HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-03-1996 - IX-C A
I
1
ORANGECOUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 3, 1996
Action Agenda
Item # T-- -�_-
SUBJECT: Sewer force main service tap policy
DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: Yes x No
ATTACHMENT(S): BUDGET AMENDMENT: Yes x No
(Under separate cover)
1. County Engineer's memo/report INFORMATION CONTACT:
2. BOCC 11/20/84 Efland sewer County Engineer Extension 2303
Resolution
3. Figures (drawings) from 4/5/84 revision TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
of McAdams' Efland sewer report Hillsborough - 732-8181
4. Figure 8B from 3/12/84 revision of Durham - 688-7331
McAdams Efland sewer report Mebane - 227-2031
5. Ben Lloyd letter requesting sewer service Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
6. County letter responding to Lloyd sewer
service request
PURPOSE: To provide the BOCC with historical background information about the process
by which the Efland sewer system was created and defined; to outline current
County efforts/strategies/initiatives to finance expansion of the system; to convey-
as per the request of Commissioner Wilhoit -information related to one current
request to tap onto the Efland sewer system by tapping into the system force main;
and to request that the BOCC provide guidance to staff by providing a policy ruling
on tapping the Efland sewer force main..
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 nearly 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 that the County fund construction of an expansion of
the sewer system.
P
2
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,
Clean Water Bond grant funding, sewer service tax districts and an
assortment of assessment methods, have been evaluated by County staff.
County 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
EDD. 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.
One citizen of Efland, Mr. A- B. (Ben)Lloyd, Jr., has an urgent need to
provide an acceptable waste treatment option for waste wash water
generated by his car wash located on Hwy 70 in central Efland. He is
under long-standing order by state environmental regulatory authorities to
curtail his current practice of discharging untreated wash water to the land
surface adjacent to his car wash. From a practical standpoint, his only two
options are to close the car wash or to discharge the waste wash water into
the Efland sewer system. He has requested that the County grant him
permission to connect to the Efland sewer system by means of tapping into
the system force main lying close by his property. County staff have refused
his request to tap the force main. Staff has suggested that he acquire sewer
service sewer by means of extending a small diameter force main from his
property to the McGowan Creek pumping station. The staff alternative
requires that Mr. Lloyd install an additional 1200 to 1400 feet of force main
at an additional cost of approximately $7000. To date, the staff
recommended sewer service option has not proven satisfactory to Mr. Lloyd.
3
Mr. Lloyd contends essentially that the County is obligated to provide sewer
service to the central Efland area which includes his car wash property- at
no capital cost to him or other Efland residents. According to Mr. Lloyd, the
basis of the County's obligation is the sewer service request/easement
documents signed by himself and others during the County's.1984/85 process
of signing up customers for the then proposed Efland sewer system. It is Mr.
Lloyd's further contention that, since the County has not fulfilled its long-
standing obligation to provide the sewer service that would serve the central
Efland area, the County should allow him to use the lowest cost
alternative for obtaining sewer service. Mr. Lloyd's stated intention is for
the force main tap to be a temporary or interim solution which would be
discontinue upon extension of gravity sewers into the area of the car wash.
For the reasons outlined in the attached County Engineer's memorandum, it
is the stag's opinion that allowing the tapping of sewer force mains in
general, and the Efland force main in particular, is not a prudent or desirable
utility operational practice. However, establishing policy that regulates,
permits or prohibits force main taps on either a general or case-by-case basis
falls within the domain of the BOCC. The need to establish an unequivocal
policy statement on the tapping of the Efland sewer force main has obviously
been precipitated by Mr. Lloyd's request. There are others in Efland facing
problems and needs similar to that of Mr. Lloyd at his car wash. It may be
reasonably anticipated that the issue of tapping the Efland force main will
arise again regardless of the outcome of Mr. Lloyd's request. Staff
therefore request that the BOCC provide clear policy direction on the
tapping of the Efland sewer force main.
RECOMMENDATION : The County Administration recommends that the BOCC receive and
review the information provided and that it affirm the policy that
no taps to the Efland sewer force main will be allowed. If the BOCC
does affirm the no-tap policy, the County Administration further
recommends that the BOCC agree to accept ownership of the small
diameter force main that Mr. Lloyd will have to install(if he still
wishes to receive sewer service)between his car wash and the
McGowan Creek pumping station provided that: 1)Mr. Lloyd elects
to utilize this sewer service option to obtain sewer service; and 2)the
construction plans, etc., are acceptable to the County,NCDOT and
state regulatory authorities.
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Engineer
DATE: August 27, 1996
SUBJECT: Revised report dealing with Efland sewer topics including; a)the history of system
development, b) system expansion and financing strategies and c) a sewer service extension
policy issue
As per the request of Commissioner Wilhoit and the County Manger,the following information
related to Efland sewer system issues is presented for the consideration 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 nearby Efland-Cheeks Elementary school also failed. The County entered into several
engineering services contracts with the John R McAdams Company which produced 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 preliminary design
recommendations for a water main/storage tank layout,the primary focus of the report was the provision
of sewer service system.
