HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-20-1996 - X-D 1
ORANGECOUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date:
Action Agenda
Item # X—D
SUBJECT: Efland Sewer report
DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: Yes x No
ATTACHMENT(S): BUDGET AMENDMENT: . Yes x No
County Engineer's memo INFORMATION CONTACT:
Figures(drawings) from 4/5/84 revision County Engineer Extension 2303
of McAdams' Efland sewer report
(Under separate cover) TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
PURPOSE: To provide the BOCC with historical background information about the process
by which the Efland sewer system was created and defined;to relate information
related to one unusual current request to tap onto the Efland sewer system; and to
outline current efforts/strategies to finance expansion of the system.
BACKGROUND: Beginning in 1981, widespread problems with failing septic tanks and other
waste treatment systems serving residents of the west Efland vicinity and the
Efland Cheeks Elementary School came to the attention of the BOCC.
These problems had potentially serious public health implications and the
BOCC was compelled to initiate a process which would eventually result in
Orange County providing municipal sewer service to a portion of Efland.
Although master planning engineering studies provided a preliminary sewer
design for all of Efland, available funding was sufficient to construct a sewer
system serving only a portion of the most severely afflicted areas of Efland.
Citizens of the un-sewered portions of Efland have, on several occasions,
requested the County fund construction of an expansion of the sewer system.
The BOCC has indicated that the County will not fund system expansion
using County-wide tax revenues. Over the past five years, other system
expansion funding strategies including sewer user fees, CDBG funding,
y
2
Cleans Water Bond grant funding, sewer service tax districts and an
assortment of assessment methods have been evaluated by County staff.
The County's CDBG funding applications have been turned down by the
state on two occasions. Clean Water Bond grant funding has been very
scarce for the last ten years and qualification requirements remain very
difficult to meet. Assessment and sewer use rate strategies have been shown
to be too costly for existing and potential sewer customers to bear. The
property value of central Efland is too low to support tax district financing of
sewer system expansion.
There are several potential strategies and combinations of strategies which
may provide hope for financing expansion of the Efland sewer system.
CDBG funding requirements for infrastructure improvements have been
recently modified to the point that sewer expansion may be eligible for grant
funding. The County is funding engineering consultant work that will
provide the reports and construction documents that are prerequisite to
qualifying for federal and state grant funding. The BOCC, Planning Board
and County staff are working to define and develop the Buckhorn Road.
This may, in turn, eventually provide a significant property tax base which
could be integrated into an Efland sewer tax district and used to subsidize the
Efland sewer system. Any of these strategies, if successful, would at least
reduce the financial burden of system expansion and operation on the citizens
of Efland.
RECOMMENDATION : The Manager recommends that the BOCC receive the report as
information.
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Engineer
DATE: August 12, 1996 \
SUBJECT: Report on Efland sewer system history and expansion issues
As per the request of the County Manger, the following information related to the history and potential
future of the Efland sewer system is presented for the information of the Board of County
Commissioners.
The history of the Efland sewer system begins in 1981, shortly after the Orange County Health
Department determined that most of the septic tanks in the area of Efland known as Efland Estates were
failing with no real potential for on-site system repairs. Shortly thereafter, the package treatment plant
serving the Efland-Cheeks Elementary school also failed. The County entered into a series of contracts
with the John R. McAdams Company to provide a series of engineering reports intended to identify the
nature, scope and potential solutions to the sewer problems of Efland. These reports culminated in a
1984 report entitled"Water and Sewer Extension Feasibility Report, Cheeks Township, Orange County,
NC". While the report did provide a very preliminary water main/storage tank layout, the primary focus
of the report was provision of sewer service.
The overall study area of the McAdams report covered portion of the Eno River basin bounded roughly
by Lake Ben Johnson on the east, the basin ridge line on the south, Lebannon Road(SR 1306) on the
north and Buckhom Road (SR 1114) on the west. The study area was further refined into an Immediate
Planning Area and a Future Planning Area for sewer expansion. The Immediate Planning Area was
subdivided into six phases which covered most of the portion of Efland roughly bounded by Buckhorn
Road on the west, the Lloyd dairy on the east, McGowan Creek on the north and Southern Railroad on
the south. Two small areas between Southern Railroad and Interstate 85 were also included in the
Immediate Planning Area. The Future Planning Area occupied the portions of the Efland vicinity
between the Immediate Planning Area and West Ten Road(SR 1144) on the south and between the
Immediate Planning Area and Lebannon Road (SR 1306) on the north. For a more graphic
representation of the study and planning areas and the phases referenced above, please note the attached
maps from the McAdams report: a)Figure No. 2, which delineates the Study Area, Immediate Planning
Area and Future Planning Area; b)Figures 6a. 6b and 6c, which delineate the phasing plan for the
Immediate Planning Area; and c)Figure 8b, which delineates the recommended development plan.
