HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-25-1986 ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
PLANNING BOARD
AGENDA
•
SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING
MARCH 25 , 1986 , 7 : 30 P .M .
ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SUPERIOR COURTROOM
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA
A . PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1 . Water Supply
a . Overview of the Problem
Mr . John Wray , Deputy Director
N .C . Division of Water Resources
b . Short and Long Range Solutions
Statement by Hillsborough
Statement by Orange-Alamance
Statement by OWASA
c . Public Comment (Limited to Water Supply)
d . Commissioner Questions and Comments
e . Summary
2 . PD-5-85 Scotswood (Planned Development
Continuation of Public Hearings held 11 -25-85 and
1 -6-86)
B . ADJOURNMENT
ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
STATEMENT ON ORANGE COUNTY WATER RESOURCES SUPPLY ISSUES
BY Ems" BILLINGSLEY, .DIVE DIRECTOR, OWASA
(Presented at Orange County's March 25, 1986 Public Hearing)
I an Everett Billingsley, Executive Director of Orange Water and Sewer
Authority (OWASA) . OWASA provides water and wastewater services to
approximately 52,000 residents in the Chapel Hill - Carrboro community.
OWASA recognizes the importance of comprehensive water resources planning
and management and strongly supports cooperative efforts to assure
efficient, equitable and environmentally compatible utilization and
expansion of the water resources in the region.
When OWASA began operations in 1977 it proceeded to aunt the supply of
water available to the Chapel Hill - Carrboro community. The American
Stone Quarry was acquired for use as an emergency reserve in 1979 and the
temporary impoundment on Cane Creek was completed in July of 1985. These
projects cost OWASA customers about $2.5 million and increased the local
water supply capacity by 80%, from approximately 3.5 MQ) to 6.3 W. The
16-inch water line interconnection to Hillsborough was constructed in 1978 .
at a cost of $1.1 million. This line permits the purchase of treated
water from the Town of Hillsborough. Under formal agreement with Orange
County, up to 2.0 W from Lake Orange would be released for treatment by
Hillsborough and eventual delivery to OWASA through the 16-inch water
line.
These additions to supply by OWASA have allowed OWASA to continue to meet
the demand for water until additional water supplies can be developed.
Under normal rainfall conditions, University Lake, the Stone Quarry and
the Temporary Impoundment on Cane Creek should be able to meet the
projected water demand until about 1989, when the permanent Cane Creek
Reservoir is complete. However, during periods of subnormal rainfall the
water purchases from the Town of Hillsborough will still be required to
meet demand.
OWASA recognizes that all of Orange County faces a potential problem with
respect to the adequacy of available public water supplies. Recent
reports cite that the demand for water is nearing the capacity of
available supplies. At the same time, other reports are recommending the
release of water from Orange County water supplies to augment instream
flows. OWASA supports the maintenance of a reasonable instream flow
release for the purposes of maintaining the aquatic environment to the
extent that such a release does not jeapordize the continued provision of
adequate water supply to sustain the public health and welfare of citizens
of the County.
1
` T
Considerable effort has been expended by the Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development to model Orange County's water
resources and to determine a desirable instream flow for the Eno River.
The Office of Water Resources has stated that a minimum release of about
5.4 cubic feet per second, or 3.5 MGD, is required from Lake Ben Johnson
to meet instream flow needs. This is much in excess of the statistical
7-day, 10-year low flow for the Eno River, which the has been variously
reported to be between 0.169.cfs to 1.7 cfs. Apparently, the 7Q10 has not
been established. For comparison, HISARS flow data for the Eno River near
Hillsborough show that in 1941 there were 8 consecutive days when flow was
0.3 cfs or lower and 9 consecutive days in 1954 when flow was 0.10 cfs or
less.
Differences between the reported low flows must be resolved and the impact
on water supply capacity determined before a decision concerning instream
flow requirements is reached. The limitations and other demands on stored
water must be carefully examined prior to establishing the instream flow
comnittment.
Given the limited capacity of present water supplies and the fact that the
primary purpose of these supplies at the time of construction did not
include an instream allowance, OWASA supports the assurance of a 0.39 ads.-1440
instream flow above the Hillsborough Water Plant. The discharge from the
2 MGD treatment plant will increase the stream flow to over 2,0 cfs. which
is above the 1.7 cfs flow suggested by the State. As future supplies are
planned and developed, requirements for maintaining instream flows can be
incorporated into project design, construction and financing.
The State has completed an extensive computer evaluation of the Eno River
flow. This model was used as a basis for recommendations presented by the
Office of Water Resources. A better understanding of the model, including
all of the assumptions utilized in running the model is needed to
adequately evaluate the recommendations of the State.
It is also important to evaluate the need to maintain flow in the Eno
River at the Hillsborough wastewater treatment plant site. The State has
based the issuance of the Town of Hillsborough's wastewater discharge
permit on the assumption that the 7Q10 flow, reported to be 1.7 cfs, will
exist. The permit as written indicates the Town's wastewater plant has a
capacity of 3.0 MGD; however, the actual capacity is only 2.0 MGD and
present plant flows are only about 0.9 MGD. The need to maintain a flow
of 1.7 cfs to maintain water quality downstream of the Hillsborough plant
needs to be reevaluated in light of the actual plant capacity and flows.
For comparison, the OWASA WWTP with similar standards but 8 MGD capacity
is based on only 0.25 cfs in the receiving stream.
It will be beneficial to evaluate the water quality impact of instream
flow release through the use of water quality and stream flow simulation
models prior to any final decision on the amount of such release. The
State uses water quality computer models to determine the NPDES Permit
limits which are needed to protect water quality at the 7Q10 flow. With
further knowledge and evaluation of these models, local governments will
be better able to understand the basis for decisions which significantly
affect the provision and cost of water and wastewater services and the
need for capital improvements such as reservoirs and treatment plants.
Present plans for increasing the storage capacity of Lake Orange and Lake
Ben Johnson, along with improvements at Corporation Lake, should be
diligently pursued. Efforts to obtain additional supplies on a temporary
basis from water purveyors in Alamance County should also be continued. A
comprehensive action plan for providing an adequate water supply for
Orange County must be expeditiously developed, complete with a funding
program and a time schedule for completion of construction. This is the
only real solution to the continuing problems of water deficiency that
affect all of the utilities and consequently the general economy,
environment and welfare of everyone in the county.
Thank you very much for your consideration of these remarks. The Board of
Directors and staff of OWASA pledge continuing cooperation in the
evaluation of the water resources planning and management issues which
affect Orange County. We will also appreciate the Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development's efforts to assist and educate local
water managers in the use of water quality and stream simulation modeling
which the Department has developed.
Everett Billingsley
Executive Director
•
•
•
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH CAROLINA
•
PUBLIC HEAxZING ON :TATTER RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT -- l'iarch 25, 1985
Orange County Comm'ss ioners
I am Margaret Holton, a citizen of Orange County and speaking for the League of
Women Voters,
. Orange County is at a crossroads of moving from predominantly rural to urbanized
• con,.murities. Projections are now being stated that Northern Durham County and
Hillsborough areas will be the second Triangle development when I-40 is 'comploted
to 1-35 at Hillsborough, Planned growth is absolutely essential. This means that
the elected officials must plan for infrastructure to serve the future population
and businesses. I'm talking roads, open spaces, water supply and waste trait :.3nt
systems (including sewers planned to standards that are environmentally sound
and will not lower our present quality of life.
. One big question is WATER SUPPLY,, Orange .County is at the headwaters •of the xxse
River in Northern Orange and the Southern part of the county has waters flowing
toward Jordan Lake and the Cape Fear River Basin. One does not have a river to
capture water from.