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 Buckhorn Road(SR 1114) on the west. The study area was finther 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 April 5`h, 1984 revision of the McAdams report: a)Figure No. 2,which delineates the
Study Area, Immediate Planning Area and Future Planning Area; and b)Figures 6a. 6b and 6c which
delineate the phasing plan for the Immediate Planning Area.
1
S
The BOCC never formally adopted or accepted the McAdams report or its recommendations.
However, in the resolution, adopted on November 20, 1984, which essentially created the Efland sewer
system, the BOCC did make reference to the McAdams report. Specifically, the BOCC resolution stated
-with several stipulations or qualifications-that the County would construct the portion of the system
designated as"Phase I of the Project Engineer's Preliminary Report, 5th Edition dated April eh,
1984, last revised August 7, 1984". In one important qualification, the BOCC stated 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". In another stipulation, the
resolution also provided that an additional fourteen homes and businesses "not located within Phase I
of the Project Area, but which are located adjacent to it and on Southern Avenue" (most of the
fourteen may be in the Phase II area, although Southern Ave. is not in either Phase I or II) could be
served by the initial sewer construction project "provided the bid for the System, including
construction of the portion of the System necessary to serve these 14 parcels,which is accepted by
Orange County is within the System budget".
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 the Phase I area 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 3 l t, 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.
2
6
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 one 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
hometbuilding owners have either been unwilling or financially unable to tap on.
Currently, there are pending requests for approximately twenty-four new sewer taps which are
located in areas served by existing gravity sewer collection mains. 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 gravity sewer outfall line(cross-country trunk main).
However, construction of any new large development project in the Efland area will be on hold until the
Orange-Alamance Water System is able to resolve its current problems with insufficient water supply and
treatment capacity. Other current issues related to the Efland sewer system involve the potential for the
expansion of sewer service into central Efland (Phase II and the remaining portion of Phase 1).
Approximately seventy residents and business owners in this area were among those initially requesting
sewer service in the 1984/85 sewer service sign-up process. Over the years since, many of these
individuals have inquired about the County's plans or requested the County to complete the extension of
sewer service into the area. Several businesses in the Hwy 70 corridor have inquired about the potential
of obtaining sewer service by tapping into the force main extending from the McGowan Creek pump
station to Hillsborough and one has requested that sewer service be provided immediately by means of
tapping the force main.
The business with the immediate request for sewer service provided by a sewer service tap is a car
wash facility owned by Ben Lloyd and located on the comer of Efland-Cedar Grove Road and Hwy 70.
The car wash has been operating for the last five years under the process and provisions of 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 a four
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 took no action to eliminate the waste discharge. He was apparently planning to discharge the car
wash waste into a gravity sewer collection line section of an expanded Efland sewer system(Phase IEI)
that he either hoped or expected the County would construct during the SOC time frame. 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 reacted by requesting that the
County allow him obtain sewer service, on an interim basis, by tapping into the force main lying across
Hwy 70 from the car wash. Mr. Lloyd has proposed to disconnect the force main tap when gravity sewer
service becomes available.
3
7
On several occasions, Orange County staff have met and corresponded with Mr. Lloyd and his
consulting engineer to discuss methods of providing sewer service for the car wash. Mr. Lloyd and his
engineer have cited cost figures for three alternatives: 1) installing a gravity sewer line between the car
wash and the existing McGowan Creek pumping station; 2) installing a private pumping station on his
property and a small diameter force main between his pumping station and the McGowan Creek pumping
station; and 3)tapping into the existing ten inch force main lying across Hwy 70 from his property and
installing a private pumping station on his property and a small diameter force main from his pumping
station to the tap on the ten inch force main. The engineer's cost estimates show that tapping the force
main is the alternative which, by a significant percentage, costs Mr. Lloyd the least. While County staff
has not concurred that the costs cited by Mr. Lloyd are accurate, staff does acknowledge that extension
of a gravity line represents the greatest initial cost and the force main tap represents the least initial cost
to Mr. Lloyd. The staff position has been that: 1)minimizing Mr. Lloyd's cost in acquiring sewer service
is not necessarily the County's overriding concern; 2)the installation of a small diameter force main to
the existing McGowan Creek pumping station, while not the cheapest alternative, does represent the best
initial cost/feasibility ratio; 3)provision of individual sewer service by means of tapping the force main is
or can be a major Efland sewer system policy issue in that allowing one force main tap will set a
precedent for allowing individual sewer service taps at any point along the force main; 4)while tapping
sewer force mains is possible and does occasionally occur, most engineers and utility providers
discourage or prohibit making service connection taps on force mains that have not been specifically
designed to provide for such service connections; and 5) County planning and utility servicelservice area
policy generally recognize that sewer force mains are and should be used to extend essential sewer
service to satellite municipal service areas while precluding demands to provide sewer service along the
route of the force main.
