee would be $140 — For 8020 ratio, fee would be $185 • Current fee is $60 • Fees billed after inspections are completed SCENA °y • Annual Assessment/General Fundr' — For 60/40 ratio, assessment would be $8 —For 80/20 ratio, assessment would be $10 • Assessment charged to all system owners in OC on the tax bill or similar mailing. Some would not be inspected for 15 -20 years or longer.