;:here is the WATER SUPPLY for Hillsborough and surrounding areas--is it the creeks
that lead to the itle River? The residents of Northern Orange do_not yet have their
long-range plan put together and started. It has taken OVASA the past 10 years to
get a plan on the ground and they only have a temporary impoundment. The permanent
dam is scheduled to be completed in 1939. The persons responsible have to wisely
•
realize that it takes Lead Time for all the planning, permits and acquiring of land
for a water supply. reservoir, If citizens want development and growth they need to
elect officials who will plan and execute wisely so that the resources are protected.
They should also note that the public needs to be continually informed of the process.
The elected officials need to take bold positive steps toward a future protected
water supply for Northern Orange County. The County Commissioners will be taking a
wise course by approving development contingent on a prior vote to provide the nec-
essary infrastructure, such as water sunnly, to provide for the population that is
projected to come to Orange County in the next 20 :years.
•'e wish to thank the Orange County Commissioners for providing tonights meeting
on ::ester Resources for Orange County.
Margaret Holton, water Resources Chair
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH POSITION STATEMENT
ON THE SCOTSW00D DEVELOPMENT
. March 25, 1986
At the County Commissioners ' meeting on February 17 , 1986, the Board of
Commissioners postponed a decision on the proposed Scotswood development in
order to solicit additional public comments on water availability and other
issues central to the decision on Scotswood. This statement represents the
position of the Town of Hillsborough with respect to the issue of water
availability, as well as other key issues raised by the proposed
development.
First, let me say that adequate water treatment capacity exists to
accommodate Scotswood as well as other approved and planned developments in
the Hillsborough area . As shown in Figure 1 , we are currently treating and
consuming about 1.3 to 1.4 million gallons per day, which is less than
one-half of the maximun design capacity of our existing water treatment .
plant. With the addition of Scotswood as well as other presently approved
and planned projects, we will be treating about 1 .8 to 1 .9 million gallons
of water per day. This is based on a consumption estimate of 100 gallons
per day per bedroom. Based on the higher estimate of 150 gpd per bedroom,
we will be treating about 2.2 million gallons per day once Scotswood and •all
other currently planned developments are built. When each of these projects
is fully developed , according to our estimates, we will be using about
two-thirds to three-fourths of our existing capacity, depending on which
consumption estimate you use.
711M
qp
so
►n .S� ��t r�Q.i E !t� — c�; S a
Of1
r 3a
00
!a .
c •M A All .? ?A S 0 �' D -l' Ic
le f :ir1 /�:f �% fOri . i.; �Tjp�l / /hl•�iirif j ?��.5D L7r� �r 1
There is no doubt that the pace of development 'will quicken in
Hillsborough in the future and that our existing treatment capacity is being
committed at a relatively fast rate. However, we feel confident that
- adequate treatment capacity is presently available to handle water demands
for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless , we are currently reviewing .our
water fee structure to ensure that sufficient. funds are set aside to expand •
our treatment facilities when needed. Even though we have ample treatment
capacity remaining at present, the anticipated pace of future development in
the Hillsborough area means that the day when additional water, and for that
matter sewer, treatment capacity will be needed is not that far off. We are
determined to be• prepared for that day when it arrives by having, plans z; '
money in place to expand our treatment capacity as needed.
The issue raised by Scotswood is, therefore, not whether adequate water
treatment capacity is available, but whether available water supplies- are
sufficient to accommodate Scotswood and other anticipated growth in
Hillsborough. Based on the recent County study of water supply in the upper
Eno River watershed (summarized in the County Manager's memo of November 15,
1985) , there is cause for concern that the existing capacity of the Eno
River and its three reservoirs may have been reached and that a water
shortage will occur during a drought. The current safe yield of the Eno'
three reservoirs is estimated to be approximated 2.2 mgd under current
methods of reservoir operation. As I said, Hillsborough is' currently
consuming about 1.3 to 1.4 mgd. The Orange-Alamance System is currently
using about. .6 mgd, for a total of around 2.0 mgd total . And then , during
the summer, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) has been drawing as
much as 1.0 mgd or more from the Eno
•
through the purchase of treated water from Hillsborough (the -sale of water
to OWASA for 1984 and 1985 is shown in Figure 1) . This brings the total
consumption level from the upper Eno basin to over 3.0 mgd during periods of
low rainfall , clearly exceeding the current safe yield of our combined
reservoirs of about 2.6 mgd.
The safe yield of Hillsborough's reservoir, Lake Ben Johnston, Js about
.44 million gallons per day. At present rates, we are consuming' about three
times the safe yield of our reservoir. The balance of the water to meet
Hillsborough ' s needs comes from Lake Orange, which we share as a water
source with other residents of the County. As mentioned above, during dry
periods water drawn from Lake Orange is treated by Hillsborough and piped to
the 0WASA system for use in southern Orange County. It should be noted that
during the drought of 1983, Hillsborough supplied roughly 20% of the water
consumed by Chapel Hill , Carrboro, and other areas served by OWASA. '
Consequently, we acknowledge that a water problem will arise during
times of drought and that the problem is one that we must jointly address
with the County and other water users in Orange County. Of course, we do
not have a water shortage today and will not with adequate rainfall .
In our opinion , however, the solution to our water concerns is not to
disapprove Scotswood or other pending projects for lack of water supply
unless similar constraints on growth are imposed on development in the NASA
and Orange-Alamance service areas. In particular, so long as CWASA relies
on water from northern Orange County, it would be extremely unfair to turn
away development in Hillsborough while allowing development to proceed
unabated in the southern end of the County. If Scotswood is denied for
water reasons , we need to consider a policy whereby future water consumption
would be limited according to a fair and equitable formula in all parts of
the County which rely upon the Eno River for water.
The water issues raised by Scotswood, however, must be addressed
immediately in a coordinated fashion. To address the concerns regarding
future water supply, we recommend the following steps be implemented
immediately:
( 1) Rapid implementation of all available stop-gap measures to
increase short-term water supplies . These steps include making the
improvements. to Lake Ben Johnston, Corporation rake and Lake Orange
recommended in the County study to increase the yield from these existing
water sources. Hillsborough has already initiated action on raising the
elevation of the spillway at. Lake Ben Johnston by two feet. Engineering
work is underway and $60,000 has been committed to the project. We expect
to have that and other improvements to Lake Ben Johnston completed by the
end of 1986 at the latest. Raising the dam at Lake Ben Johnston is
estimated to increase the reservoir' s safe yield by .2 mgd.
Implementation of recommended improvements to the design and operation
of all three reservoirs on the Eno is , according to County Consulting
Engineer Don Cordell , estimated to increase their combined safe yields from
the current 2.6 mgd to something more than 4.0 mgd. This would represent
a 50 percent increase in our existing water supplies.
(2) Implementation of a plan to reverse the flow of water in the 16
inch pipeline connecting Hillsborough's and OWASA' s systems. As a mid-term
"L measure, Hillsborough could be supplied water from OWASA during periods of
drought once the new Cane Creek Reservoir is fully on-line.
(3) Construction of the Seven Mile Creek Reservoir. Plans for the
• construction of a new reservoir should be expedited unless it is determined
in the near future that Jordan .reservoir is a better long-term supply of
water for northern Orange County. Hillsborough would, of course, be willing
to consider setting aside monies to pay for its fair share of such a future
reservoir. Because of long lead times for reservoir construction, action on
a long-term supply should not be delayed.
(4) Adoption by Hillsborough of a water conservation ordinance for use
in the event of a severe drought.
(5) If Scotswood or other developments in northern Orange County are
turned down becaus of water, consideration of a consumption •growth ceiling
on all jurisdictions relying upon the Eno River for water..
(6) Adoption of a water supply management plan that will maximize the
availability of water during drought periods and ensure adequate instream
flows in the Eno to minimize pollution and protect wildlife and the river's
ecosystem.
Let me next address the issue of traffic. In our opinion , traffic
congestion is really a more serious concern than water. According to the
traffic analysis prepared for Scotswood, when fully developed Scotswood
would greatly increase the traffic volumes on Highway 70 and St. Mary' Road.