Items(4) and(5) a outlined above are complex issues and require additional explanation. Item 4
accounts for the operational realities of tapping a force main. The tap itself requires that a permanent
hole be drilled or cut into the piping of the force main which operates under pressure. After the tap is cut
and the service connection is established, waste in the individual service connection line must be
discharged into the system force main(by means of an on-site pumping station)under pressure equal to
or greater than that in the force main. The service connection piping must be equipped with pressure
fittings, cutoff valves and check valves(one-way flow control valves)to prevent the backflow of
pressurized waste from the system force main into the waste system of the building connected to the
force main by the service connection. The fittings, valves and lines of the service connection operate in a
very corrosive environment under nearly constant pressure from either the on-site or the system pumping
station. Failure of service connection valves, fittings or piping subjected to the normal operating pressure
of the system force main could result in the discharge of thousands of gallons of sanitary waste from the
Efland system. Mitigation of environmental consequences, repair of damages to US 70, etc., would be
the legal and financial responsibility of the County. Item 5 addresses the potential that allowing taps to
be made to the Efland force main could conceivably be used as a precedent-setting decision for allowing
service taps on other existing sewer force mains within areas of Orange County judged undesirable or
unsuitable for provision of sewer service. The New Hope Elementary School, Piney Mountain and
Rangewood are examples of instances where force mains are used to provide satellite urban utility service
4
8
in areas where urban services are judged to be generally undesirable but where provision of those services
is deemed to be essential to the public good. In these and similar situations, the extension of sewer
service is made more acceptable to policy makers because it is assumed that force mains cannot be tapped
and will not therefore create utility-driven growth demand along the route of the force main between the
urban service area and the satellite service area. Allowing the tapping of the Efland sewer force main
could diminsh or even destroy any level of comfort in the theory that force mains will not create utility-
driven growth. This dimished level of comfort may, in turn, make the extension of utility service to
provide essential public facilities or to address public health issues more difficult.
By letter dated 24 April 1996, County staff denied Mr. Lloyd's request that the County allow him
access to sewer service by means of a service connection requiring the tapping the system force main.
The letter outlined the staff recommendation that sewer service be provided to the car wash by means of
private on-site pumping station and a small diameter force main extended to the McGowan Creek
pumping station. The letter also cited current NCDOT policy requiring that the County accept ownership
of all privately constructed force main that would be installed within NCDOT rights-of-way. Staff
proposed to seek the BOCC's agreement for the County to accept that ownership. To date, the solution
proposed in the April 24h letter has not been accepted by Mr. Lloyd.
For Mr. Lloyd and others in Efland, issues related to the expansion of the Efland sewer system
have become inextricably entangled with burden of dealing with State and the County requirements
related to maintaining or expanding various facilities, businesses or residences, sewer system connections,
septic and waste treatment system repairs, etc. While it may have been the problems and sewer service
questions related to Mr. Lloyd's car wash that have stimulated renewed public interest in Efland sewer
system issues, there are a number of other situations in the unsewered sections of Efland that are not
completely dissimilar to the problems at the car wash. These situations include instances where
environmental and health regulations require property owners to make expensive but ultimately
ineffective or short-lived system repairs to failing treatment systems;where businesses and residences
cannot be expanded because of an inability to accordingly expand existing waste treatment systems; and
where waste treatment system failures go unreported and thus unregulated by regulatory authorities. The
expansion of the Efland sewer system represents perhaps the sole effective and comprehensive option for
addressing the waste treatment problems of central Efland. This reality becomes something of an
aggregating factor in the uncertainty and confusion of Efland residents about the possible future of the
system. The drawn out and convoluted process by which the Efland sewer system master plan was
conceptually created and then integrated into the BOCC's 11/20/84 Efland sewer system creation
resolution seems to be a primary source of confusion. Specifically, there is a great deal of controversy
about the County's legal obligation- or lack of obligation-to extend the sewer system to central Efland
at no cost to area residents who signed up for sewer service in 1984/85. Even the County staff's
interpretation of the definition of"Phase I" as cited in McAdams report and the 11/20/84 resolution are
disputed by Mr. Lloyd and others. Mr. Lloyd, and probably others as well, has a copy of a map - entitled
"Figure 8B Phase I Immediate Plan" in the lower right comer of the map-from the March 12, 1984
revision of the McAdams report. By virtue of its title, this map is in contradiction with other maps in the
5
9
same report revision as it delineates nearly the entire Efland area, including all of Phase I and portions of
Phases U and V as Phase I (see attached 3/12/84 version of Figure 8B). Although McAdams report
revisions dated March 28, 1984 and later show the same Figure 8B (see attached 4/5/84 version of
Figure 8B) re-titled as simply"Recommended Plan", the existence and circulation of the earlier version
of the map has been a source of discord. Given the history of the Efland sewer system, it may never be
possible to reconcile the conflicting points-of-view and opinions as to how the Efland sewer system
should be expanded and who should pay the costs of that expansion.
Although it will come far too late to assist Mr. Lloyd with 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 H 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 Buckhorn 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.
6