Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-10-1998 - 2ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 10, 1998 Action Agenda Item No. ~ SUBJECT: Followup Items from December 1997 Goal Setting Retreat DEPARTMENT: County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No;. BUDGET AMENDMENT: (Y/1~ ~]Vo ~. ATTACHMENT(S): Engineer Memos on Eflancl Sewer Expansion/Boone Mobile Home Park INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Brown, Chair TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 PURPOSE: To discuss and provide direction to staff on several issues discussed at the Board's annual planning and goal setting retreat in December 1997. BACKGROUND: The Boazd may wish to provide staff with specific direction on several items that were discussed, but not fully resolved, at the December 1997 retreat. First, staff will do a review and update of the County fee schedule as part of the 1998-99 budget process this Spring. It would be helpful if the Boazd would indicate those aspects (for example, development related fees) of the fee schedule that the Board wants to receive particularly detailed review. The Board may also want to review/discuss the role or use of fines (for example, zoning violations or development plan violations) and provide staff with direction on any needed folloup in this area. Second, the Board may wish to review options related to potential sewer service to the Boone Mobile Home Pazk property, in the context of the Efland Sewer expansion project. The County Engineer's memos (Attachments 2A through 2C) provide more background on this topic. The Board may also wish to identify other items (if any) requiring additional followup from the December 1997 retreat. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss these followup items and provide appropriate direction to staff. MEMORANDUM TO: County Commissioners John Link, County Manager FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Engineer DATE: February 6, 1998 SUBJECT: BOCC discussion on Efland sewer expansion/Boone Mobile Home Park sewer service As per the request of the County Manager, I am transmitting the attached material for discussion at the Board's pleasure at its 10 February 1998 work session. The first is a memo-report submitted to the BOCC in the summer of 1997, relative solely to potential options for extending the Efland sewer system along US Hwy 70 west of Efland to provide sewer service to Boone Mobile Home Park. The options outlined in this memo were developed under the assumption that the BOCC did not or does not desire to provide sewer service to Boone Mobile Home Park by tapping the existing Hancor force main and thereby having to modify, revise, abandon or contravene the Board's policy forbidding force main taps (formally adopted in 1996 in conjunction with the resolution allowing Ben Lloyd to tap the Efland force main but forbidding all subsequent force main taps). The second memo was meant to stimulate BOCC discussion at its December 1997 goal setting retreat relative to moving forward with the Efland sewer bond project. The memo essentially suggests that the BOCC consider: 1) defining the scope of the expansion project; and 2) developing or directing staffto develop an approach to funding any increase in the scope (beyond that envisioned in the bond campaign process) of the sewer expansion project by combining bond funds with funds attained through grants and sewer assessment strategies. If I can provide any additional information or answer any questions, please advise.. MEMORANDUM TO: John Link, County Manager FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Engineer DATE: December 4, 1997 C~Op~ SUBJECT: Process for proceeding with Efland sewer system expansion project(s) As I'm sure you will agree, the time is rapidly approaching when the County must begin making preparations to proceed with at least the planning phase of an expansion project or projects for the Efland sewer system. This fall's $1.2 million bond issue, at least to my understanding, was tazgeted at a project for central Efland (the azea roughly bounded on the west by Efland-Cedar Grove Road, on the south by the railroad, on the east by the Lloyd dairy and on the north by McGowan Creek). Although fairly , expensive for the number of customers to be served initially, this project should be relatively simple and straightforward. However, circumstances such as the County's past failures to obtain CDBG funding for sewer construction in Phase N and the situation at Boone Mobile Home Pazk (Phase VI) may encourage the BOCC to consider broadening the scope of the project. If the BOCC does decide to expand the project, the Board andlor staff should begin work to develop and pursue strategies to acquire additional funding. One such strategy could involve a County effort to use the bond funds to leverage grant funding of additional system expansion. Given the difficulty in obtaining grant funds and historical BOCC statements relative to their reluctance to use the County's General Fund to finance sewer expansion, the Board may also wish to establish a sewer assessment strategy applicable at least to those potential Efland sewer customers who were not parry to the 1985 Efland sewer agreement process. The most feasible strategy to complete additional phases of the Efland sewer system may be one which uses some combination of bond fiznds, grant funds and loan funds that would be repaid by sewer assessments paid in over a ten year period. Sewer assessments are the traditional and most widely used source of funding for governmentally initiated utility expansion projects, particulazly in recent yeazs when grant funding has been difficult to obtain. However, neither a historical nor a current BOCC position on sewer assessments have ever been formalized, fully defined or clarified. Although the official "Rules of Operation" for the Efland sewer system contains a section for reserved for sewer assessments, the section has never been developed. Accordingly, no sewer customers, regazdless of their status relative to the 1985 sewer sign-up process, who live in the azea served by the existing portion of sewer system have been charged any sewer assessments. Those customers who were not on the 1985 sewer sign-up list have been charged a "tap- on" fee of $600 plus Hillsborough's current tap-on fee (called a capital facilities fee by the Town). It is not clear if the current BOCC wishes to exempt from an assessment process those properties that are located in any new service areas (including those in the currently proposed bond project azea) or to continue exempting those who are in the existing service area, and that - in either case -were not included on the 1985 sewer service list, from an assessment process. The circumstances surrounding the creation of the Efland sewer system and its operation to date may have created a situation in which it will be very difficult to develop an assessment process that can be equitable to both existing and potential sewer customers. Insofar as grant funding is concerned, the most likely existing source of funds is the High Unit Cost Grants in the State Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund program. The County's 1996 CDBG infrastructure grant application will be reconsidered in early 1998, but I am advised by Tara Fikes, the Director of OC Housing and Community Development, that the County's prospects of obtain these grant funds aze poor. The Clean Water Trust Fund grants, federal rural development and economic assistance grants and other newly created state grant funds aze also potential sources of funding. Most require that finalized or neazly finalized construction documents be submitted with the grant application as a prerequisite for qualifying for grant funding. In addition to the difficulty a relatively wealthy county such as Orange County has in competing for grants, timing for the grant application and awazd process may also prove to be an impediment. For example, the next application deadline in the High Unit Cost grant cycle is the end of March 1998, for grant awazds in late June or eazly July 1998. Construction documents for any phase of the Efland sewer cannot be ready for submission by that deadline. The alternatives are to apply for the grant at September deadline, which represents the lowest funding availability segment of the grant cycle, or to apply in March 1999 when the maximum funding is again available. The Mazch 1999 deadline may not be as much of a delay as it might first appear. For example, a tentative schedule for building only the sewer for the central Efland azea should be something nearly like the following example: 12/15/97 County creates and sends out RFP's (requests for proposals) to engineering consultants 1/15/98 to 2/1/98 Proposal evaluation team receives and evaluates proposals, conducts interviews, makes recommendation to BOCC 2/1/98 to 3/1/98 County staffnegotiates consultant contract, BOCC awazds contract, notice to proceed issued 3/1/98 to 11/1/98 Construction and easement documents prepared, construction project advertised 1/1/99 Bids opened 3/1/99 Construction contract finalized and executed, notice to proceed issued 3/1/99 to 5/1/2000 Project constructed and becomes operational It is possible that the County would be advised if it would be awazded grant funding by late May. This could represent a three month delay in issuing the construction Notice to Proceed. If the BOCC so desired, some delays could be mimm;~ed by bidding various project phases as add alternates to be constructed if and when funds, through either agrant, aloan/assessment process or some combination of the two became available. It might also be possible to plan to build additional phases using only bond and assessment funding with grant funding, if it became available, used as a windfall which would reduce the amount which would have to be recovered though sewer assessments. I hope that this information, and any other information that I can provide and that you deem necessary, can be shazed with the BOCC to initiate the policy and decision making process that will define the scope of and financing for the expansion of the Efland sewer system. If I may provide additional information, please advise. /'~f'~'pCit MEMORANDUM TO: County Commissioners John Link, County Manager C~~p~l FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Engineer DATE: July 28, 1997 SUBJECT: Report on expansion of the Efland Sewer System to serve Boone Mobile Home Park, US 70 west of Efland and Perry Hills community In February 1997, County staff and Mr. Ernie McBroom, the new owner of Boone Mobile Home Pazk, advised the BOCC that several of the individual septic systems serving some of the homes in the park were malfunctioning and represented at least a potential public health problem. Mr. McBroom indicated that he had effected system repairs as directed by the Orange County Environmental Health section but that the repairs were not expected to be sufficient to serve the pazk for the tong term. Mr. McBroom asserted that there were only two economical options that would address the problem over the long term: 1) a sewer collection system could be constructed at the mobile home park and then the collection system could be tied into the existing and relatively nearby Hancor force main system; or 2) the mobile home pazk's residents who were dependent on the failing systems could be compelled to move elsewhere. McBroom requested that the BOCC allow him to connect the pazk to the Hancor force main. The BOCC directed County staffto evaluate Mr. McBroom's request and report back to the Boazd with its findings in March. At the March 18th meeting of the BOCC, staff presented its evaluation of the situation at Boone Mobile Home Pazk and of the related aspects of operating status of the Hancor force main system. On the basis of: a) existing and ongoing operational problems with the Hancor force main system; b) the County's tacit understanding with Hancor as to its sole use of the force main; and c) the County's general utility operation and planning criteria, staffrecommended that Boone Mobile Home Park not be allowed to tap onto the Hancor force main. The BOCC narrowly supported the staff recommendation to deny the tap but directed staffto develop and evaluate waste treatment alternatives which could alleviate the problem at the mobile home pazk. Some of the potential alternaxives mentioned at the BOCC meeting and subsequently examined included: 1}locating azeas having soil suitable for on-site waste treatment systems in obtainable properties adjacent to Boone Mobile Home Pazk; 2) the expansion of the Efland sewer system west along Hwy 70 to