For example, it is estimated by the developer' s traffic consultants that
• Scotswood would generate an additional 3500 trips per day down St. Mary' s
Road past Cameron Park Elementary School : St. Mary's Road in this area is a • - •
two-lane, winding road requiring traffic to enter the school zone from the
East just after the crest 'of a hill : This situation, coupled with the
curved stretch just to the west of the school zone, creates a potential •
hazard even with present traffic volumes . To increase existing traffic
• levels in front of Cameron Park School by 3500 trips per day is clearly
unacceptable, given the present configuration of St. Mary' s Road. •
We recognize that the project will be developed in stages and that the
traffic impacts will not all be experienced at once. However, we feel it is
impera ive that the necessary road improvements. be made before the full.
traffic impacts are felt. It is the Town' s position that the traffic
problems posed by Scotswood must be addressed now rather than 10 years from
now.
In particular, we recommend that the following road improvements be
completed prior to construction of the 200th dwelling unit as a condition
for project approval :
(1 ) The widening of Highway 70 to a minimum of four lanes from NC 86
on the North to Lawrence Road on the South ;
(2) The construction of an eastern by-pass to direct traffic from the
Scotswoccl •area to I--85 and 1-40;
(3) Completion of other road and traffic- improvements as specified in
the conditions recommended by the County Planning Department.
Recognizing that improvements of this magnitude are beyond the ability
of this or any other individual developer, we would ask for the assistance
of the applicants in obtaining the necessary NC Department of Transportation
commitments to carry out
•
these improvements , which will be needed. whether for Scotswood or the
accumulation of other developments on the east and north sides of
Hillsborough . We do not think we are asking for anything unreasonable when
we ask, as we are in this case, that the road and other improvements
necessary for a project like Scotswood be in place before any adverse
impacts from the project are experienced.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we believe that sufficient water is
available to serve the Scotswood development, provided short-term
improvements are carried out to increase existing water supplies and
definite plans are made for a longer-term, permanent source of supply.
Scotswood should not be turned down because of water alone unless simi ilr
growth limits are placed on all other parts of the County that rely ,'.;, the
i
Eno River for water. Also, we are concerned about the potential traffic
impacts of Scotswood, especially in the vicinity of Cameron Park School and
along Highway 70. We wish to be assured that any and all road improvements
necessary to handle the traffic demands of Scotwood will take place before
additional traffic hazards or traffic congestion occur. In recommending a
limit of 200 dwelling units until certain improvements are completed , we
have merely tried to propose one possible way to provide this assurance. We
would , of course, welcome other approaches that address this concern.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the Town Board' s position on
this matter.
' PROPOSED POLICY POS±TIGPS .
1. Decldrati on of Purpose
It is hereby declared that the general welfare. and
. public. interest require that the Lake Crange stored
water resource of Orange County be managed in such a
manner to provide optimum public benefit, subject to
reasonable regulation in order to conserve this resource
and to provide and maintain conditions t:hiich are cor;du-
cive to the development and use of the water.
2. Capacity Condition
a. Based upon available information from the NRCD
Division of Water Resources (as rendered in a
November 15, 1985 written report of the County
Manager: "Water Supply and Usage in the Upper Eno
River Basin") the Board finds that usage of water -
released from Lake Orange is at or near capacity
during periods of extended low stream flow in the
Eno River.
b. By "at or near capacity" it is meant that the
aggregate uses of the released water have developed
or threaten.
3. Back-up Supply Sources
a. Orange Alan:ance Water Corporation is called upon to '
enter into an agreement(s) ;pith other water pro-
viders to purchase water supplies for its customers
in the Cape Fear Basin when the stream flow in the
Eno has to be maintained by Lake Orange !eater
releases and the piater level at Lake Orange has
dropped to the emergency stage.
b. The Orange Water and Sewer Authority is called upon
to limit this purchase of water from the Eno River
to periods when natural stream flow exits in the
I�
river. Once water releases from Lake:E Orarrae are
necessary to augment natural flew in the Eno, such
purchases should cease. OWASA is further called
upon to enter into an agreement(s) with other water
providers to purchase water during these periods.
c. The Town of Hillsborough is called upon to enter
into an agreement(s) for the purchase of water from
other water providers when the stream flow in the
Eno has to be- maintained by Lake Orange water
releases and the .rater _'e eel _.. Lake Crane,- has
dropped to the emergency stage.
4. Cons erva ti r: and Regulation
' ,n
G �I.C: ._0ll_.2 t•�C.
a. Ordinance: are direct-ed to be developed to roster
conservation and regulate water use to the safe
yield aveiic ble first f r'oi Lake Orange and later
".. -.., ... -S.
-- .
. � � � yields '.ate
• /� e
i safe
1
e�
ds a
r
.frbn, other reservoirs as
the it
effective.
b. Since supply may be 'increased throughesvr .
improvement measures .at .Lake Orange, Corporation
Lake and Lake Ben Johnson each ordinance shall .
reflect the combined safe . yield available at a
given time.
c. The Orange Alamance Water Corporation, the Town of
- : Hillsborough and the OWASA are requested to
identify by January 27, 1986 the improvement
measures, timetable and source of financing they .
are willing .to commit towards increasing the
available supply. • '
d. Once the maximum withdrawal limits and instream-
flow requirements are established, consistent with
available surpp?.y_ard _safeguards.:-_agairlst_..water
dep t?ohs KI i ch; 10d_..in jur-e-.the-pubs{ sa ety. - .
heealt t Welfare, it will be the responsibility
of local government and water purveyors to prohibit
g "n aggregate
additional uses which singly or �. would
cause the water allocations established by ordi-.
nance to be exceeded.
e. Instream flow requirements shall be based upon the
unadjusted 7 Q 10 flow rate below Lake Ben Johnson, , -
. as measured at the USGS/Orange' County stream flow
gage. This amount shall be , reduced to a lessor
amount (to 0) as, each successive.stage of water
level is reached at Lake Orange. -
f. Development approvals up to the allocation levels
shall be staged in accordance with the amount of
demand and the timing required to provide major
n2w, water supply.
5. Punning for Major New Water Supply
. ,
a. Since improvement to existing reservoirs will be
inadequate to meet growth demands Orange County
will join the water utility providers in the
engineering study of new supply sources and sites. .
b. All utility providers are urged to begin now a
review of water rate structures
to determine the
capacity
of these rates to develop reserve to
A y addit'cr_al supply.
finance new construction for
.
.
ORANGE COUNTY
HILLSBOROUGH
1 �( NORTH CAROLINA _ PP P
1wue9cc d l.11``2 Estal�Li ud 1752
TO: Mr. James . Campbell, President, Orange-Alamance
Water System, Inc.
Mr.. Frank. Sheffield, Mayor, Town of Hillsborough
Mr. Everett Billingsley, Executive Director, OWASA
FROM: County Manager
SUBJECT: Water System Data -
•
DATE: March 19, 1986
•
Orange County is in the process of assembling background
information on each water system in the County to aid in the
compilation of an inventory of existing facilities and
financing the construction of new water supply.
Documents or data needed include:
1. Date and copy of documents by which the water
system was established (i.e. public law reference,
articles of incorporation, purchase agreement) .
2. List and size of water storage and treatment
facilities
3 . How facilities were" financed
4 . Existing rate structure and tap fee amounts
5. Geographic distribution of customers by County and
drainage basin
6. Geographic distribution of water consumption by
County and drainage area
7. Map of system
Please provide this information at the earliest time
possible. Thank you for your cooperation.
0
Kenneth R. Thompson G
County Manager
KRT/srs
cc: Board Members
ORANGE COUNTY
HILLSBOROUGH
NORTH CAROLINA
_
un[✓!4!-'1 °i . eliatp YC
1752
TO:- Jimmy Campbell, President, Orange-Alamance Water
System, Inc.