1
4
The BOCC never formally adopted or accepted the McAdams report or its recommendations. However,
in a resolution adopted on November 20, 1984, the BOCC did state that the County would construct the
portion of the system designated as"Phase I of the Project Engineer's Preliminary Report, 5h Edition
dated April 5h, 1984, last revised August 7, 1984". The resolution went on to qualify its intention by
stating that"The System will be undertaken and funded by Orange County only if at least 179 persons,
firms or,corporations located in Phase I of the Project Area apply for connection to and sewer service for
existing dwellings and businesses during the initial application period". The resolution also provided that
an additional fourteen homes and businesses located adjacent to Phase I(primarily in Phase II) could be
served by the initial sewer construction project if it were financially feasible to construct the sewer
collection lines necessary to serve these properties as an addition to the Phase I construction project.
During November and December of 1984 and January of 1985, Orange County Commissioners and staff
and Efland community volunteers organized something similar to a membership drive. The purpose of
the drive was to convince residents of Efland to sign up for sewer service in numbers sufficient to meet
the 179 sewer services minimum established by the BOCC's 11/20/84 resolution. In preparation for the
sewer service sign-up process, 198 sewer service request documents were prepared for the signature of
178 individuals (or businesses or organizations) to request 213 sewer taps(twenty individuals,
organizations, etc., requested more than one tap). However, twenty-two of the sewer service taps
covered by signed sewer service request documents were on property parcels located outside the
boundaries of Phase I as delineated in the McAdams report. Sewer service request documents for
another twenty four taps which would have been located in Phase I were never signed by the property
owners. Ultimately, one hundred sixty-seven qualifying(meeting the requirements or conditions set forth
in the BOCC's 11/20/84 resolution)requests for sewer service were submitted to or received by Orange
County by the January 31 , 1985 sewer service request deadline.
In February 1985, Orange County engaged another engineering consulting firm, Hazen and Sawyer, to
revise the McAdams' engineering report and to provide actual sewer system design and construction
administration services. Hazen and Sawyer modified McAdams' preliminary sewer design layout (gravity
and force main pipe routing, number and location of pump stations) and slightly revised the delineation of
the individual phases within the overall phasing plan. Hazen and Sawyer's detailed sewer layout work
and cost estimation indicated that construction of the portion of Phase I east of Efland-Cedar Grove
Road (SR 1004)would not be economically feasible, given the funds available from the County and
various state and federal grants and loans. Hazen and Sawyer completed the design for Phase II and the
western portion of Phase I in early 1987. The sewer project bid was configured such that Phase II
portion was bid as an alternate. Bids were taken and, due to cost considerations, Phase II was deleted
and a construction project encompassing only the western portion of Phase I was begun. The Efland
sewer system was completed and began operation in October 1988.
Since 1988, the Efland sewer customer base has expanded only slightly beyond the 115 initial customers
living in the areas served by the portion of the system that was constructed. Twenty-three new taps have
been installed, but two of these taps and approximately fifteen of the first taps that were installed during
system construction have gone unused. The original and the new taps that have been unused were
installed at buildings that have been unoccupied, lacked plumbing facilities or where the home/building
owners have either been unwilling or financially unable to tap on.
2
5
Currently, there are pending requests for approximately twenty-four new sewer taps. These taps are for
housing units as yet not built and awaiting funding, planning approval, etc. Recently, there have also
been a number of inquiries related to the potential for extending sewer service to relatively large,
undeveloped parcels of property adjacent to the existing McGowan Creek sewer outfall line. These
projects and any large development project anywhere in the Efland area will be on hold until the Orange-
Alamance Water System is able to resolve its current problems with its insufficient water supply and
treatment capacity. Other current issues related to the Efland sewer system involve the availability and
availability time frame for providing sewer service to central Efland (Phase H and the remaining portion
of Phase 1). Several businesses along Hwy 70 have inquired about sewer service and one has requested
that sewer service be provided immediately by means of tapping into the force main extending from the
McGowan Creek pump station to Hillsborough.