serve not only Boone Mobile Home Pazk but also the residents of the area between Boone and the western end of the existing system; and 3) expansion of the Efland sewer system to provide sewer service not only to US 70Boone mobile home pazk azea but the entire Phase VI (US Hwy 70 west and the Perry Hills azea) portion of the Efland sewer master plan. In each of these potential strategies, the goal was to provide economical sewer service to Boone Mobile Home park and perhaps to others in the vicinity needing or desiring sewer service. Each of the alternatives outlined above has now been evaluated to at least a preliminary level. Local on- site waste treatment, Alternative 1, can essentially be ruled out for two reasons; a) there is a preponderance of poor soils in azeas immediately adjacent to Boone Mobile Home Pazk; and b) the cost of acquiring a more distant site for the sole purpose of developing on-site sewer treatment is not economically feasible. Alternatives 2 and 3 aze both feasible as long term County sewer assessment projects. As for Alternative 2, the US 70 corridor contains approximately 65 existing residential and non- residential units (including the eleven at Boone Mobile Home Park) on 70 lots and parcels having frontage on US 70. Fifteen of those pazcels aze fairly lazge and contain a total of approximately 200 undeveloped acres. Counting the development potential of that acreage along with the existing smaller undeveloped lots, the estimated buildout for the US 70 corridor is approximately 250 units. The sewer flow which would be assumed to be generated by 250 residential units could be accommodated in a four inch diameter force main collector line. The estimated engineering/construction/contingency cost to construct the four inch force main collector and service lateral stub-outs that would be necessary to provide build-out level service for just the US 70 corridor as faz as Boone Mobile Home Pazk is approximately $190,000. An assessment cost recovery process based on acreage, lot and front footage should provide for an average assessment of less than $ 1000 per unit at build-out. Each unit would also be subject to costs for individual on-site pump stations (approximately $3000 each), County tap-on fees (currently $600 per unit) and Town of Hillsborough capital facilities fees (currently $1200 for less than 3/4 acre or and $1600 per acre for more than 3/4 acre). Using these cost figures (and a $ 1000 assessment for constructing the collector), the Alternative 2 total initial sewer service cost for typical residential user on a one acre lot would be approximately $6200. The estimated cost of this strategy to Mr. McBroom for one lazge pump station serving eleven units would be approximately $40,000 or $3600 per unit. Alternative 3 would provide sewer service for approximately 200 existing units or 250 units at buildout in the Perry Hills azea for a total of approximately 265 existing units and 500 units at buildout. The majority of the Perry Dills community would be served by 8" gravity collector sewers which would drain to a major pumping station located near the northwest comer of the community. A six inch force main routed back through Perry I-Fills and Boone Mobile Home Park and along US 70 to the Efland sewer system, would be required to serve both the Perry Hills and US 70 azeas. The properties in the US 70 corridor would tap this force main in a manner similar to that proposed for Alternative 2. The total cost of Alternative 3 is estimated at approximately $2.3 million. The differences between the types of sewer service (gravity versus force main) and the associated on- and off-site costs can be expected to complicate the assessment process for Alternative 3. On a simple per build-out unit basis, the assessment would total approximately $4600. However, the assessment could be structured such that it compensated for both the additional on-site costs to those units requiring individual pumping station and the far greater off-site costs associated with developing gravity sewer service. This compensation process could be set up such that gravity sewer customers would pay approximately $6000 in assessment cost, and force main customers would pay $3000 in assessment cost and $3000 for on-site pumping cost. Each customer would still be subject to the County's $600 tap-on fee and the Town's capital facilities fee. Under the compensating assessment strategy for Alternative 3, the total initial sewer service cost for typical residential user on a one acre lot would be approximately $8200. The estimated cost of this strategy to W. McBroom, again with one lazge pump station serving eleven units, would be approximately $62,000 or $5600 per unit. According to Environmental Health section records, the US 70 and Perry Hills area do not report abnormally high levels of septic system failure. It is possible, but unlikely, that the area does have high levels of septic system failures that go undetected or unreported. In the absence of substantiated evidence of serious septic system problems or similar potential public health implications, however, the chances of obtaining grant funding for expansion of the sewer service to the azea aze virtually non- existent.. Given the almost certain absence of grant funding, all sewer expansion costs that the County decides to recover must be recovered by either the assessment process alone or by the assessment process in combination with an increase in the existing sewer rates. There aze a number of permutations to the alternatives outlined above that can be developed to reduce initial sewer expansion costs, provide sewer service only for the US 70 corridor and accommodate a future system expansion to serve the Perry Bills area. One such example would be to constnzct the 6" force main needed to serve Perry Hills and the US 70 corridor as far as Boone Mobile Home Pazk, leaving the Perry Hills connection and pumping system construction until a later date. Another option could consist of not constructing the sewer service stub- outs along US 70 (particulazly those requiring boring under US 70) until they aze actually called for. However, none of these permutations result in an actual reduction of ultimate costs. The costs can only be shifted in terms of when they aze paid or who pays them. If I may provide additional information, please advise.