Eddie Mann, Chairman, Orange Water and Sewer
Authority-
Frank Sheffield, Mayor, Town of Hillsborough
FROM: County Manager
SUBJECT: March 25, 1986 Public Hearing Notice
DATE: March 19, 1986
Enclosed is a second public hearing notice for the
proposed Scottswood Development and the related subject of
water supply. This hearing will be conducted on the evening
of March 25, 1986, 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom,
Hillsborough.
The Board of Commissioners has requested that each of '
you be specifically invited to attend the hearing and provide
comment regarding the measures your organization is willing
to undertake to address the water shortage situation. In
addition to stop gap measures to enhance existing supply, the
Board will be interested in hearing what measures you would
be willing to explore to help plan and finance the
construction of a new water supply in the central portion of
the County or from Jordan Lake. Questions which come to mind
include:
1. What is the existing water consumption amount and
pattern geographically?
2 . What areas should a new reservoir be expected to
serve (i.e. only the Town of Hillsborough and
Orange Alamance, OA customers in the Cape Fear
Basin, OWASA service area customers as well,
other)?
3. How much capacity will each jurisdiction wish to
have reserved for its service area?
4. How much capacity will need to be released for
instream flow requirements of the State?
5. What overall size will be necessary?
6. How quickly should the new capacity be operational?
7. To what extent will a phasing of development be
necessary in the meantime?
8. At what site or sites should water volume be
located?
9. How should it be financed?
•
•
•
•
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8603-502 .
March 25, 1986 Public Hearing Notice
March 19, 1986
Page z
a. Surcharge on customer rates
b. Water rates coupled with tap on fees
c. Bonds
10. What is each jurisdiction's capacity to pay debt
service on bonds, given the current and projected
customer base?
11. How much bonded-debt already exists in relation to
each jurisdiction's debt limit?
12. Have capital reserve funds already been established
to pay for future construction?
• 13. How shall we organize ourselves to study and decide
these questions?
14. How much engineering assistance will be necessary?
15. What would be an equitable percentage for each to
contribute for the payment of engineering services?
Obviously we will not be able to answer all of these
questions at the hearing but we can begin a discussion of
whether we are willing to work on this together and what
strategy ought to be employed. Under separate cover, I have
asked for information that will begin the development of a
data base.
The Board of Commissioners solicits your ideas both at
the hearing and over the ensuing months. It will be a
challenging undertaking for all.
4„/ANtr-1--__
Kenneth R. Thompson
County Manager
KRT/srs
cc: Board Members
John Wray, N. C. Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development
Enclosure
'► 'ORA�'GE C4�Y PLANNING DEPARTMENT
-
. I31LLSBOROuGH
•
NORTH CARCAROLINA. (2-644" 4 & &/Wed,
27278 .
S•r•'y of O -
l7`4 S,+
5
•
Pio ago'
NOTICE OF CONTINUATION PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORANGE COUNTY, N.C.
- Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of. North Carolin
Chapter 153A, Section 323 and Section 343 , Article 20 .5 and Article 20.6 of t
Orange County Zoning Ordinance, notice is hereby given that a public heari
will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse, 1
East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina on Tuesday, March 25 , 1986
7:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity
speak for or against the adoption of proposed amendment to the Orange Coun
Zoning Atlas.
The amendment under consideration is as follows :
PD-5-85 aCDTh1YQOD
•
The property in question is located along Highway 70 Bypass and
St . Mary' s Road (SR 1002) northeast of the Town of Hillsborough
in Hillsborough Township. It is known as Block B Lots 3 and 4 on
Orange County Tax Map #6 and Block A Lot 17 on Orange County Tax
Map 22 for Hillsborough Township. The planned development
request contains approximately 14 , 374 , 800 square feet ' 'or 330
acres . The present zoning of the property is Residential-1 (R-1) ,
The applicant is requesting that 290 . 03 acres be rezoned Planned
Development Residential-2 (PD-H-R2 ) , 29. 50 acres be rezoned
Planned Development Residential-5 (PD--H-R5) and 10 . 43 acres be
rezoned Planned Development General Commercial--4 (PD-GC4) and the
issuance if a Class A Special Use Permit for 410 single family
Units , 216 multi-family units and 65, 460 square feet of
commercial space.
At the meeting evidence will be received regarding traffic and wa
supply problems , particularly current and proposed water withdrawals , possi •
improvements to the three reservoirs in northern Orange County (Lake Oran-
Corporation Lake and Lake Ben Johnston) and the State' s recommendati •
regarding in-stream flow requirements . _
All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be hear ,
. Public comment on any item must be received during the public heari
Those wishing to oppose a request must provide competent material
substantial evidence as to the specific manner in which the proposed use di
not satisfy the ordinance . For requests requiring the issuance of special
permit only sworn testimony and evidence will be taken as required in a qua '
judicial proceeding. The testimony of experts on impacts on pub
health/safety and property values may be necessary . Following the close of
public hearing, only evidence presented at public hearing will be examined
r the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners for decision • on - t
request .
Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debat
objections and discussions at the hearing.
Questions regarding the proposals should be directed to the Orange Coun
Planning Department . Copies of the proposed full amendments are available
the Planning Department for public review. The Planning Department- is locat
in the New Courthouse , 106 East Margaret Lane , Hillsborough . . Office hours a
froth 8:00 a.m. to 5 :00 p.m. , Monday through Friday. acTLAAT)
VIAOW41,-
MARVIN COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
PUBLISH: MARCH 19, 1986
ti
DIY
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS •
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date MARCH 25, 1886
Action Agenda
Item IL 2
SUBJECT: PD-5-85 SCOTSWOOD
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING ,_Yes No
Attachment(s) Information Contact: EDDIE KIRK
VICINITY MAP
SEE 11 -25-85 , 1 -6-86 AND 2-18-86 AGENDA PACKETS
DRAFT 2-18-86 BOCC MINUTES
REVISED WATER USE PROJECTIONS - HILLSBOROUGH SERVICE AREA
Telephone Numbers
Hillsborough -- 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
PURPOSE : To consider further public comment on a proposed planned
development and rezoning request submitted by John W. Graham
and A . H . Graham, Jr . This item was submitted to public
hearing on November 25 , 1985 and January 6 , 1986 . The Planning
Board recommendation was submitted to the Board of
Commissioners on February 18 , 1986 .
On February 18 , 1986 the public hearing on Scotswood was
continued to March 25 , 1986 to receive further public comment
on traffic and water supply issues , particularly current and
proposed water withdrawals , possible improvements to the three
reservoirs in northern Orange County and the State 's
recommendation regarding in-stream flow requirements .
NEED: John W. Graham & A . H . Graham , Jr. are requesting approval of a
planned development and rezoning for 331 . 12 acres of land
located along Highway 70 Bypass and St . Mary 's Road(SR 1002)
northeast of Hillsborough . The property is referenced as Tax
map 6 , Block B . , Lots 3 & 4 and Tax Map 22 Block A , lot 1.7 of
Hillsborough Township .
The property is located in an area designated as Ten Year
Transition and Commercial Transition Activity Node in the
Orange County Land Use Plan . The present zoning classification
is ( Residential-1 ) R- 1 . The applicants are requesting 290 .03
acres to be rezoned PD-H-R2 , 29 .50 acres to be rezoned PD-H.-R5
and 10 . 43 acres to be rezoned PD-GC4 .
PD-5-85 S.COTSWOOD
March 25 , 1986
PAGE 2
IMPACT : Approval of the request would allow development of 410
residential lots with a minimum 20 ,000 sq . ft . per dwelling
unit 216 attached multi-family dwelling units and a 65 ,460
square feet of commercial space on 10 .43 acres .
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommended approval of the planned
development rezoning request and issuance of a Class A
Special Use Permit withattached . conditions of approval .
The Planning Board recommended denial of the planned
development rezoning request and issuance of a Class A
Special Use Permit .