This business, a car wash located on the corner of Efland-Cedar Grove Road and Hwy 70 and owned by
Ben Lloyd, has been operating for approximately five years under a Special Order of Consent(SOC) and
a Notice of Violation(NOV)issued by the NC Division of Environmental Management (DEM). The
SOC and NOV process were tailored specifically to eliminate, over the five year period, the car wash's
non-permitted surface discharge of untreated wash water to the storm drainage system on the car wash
property and adjacent property. During the time frame of the SOC, Mr. Lloyd was apparently waiting for
the County to construct the portion of the gravity sewer collection system(Phase 11)that would serve his
car wash property. The County did not expand the sewer system, Mr. Lloyd's SOC-specified compliance
grace period expired, and DEM filed suit to compel Mr. Lloyd to eliminate the discharge. Mr. Lloyd has
responded by requesting that the County allow him to tap into the force main lying across Hwy 70 from
the car wash.
Orange County staff have met on several occasions with Mr. Lloyd and his engineer to discuss methods
of providing sewer service for the car wash. Mr. Lloyd has repeatedly indicated his preference for a
solution that minimizes his costs. Unarguably, the solution with the lowest cost ($10,000 or less)for Mr.
Lloyd is one which involves installing an on-site, private pumping station with a short run of force main
which would be tapped into the segment of the Efland sewer force main in front of the car wash. This
solution, however, represents potentially the highest cost to the County in a number of ways. The tap
itself requires that a hole be drilled or cut into the force main. The fittings, valves and lines connecting
Mr. Lloyds private pumping station to the force main would remain under constant pressure from either
the on-site or the Efland system pumping station. A failure of the valves or fittings affected by the
pressure created by the Efland system pumping station could possibly result in the discharge of thousands
of gallons of sanitary waste from the Efland system. Mitigation of any environmental consequences,
repair of damages to US 70, etc.,would be the legal and financial responsibility of the County. The
County would also face the task of approving or denying other requests to tap into the force main along
US 70. Allowing taps to be made to the County's Efland force main could conceivably have some
impact, in terms of setting a precedent, on requests to tap other existing and future sewer force mains
within Orange County-those serving the New Hope Elementary School, Piney Mountain and Dogwood
Acres, for example.
3
6
1
County staff have suggested an alternate solution for providing sewer service to Mr. Lloyd while
avoiding all of the certain and potential problems associated with tapping the Efland force main. Staff
have proposed that Mr. Lloyd approach the BOCC to request that sewer service be provided by means of
a small diameter force main extending from a pumping station at his car wash to the Efland pumping
station. This would require the installation of approximately 1000 feet of additional force main but it
would eliminate the requirement to a vault or manhole at the force main tap and would require the
installation of a less powerful and expensive pump station setup at the car wash. This solution, under
current NCDOT policy, would require BOCC action enabling the County to accept.ownership of the
portion of Mr. Lloyd's force main installed in the NCDOT rights-of-way for US 70 and Efland-Cedar
Grove Road. To date, the staff proposal has not been satisfactory to Mr. Lloyd and this issue has not yet
been resolved.
Although it will come far too late to assist Mr. Lloyd in his current difficulties, the County is working on
several fronts to set up conditions that may be advantageous for expanding the Efland sewer system at
reduced costs for the County and the residents of Efland. Rules for CDBG funding of infrastructure
(including sewer systems) have again changed and may now be favorable for providing funding for some
portion of the Efland sewer expansion. The County's Department of Housing and Community
development has undertaken the process of evaluating Efland sewer needs, income levels, etc., to
determine if the County will be able to submit a viable CDBG application. In the CIP for FY 1996-97, the
BOCC has provided $50,000 to pay for consulting engineering services to update the engineer's report
and develop the environmental impact assessment and the construction documents for completing sewer
system expansion in Phase II and the remaining portion of Phase I. Having these documents in hand at
the time of when grant applications are submitted is essentially a prerequisite to qualifying for grant
funding. The Request for Proposals (RFP)for engineering services will be sent out in August.
Evaluation of proposals and selection of an engineering consultant should be accomplished by the first of
October. Engineering plans and reports will be submitted with grant applications in March 1997. County
staff are also looking at strategies for extending sewer service from the Efland sewer system to the
Buckhom Road EDD. When the EDD is occupied by corporate entities owning the EDD property and
using the sewer system, the corporate community can bear a sizable portion of the cost of expanding and
operating the Efland sewer system. This can be accomplished by means of implementing a corporate
sewer use rate structure and through the integration of the EDD corporate property tax value and tax
base into an Efland sewer tax district. Greatly enhanced sewer tax district revenues based on EDD
property values and sewer use revenues could then be used to subsidize sewer extensions and service
within Efland.
None of these strategies outlined above afford any real certainty of providing significant funding
assistance for expanding the Efland sewer system. The only certainty about expanding the sewer system
is that, without the infusion of significant sums of public funds, many of the residents of Efland would
find the cost of expanding the system to be a serious financial burden.
If I may provide additional information, please advise.
4