However, should the Board of Commissioners approve the
request , the Planning Board recommends that approval be
subject to the conditions specified in the attachment .
i
i .
to
IF
W.'.o
k r •ia a�
�iijltxest
- Suhdhiison
• •••
to
`a• j• 4
tj
It
= _
•
a �
f f ra, i . ! '9 5Y
r i Apr.Rea A H C.�-.J.. .,
a• 4H Go4 on,L
+ '�i 296.0± AC. I + Tormp.le-� Y
�•' \ • P•vwx•d ian.n Z%a<rv.R•7,
i 77laun R-.,
fOp'1111'
rmn
+
R =4 l'.d00'
1W 1
22.3{ AC.
too •.
w � '
+�•aKi �`S,af+ziT`-iffiii7'"-""!Y+•+q*�_
wit&
, iai r .ry •
`r 12.4± y SCOTSINOOD
AC. ,•'• Eastwood i Sa6division k
1
• ! �_ r„�,.—� ZONFNCi MAP _
♦, - —'J/ - 1 JIM B A.H. Orafwm,Jy
. t; �I��I�Il YI�. Ii 111iV li.�1t:311:\\IS 11.t,\Il'r\IvY.11�f..
-�-- _ - _ - _-_- .. .
EXCERPT FROM February 18 , 1986 BOCC MINUTES
3
engineering fees for Priority I roofs at Stanback Jr. Hi h
2 and A.L. Stanback Schools. g
3
4 4. REQUEST FOR PREPARATION OF SKETCH THOROUGHFARE PLAN BY
5 NCDOT •
Request NCDOT to initiate the development of a sketch
7 thoroughfare plan for Orange County. Motion was made by
8 that the forgoing action be taken by the Board.
9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
•
10
•
11 H. ITEMS FOR DECISION-OTHER
12 1. Z-1-86 DONNIE CHAPMAN REZONING REQUEST
13 Director of Planning Marvin Collins presented for consideration
14 of approval the rezoning request submitted by Donnie Chapman to correct an
15 error in the Zoning Atlas. On October 1, 1984 when . zoning became
16 effective in Cheeks Township, the property of Donnie H. Chapman was placed
17 in an EC-5 Existing Commercial zoning category. The land placed in that
18 designation was thought to include those buildings associated with Mr.
19 Chapman's automotive service. The buildings located on an adjacent tract
20 (in the same ownership) are presently zoned AR. The intent of the
21 rezoning is to match the building locations with the appropriate zoning
22 classification. The Planning Board recommended approval of the rezoning
23 request to correct an error in the Zoning Atlas.
24 Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner
25 Walker, to approve the recommendation of the Planning Board.
2 C VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
27 ' 2. PD-5-85 SCOTSWOOD
28 Director of Planning Marvin Collins presented for consideration
29 of approval a proposed planned development and rezoning request submitted
30 by John W. Graham and A. H. Graham, Jr. This item was submitted to public
31 hearing on November 25, 1985 and January 6, 1986. The Grahams have
32 requested rezoning for 331. 12 acres of land located along Highway 70
33 Bypass and St. Mary's Road northeast of Hillsborough. The property is
34 currently designated as Ten Year Transition and Commercial Transition
35 Activity Node in the Orange County Land Use Plan. The present zoning is R-
36 1. The applicants are requesting 290. 03 acres to be rezoned PD-H-R2,
37 29.50 acres to be rezoned PD-H-R5 and 10.43 acres to be rezoned PD-GC4.
38 Commissioner Lloyd referred to two documents in the agenda packet
39 and questioned the validity of receiving additional information after
40 the public hearing was held.
41 Attorney Gledhill maintained that the documents present arguments
42 and do not contain any new evidence that is not already in the Planning
43 Board minutes. The public hearing was continued to receive the Planning
44 Board recommendation. He pointed out the importance of making a decision
45 on the evidence submitted at the public hearing.
46 Chair Wilihoit pointed out the public hearing was held open to
47 receive the Planning Board recommendation which would include the process
48 they followed in reaching the final decision. The arguments that are put
49 forth during the Planning Board meeting are important as part of that
50 decision process. During deliberations on any item, the planning staff
5 1 . provides to the Planning Board their technical expertise to assist them in
52'5` making a decision. This information may or may not have been brought out
53 at the public hearing and would be considered as professional consensus
54 type information.
55
56
. : DRAFT = F .
4
1 C. Planning Board Chair Barry Jacobs stated that nothing is in the
2 document that was not heard at the public hearing or was not presented at.
3 the public hearing. He summarized the Planning Board action:
4 Recommendation: Deny planned development and rezoning by a 5-3
5 vote.
6 Issues Raised: (1) Water shortage in central and northern Orange
7 County, as identified in county manager's report, (2) traffic hazards and
8 congestion created by the proposed development on nearby roads and in
9 Hillsborough, (3) plan for Scotswood inconsistent with intent of County
10 Land Use Plan, and (4) impacts on public facilities.
11 Explanation of Dissenting Votes: (1) placed more credence in
12 Hillsborough water estimates than those by County Manager, and (2)
13 believed it unfair to penalize this developer for impacts inevitably
14 arisin from any development.
15 Chair Willhoit noted he received a telephone call from the Water
i6 Resources Division of NRCD indicating they would be sending a final letter
17 regarding the water issue requesting the County make a decision on the
18 instream flow matter. Since the water is a major concern and a consensus
19 has not been reached between the Town of Hillsborough and Orange Alamance
20 and the County staff, he suggested delaying action on Scotswood until a
21 decision has been made on the water situation.
22. Commissioner Carey agreed with the delay on the project to allow
23 time for a consensus to be reached on the amount of unused capacity
24 available. There are also concerns about the traffic impact this project
25 would present.
26 After a brief discussion on water resources and water
27- availability, it was decided that since new information had and is still
28 being received that should be considered in the decision for the Scotswood
29 Project that a new public hearing would be in order to present this new
30 evidence.
31 Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner
32 Marshall to adjourn the public hearing on Scotswood to March 5, 1986 for
33 the receipt of additional information on water resources and receipt of
34 additional public comment on the project.
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
36
37 3 . EUBANKS ROAD SUBDIVISION-PRELIMINARY
38 Marvin Collins presented for consideration of approval the
39 Preliminary Plan for Eubanks Road Subdivision. Brooks and Son
40 Construction Company has requested approval of a subdivision for 6.36
41 acres of land located south of Eubanks Road (SR , 1727) in Chapel Hill
42 Township. A five lot subdivision with lot #5 reserved for use as a
43 community septic system drainfield is proposed. The property is located
44 within the Twenty year: Transition area and within the Joint Planning Area
45 and subject to joint approval of the Town of Chapel Hill and Orange
46 County. Both the Orange County Planning Board and the Chapel Hill
47 Planning Board recommended approval with the following conditions:
48 (1) that a stormwater management plan which satisfies the
49 standard for control of the first one-half (1/2) inch of
50 stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces be submitted for
5LT review and approval prior to approval of the final plat.
52t (2) that engineered plans for the community sewer system be
53 submitted for review and approval by the Orange County
54 Health Department prior to approval of the final plat.
55
56
REVISED WATER USE PROJECTIONS - HILLSBOROUGH SERVICE AREA
Below is a summary of the estimated water use for both
approved and proposed developments within the Hillsborough
service area . On March 17 , the Hillsborough Town Board
reviewed water use figures for Wildwood , Cornwallis Hills ,
Gateway Apartments , Coachwood Apartments , Oakdale
Mobile Home Park , and several commercial establishments .
Based on these figures , the. Hillsborough Town Board agreed to
use a consumption estimate of 100 gallons per person per day
for residential development and current commercial water use
figures to arrive at an overall estimate for water use . •
The Orange County Planning Department concurs with these
estimates .
WATER USE CALCULATIONS Water Usea
(GPD)
1 . Approved Developments
a . Meadowlands b 300 ,000
b . Wood sedge
o 52 mobile homes 13 ,936
c . Cedar Creek Condominiums
o 160 multi-family units 42 , 880 •
d . Cornwallis Hills
o 111 single family units 29 ,748
e . Oakdale Woods
o 78 townhouse units 20 ,904
TOTAL ESTIMATED USE 407 ,468
CURRENT USE 1 ,400 ,000
TOTAL USE 1 , 807 ,468
2 . Proposed Developments
a . Wildwood Section III , R-4 zoning
o 35 single family units 9380
b . Weng property , R-3 zoning
o 41 .8 acres , assume 35 .53 acres
developedc
o 44 single family units 11 ,792
e . Scholar property , R-3 zoning
o 12 .4 acres , assume 10 .54 acres
developed
o 31 single family units 8308
t
d . Wildwood Section IV, R-2 zoning
o 28 .8 acres , assume 24 .48 acres .
developed
o 53 single family units 14 ,204
e . Oakrise Subdivision 10 ,988
o 41 single family units
f. Scotswood 09 ,8$0
o 410 single family units 109 ,880
o 216 multi-family 4888
o Shopping centerd
SUB-TOTAL (Proposed developments) 226 ,945
TOTAL ESTIMATED USE 2 ,034,413
3 . Water Treatment Capacity
a . Current capacity 3 ,000 ,000
b . Remaining. capacity (minus TOTAL 965 ,587
ESTIMATED USE)
a Assume 2 .68 persons per household . 1980 average house-
size for Orange County . 1980 U .S. Census data .
b "Sewer System Feasibility- Study for Central Orange
Study Area" . E .C . Maguire , - Inc . May , 1985 .
e Subtracted out 15% for roads .
d Applied the following 1985 average water use figures.
( June through August consumption figures) :
Wlar_Uag.- GPD
Grocery store : Foodlion 1713
Drugstore: Revco 63
Miscellaneous shops:
Huey 's 17714
Hardee 's 533
Colonial Florist 66
Super dollar 121
Apple Tree Clothing 29
S & S Hair Salon 206
TOTAL 4505
Ask
WATER S U P P L Y
I N
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
•
= i
'Lake \ . .
Orange
t 86 'j
i
t
j ■
Ili _,. ,
, .
. . . .
• ,, :
1 j Corporation ' ,,,' .
Lake HILLSBOROUGH .
X
__ . _ -_ Ben 44
r 41111111164 ' '+
Johnson
Lake ;;�. WT 1�1 S`'P
0
fel -
•
I
•
4,•
, -
. .
. •
o
•
. .
•
FINDINGS BY N. C DIVISION OF WATER al•-.:-,',OURCES • •
1. WATER USAGE IS AT OR NEAR CAPP.V.ITY IN
CENTRAL ORANGE 'OUNTY
2. A KINIMUM FLO- OJf.D A,:NrJ511,INEO IN
THE RIVER
•
•
0
'!„ -.• .
• .
. .
CAPACITY - A FUNCTION OF SUPPLY VERSUS DEMAND
SUPPLY SAFE YIELD RATE IN :-IILLION GALLMs (tIGD)
2.20 LAKE ORANGE A . IS
.12 ADDITION WITP CLASHBOAROS 02 1
.79 CORPORATION T•:■KE IF I3YPA9 fMSTALLED
.44 LAKE BEN JO-,INSON OPERATE;) BELOW FULL
.20. ADDITION WITU FiAsullORDS
3.75 TOTAL SAFE
•
DEMAND = WATER BEING USED
1.33 HILLSBOROUG1-;
.41 APPROV::.;
• • .91 PROPOS
WENG :Cr.-Mf-J.SOk Faff)TVISTOT,1,
OAKR S-!'• !':"COT3S,;-100.T)
.60 ORANGE ALMAI':;.:1'; WZ-v
.50 to 1.7
.40 to 1.1
3.44 to 5.34 fr!:%7.,A
DIFFERENCE +31 to -1.59
0
• r'• • "
. .
.• • '
ISSUES REGARDING SUPPLY
1. EXTENT TO WHICH EXIST IN(i RESERVOIRS VOLUME CAN BE
INCREASED OR MADE MORE OSUABLE
- LAKE ORANGE
1. FT. FLASHBOAaD 120,WD GD
2. FT. FLASHBOA 7 250,00 OD
• - CORPORATION LAKE
I • BY-PASS PIPE
METES-
-- LAKE PEN JOHNSOH
FLASHBARD op
2. EXTENT TO 1.,MicH LxIST ; 5,1[1-..:,pLEmENTED
BY WATER PURCHASES
- 1.2 MOD MAY BE --JP,LINOTON
- DURHAM AMOUNT UH-.)M fOMPTPIN'O
•
ISSUES PERTAINING TO WATER USE
HILLSBOROUGH
I. WILL ALL PROPOS0) DEVELOYAENT EE APPROVED? '
2. HOW QUICKLY WILL THE PROJECTS BE BUILT IT: PHASED?
3. DURING A DROUEH DOW MUCH ON THE USE CAN BE BY
PURCHASED WATER.'
1
ORANGE ALAMANCE
1. HOW MUCH AND HO :,AST ULLIT -rT..MTHER DEVELOPMENT
OCCUR?
2. DURING A DROUGH- HOW USE CAN PD BY
PURCHASED WATER?
ORANGE WATER AND SEWER : ITHORITY
1. HOW MUCH AND H:(1H i!'AST DINELONENT
OCCUR?
2. DURING A DRCTJE DOW MUCH Ot! ti-YE USE CAA BB BY
PURCHASED W.:-.72EF 2,C NED
CORNER D1-'N N
•
•
1111,
ISSUES - INSTREAM FLOW
1. WHAT IS THE MINIMUM AMOUNT AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE? . •
WATER QUALITY, AQUATIC. '-.IFE, RECREATION •
AESTHETICS •
2. WHETHER TO SET AT Ti0: 7 Q. 10 LOW ?LOW AMOUNT (7-LOWEST
DAYS WITHIN A 10 YEAR PERIOD) ?
3. HOW SHOULD `.f'HF
1. AS MEASURED IN 1 ;:',Y US LOGICAL ;:UEVEY
2, AS ADJUSTED FOR %TVERSI i:: WATER. THAT NO NOT
• RETURN TO THE R.
a. O ':'•n.,, A -....AT- .44 MUD
b. (Y:?AS.- i. MC-J)
4. HOL• MUCH AND HOW F1-1.,- - SHO:.i_:. :KE,r.I FLOW 4,f,E REDUCED
DURING DROUGHTS?
{
•
. .
... .,_,...
. ocr. ;101‘ .1, IN
„. e N. tr.d.z;
. NAl'IL t-ii . r,- -it ,J: - °'''.
, D \\,: i,,,,,;„i.;, 10, 1-i .,,,\..ib
i , ik . . ,... , .:
so ..._. ):
\ . /
),:ril;ake
•
•
-.1/ _
r.
-r,..5 [85 i
7. '-'=1.
is
. /
bj
0 s tN,ia.i.:47_,.-.),7,0- ,0 .4±_.,'-:i. , , '., , _i _
f .1.7 i Corporation
\'1/4\1),r ...y. i':-;.
. '-',...-7,,,,,...,,,, ,. .....„; --'',..,:, .-..-7---
,--,,,:
85 . -I-_---.-.-,--7,-;-:7,1:::_,_.‘ cl---- 1
I:/ -.-,,,=:7.-
,... 0-."....?..S. ?7, ei-:4 _\ 1 ' '-.) '.:41 :
:;,,,r7L::'t‘.,1•■•k,1 17::,,.;.2'.... .,,:-...:...,:;..',::.s.,....6,.41 7::::\ll'.......):1:
NI
(:., ,' t ''''-vii:---.
,,,,,...-,:.:„..:-...:.‘......_..,_...s,t,.4...z.,........,......'...7,-,..._....:,z...„„.11,--,,,::,....;,,,...;_.
o :„.
,,.......,
,,,,, .
,,
,,.:., ,... .,...--,7:, '
•o '
LONG RANGE ISSUES
•
1. TO WHAT EXTENT SHOULD EXISTI UPPLIES EE NANhGED?
- USE OF FIXED WIT1JDRA9AL LIMTTS -
- BOTTOM LINE ON PUR(:UASE DIVERSIONS hl'hY INSTREAM FLOW
- CONSERVATION - VOLTARY AK1., MANDATORY
- PHASED DEVELOPMENT c)1R. DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUMS
- EQUAL RATE OF RESEOIR DRAWDOWN 1(-!0.qTRAL AND SOUTH)
2. WHAT TIMING TO EX-PEC lN SUPPLIES
- EUPLT,NGION
- CANE =ET:, TO HILL ()ROUGH
- NEW RES.: RVOIE Oa P ::(ONAL SYSTY
3. WHO WILL PAY EDT I-1E : TM SC. SP 1i'ITC ST 5Ei<Vii IS?
4. WHO WILL PAY FOR NEW :. ERVOTP. )NS5=11105 AND BY WHAT'
METHODS
- WATER RATES AND Cr..: TION'
- IMPACT FEES
- BONDS
•
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Board Members
FROM: County Manager
SUBJECT: Manager Communication
DATE: February 26, 1986
Scottswood Hearing
In order for John Wray of the NRCD Division of Water
Resources to be present we had to reschedule the hearing
from March 5 to March 25.
February 12 , 1986 Letter of NRCD (Attached)
The letter is in follow-up to the call the Chairman
received from John Wray.
Second Hearing on the Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning
Area
The date of April 17 is agreeable to all jurisdiction.
An item to confirm this date will be on the next agenda.
Social Service Department Staff Study
This study by the Regional Office, Division of Social
Services, is being undertaken at County request to
address staffing adequacy within the department. A
meeting Tuesday, February 24 served to discuss and
reconcile differences of view over the methodology to be
employed. A report will be available in time to
consider any budget ramifications.
Public Transportation Study
DOT has enlisted to the aid of the Department of City
and Regional Planning to undertake a study of traffic
growth within the Region.
This is in recognition that conditions are becoming more
severe. I gathered from the briefing I received last
week from David King, Doug Sharer and Gorman Gilbert
that DOT is prepared to not limit the study to problem
definition. There will be a consideration of service
options that could be installed (such as drive sharing,
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8602-505
Manager Communication
February 26, 1986
Page 2
buses, commuter lines and even passenger railway) , and
organization and financing options for these measures.
The study will formally begin as soon as Secretary
Harrington has made his announcement. It will take 6
months to complete. I will ask Gorman Gilbert to orally
brief the Board once the announcement is made.
Your input may be sought later on such key questions as
whether to form an authority for operating a regional
transportation system; and the degree to which user fees
should be employed for financing versus proceeds from a
sales tax or suballocation of costs back for the
Counties and municipalities to pay.
Kenneth R. Thompson
KRT/srs
FE, 2 0 1966
d� �w
°Aa
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary John N. Morris
ta
Director
February 12, 1986
Mr. Donald Willhoit, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
203 Lexington Road
Chapel Hill , North Carolina 27514
Dear Mr. Willhoit;
Based on our work with Mr. Kenneth R. Thompson and his staff and
our analysis of water supply storage in Orange County, we are concerned
that the potential for a serious water supply shortage exists. Unfortunately,
the development of new storage or backup supplies has not kept pace with the
withdrawal of water for municipal needs. The Division of Water Resources is
available to assist you and individual water systems with long-range water
supply planning needs. We urge you to continue your efforts to make water
supply a priority issue and remain hopeful that a formal notification of a
potential for a water supply shortage in Orange County, in accordance with
the duties and responsibilities entrusted to the Environmental Management
Commission by the General Assembly, G.S. 143-354(a) (3) , will not be necessary.
The increasing use and diversion of water from the Eno River during
low streamflow periods has resulted in a "drying up" of the Eno River below
Hillsborough for longer and longer intervals each year, with the accompanying
denial of downstream property owners' riparian rights; a loss of habitat for
fish and other aquatic life; reduction in water quality; and the loss of a
valuable backup fire fighting source.
According to the August 1977 Feasibility Study by Rose, Pridgen &
Freeman, Inc. , "The Eno River has good quality water, and the low-flow
problem can be adequately overcome by releases of water from Lake Orange, a
secondary water supply for flow augmentation in the Eno River." And as
stated in the environmental data submitted in October 1977 to the Department
of Human Resources in support of the August 1977 application for clean water
grant funds, "No NPDES permits will be violated. The additional draw will
not decrease downstream flow in the Eno River." As mentioned in my letter of
May 15, 1985, subsequent history indicates that these conditions, with regard
to downstream flow as outlined above, have not been met. Serious consideration
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone 9I9-7334064
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Mr. Donald Willhoit
Page Two
February 12, 1986
should now be given to providing minimum downstream flows on the Eno River.
Options open to the State include the designation of a "Capacity Use Area"
under the Water Use Act of 1967 or the beneficial use procedures under the
Water Authorities Act or the minimum release provision under the Dam Safety
Law.
We urge the county and the water systems involved (Orange-Alamance,
Orange Water and Sewer Authority, and the Town of Hillsborough) to work to-
gether to develop procedures and actions to insure that both their own and
future water needs are met and that a reasonable percentage of available
streamflow passes downstream to other riparian users, including the Eno River
State Park.
As always, we stand ready to continue to work with you and your
staff in resolving these difficult problems.
Very truly yours,
ohn D. Wray,/ P.E.
Deputy Director
cc: Mr. Kenneth R. Thompson ✓
Mr. John Morris
References for Review:
G.S. 143-215. 11 through 215.32
G.S. 143-354(a) (3)
G.S. 1S3A-285
G.S. 162A-7
•
•
RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGION
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Proposal to
Public Transportation Division
North Carolina Department of Transportation
January 1986
By
Department of City and Regional Planning
Research Triangle Area Project
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill , NC 27514
in cooperation with
Institute for Transportation Research and Education
University of North Carolina
I. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT
The spectacular growth of the Research Triangle Park in recent years
has brought with it a number of important benefits to the Triangle area.
The Park has stirred economic development with many new jobs in research and
development industries. As a result of this growth, the region has enjoyed
an extremely low unemployment rate and a booming local construction industry.
Along with the growth, however, there has also been increased stress on
local services. One such service is transportation. The growth in
population and employment in the Triangle area has created tremendous stress
on the local system of roads and highways. Highway congestion, once almost
unknown in the then rural Research Triangle Park area, is now a matter of
increasing concern to commuters within the region. Ironically, many of
these commuters have recently moved to the Triangle from urban areas in
which traffic congestion was a serious deterent to the quality of life. Now
these same commuters are finding traffic congestion to be a major problem in
their new location. In fact, the quality of life advantages of central
North Carolina, which attracted many of the businesses and people to the
Triangle area, may potentially deteriorate to the point at which economic
growth is hindered.
Clearly, there are a number of possible measures which could alleviate
the transportation problem within the Triangle region. Highway
improvements, such as the completion of I-40, are one such measure. Alone,
more highways will not solve the problem. As it has been demonstrated in
countless cities across the country, more highways lead to more travel , and
highway planners are forever put in the position of trying to catch up with
the demand for highway travel . In addition, highway construction is
exceedingly expensive. The recent Wilbur Smith study for the Reseach
Triangle Foundation identified $11.9 million of road improvements needed
just for the Research Triangle Park. Even with these improvements and with
the completion of I-40, the transportation problem in the Triangle area will
continue.
There are other possible contributors to the solutions. One is to
improve the provision of public transportation services within the Triangle
area. Currently there are three urban bus systems serving the three
principal cities in the Triangle, yet none of these systems serves the
Research Triangle Park, and no two of these systems are linked together.
Thus a commuter who wishes to travel either from one city to the other or
from one city to the Triangle Park does not have bus service as a travel
option. One possible way to relieve the transportation problems in the area
would be to improve the level of service and the coverage provided by fixed-
route buses.
The regional ridesharing organization, TRI-A-RIDE, which is housed at
the Triangle J Council of Governments, provides carpool and vanpool matching
services and leases vans to private individuals who want to head up
vanpools. A dramatic increase in these commuter pooling efforts could be a
viable way to provide relief to traffic congestion.
•
•
Also within the realm of public transportation are several more exotic
and more expensive transportation modes. Monorails, light rail transit, and
rapid transit modes all are candidates for consideration within the Triangle
area. In addition, it is possible that people mover systems, such as the
one now operating at Duke Hospital , may also have applicability within •
certain.portions of the Triangle area.
•
Finally, several approaches that are grouped in what is known as
transportation systems management (TSM) and which represent departures from
standard highway construction as the principal means of addressing
transportion needs could resolve the Triangle's highway congestion. Among
these approaches are various traffic engineering strategies (signalization
improvements, lane restriping to create more lanes without construction, and
intersection improvements) , demand management practices such as flexible
work schedules for peak travel spreading, and changes in parking policy
which promote carpooling. Perhaps the most promising of the TSM approaches,
though the most expensive, is the construction of dedicated communter lanes
on existing highways.
While all of these public transportation and non-traditional , TSM
options hold some promise for the Triangle area, their implementation points
to the need for a comprehensive, region-wide approach to the transportation
problem.
This is because whereas traditional highway planning and construction
are the responsibilities of the state (and, indeed, the federal funding for
implementation of highway plans is controlled by the state and matched
typically only with state funds, not local funds) , public transportation
planning and provision of services are the responsibilities of the cities
(with federal transit funds flowing directly to the cities with little or no
state matching funds) . Planning for thoroughfares in the Triangle is done
at the metropolitan scale which encompasses large areas outside municipal
boundaries as well as multiple municipalities (Raleigh-Cary-Garner-
Morrisville and Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro areas) , thereby enhancing the
ability of the state, as the central coordinator and leader, to address
region travel needs to be met by the highway system. On the other hand, the
provision of public transportation services is limited to municipal
boundaries because of the direct tie between the source of funding (local
property taxes and other local revenues) and the provider (local units of
government) . Thus, although there are legitimate transportation needs that
could be met or problems that could be solved through public transportation
approaches, there is not an adequate organizational structure to deal with
these extra-municipal public transportation needs.
Thus, it can be seen that there are mobility problems in the Triangle
area which, while they are regional in nature, fall between the natural
jurisdicition of the cities and the state. All of the urban areas in the
Triangle, as well as the Research Triangle Park, have conducted public
transportation studies. However, there has never been a region-wide look at
the mobility problems of commuters which focuses on the organizational
issues of how to attain the potential benefits of various forms of public
transportation and TSM-type actions in solving these mobility problems. A
region-wide problem requires a regional solution.
With the current rapid growth of the Research Triangle area, this is a
particularly opportune time to consider alternative transportation
strategies. Transportation infrastructures are long-lasting, and decisions
made today regarding these infrastructures will affect the region for future
decades. Before growth has forclosed some transportation options, it is
important to consider a wide range of public transportation and TSf4
solutions, ranging from low capital cost alternatives, such as vanpools and
fixed-route bus service, to more expensive options, such as fixed guideways
and high-occupancy highway lanes.
An essential , yet currently missing, element in a regional
transportation strategy is the existence of an appropriate regional
organization to provide public transportation services. For example, as
noted earlier, there are three fixed-route bus systems in the Triangle
region, yet none of these serves the Research Triangle Park. If there were
a regional public transportation organization, this organization could
conceivably provide fixed-route bus service throughout the region, not just
in individual cities. Or, the organization could construct appropriate
public transportation facilities to serve the region. Without such an
organization, the individual jurisdictions within the Triangle area will
forever be approaching a regional problem on a piece-meal basis.
Regardless of its form, a regional public transportation organization
cannot be considered in the abstract. To be effective, such an organization
must be created with a definite and agreed-upon purpose in mind. The
purpose of such an organization must be based upon a common perception of
what the transportation problems in the Triangle area are and what types of
solutions are most appropriate to solve these problems.
This proposal addresses the mobility needs in the Triangle area, the
development of options for public transportation services and TSM-type
actions to mitigate these needs, and the development of a consensus on how
to approach solutions to these problems. There are four subsequent sections
to this proposal . In Section II , we describe a set of goals and objectives
for the proposed study. Section III discusses the overall approach that we
propose to follow in conducting the study. Section IV describes in greater
detail the specific services that we will provide within the study. The
final section provides information on the proposed budget.
II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
It is important to specify what this proposed study will accomplish.
There is one over-riding goal for this study:
To develop a consensus among local and state officials regarding
an appropriate course of action to mitigate the transportation
problems within the Triangle region through methods other than
traditional highway development.
This goal is clearly an ambitious one. There are many local and state
officials, and their views on any single issue are, of course, varied. It
is not reasonable to expect that all officials will agree on an appropriate
transportation solution, particularly within the scope of time covered by
the study. However, it is reasonable to expect sortie level of consensus
regarding what the transportation problems are and what a general strategy
should be to resolve these problems. Thus, this goal results in several
more specific objectives for the proposed study:
a. To develop a clear, accurate assessment of the emerging
transportation trends and the future transportation needs in
the Triangle area;
b. To explore, analyze, compare and evaluate the
effectiveness of alternative public transportation and
TSM-type actions for alleviating the transportation problems
facing the region;
c. To assess the alternative organizational structures that might
be used in developing a regional public transportation
entity; and,
d. To develop among local and state officials a clear
understanding of the relative merits of each alternative
organizational structure and each alternative service and TSM
option in solving the region's transportation problems.
As a result of this study, the ability of the jurisdictions within the
Triangle area to resolve the ongoing transportation problems should be
significantly improved. All local and state officials will have access to
the study documents which will include a clear presentation of the
transportation problems and trends within the region. All officials will
also have the opportunity to discuss the relative merits of different
organizational and service strategies. Based upon these study results it
should be possible to proceed with the development and implementation of a
regional structure to help solve the region's transportation problems. In
addition, the study results will suggest which public transportation
services and TSM-type actions hold the most promise for mitigating the
region's transportation problems.
•
•
III. STUDY APPROACH
There are two major thrusts to the proposed study. The first of these
is to examine alternative public transportation service and TSM strategies
for the Research Triangle .region. The second is to explore the optional
organizational structures that might be suitable for the Triangle area.
Our approach in dealing with the transportation needs assessment is to
emphasize the presentation of existing information rather than to collect
new travel data. We shall rely on travel data that have already been
collected by the N.C. Department of Transportation and local jurisdictions
within the region. We shall not collect new travel data. Rather, we shall
focus on developing effective formats for displaying these data. Relying on
charts and graphs and high quality graphics, we shall attempt to portray the
current transportation trends and the likely future problems facing
travelers within the region. Our primary focus in doing so shall be on
commuting travel , but we shall also provide information describing problems
faced by non-commuters, such as persons without access to cars, students,
the elderly, and the handicapped.
We shall examine approximately six public transportation service
options and various TSM-type actions and assess the ability of each to meet
the needs of the region. We shall work closely with a steering committee
established by NCDOT and comprised of local and state representatives. The
steering committee shall assist us in identifying appropriate options and in
reviewing the analysis.
In examining the alternative organizational structures, we shall
attempt to be creative in considering organization stuctures that do not now
exist in North Carolina. Our approach here will be expansive and creative
while at the same time realistic. We will attempt to encourage local
officials to think about new ways to approach a regional problem. After the
organizational structure options have been identified, we shall analyze each
organizational option and evaluate its appropriateness for the Triangle
area. We shall also examine the relation of each organizational option to
the existing instituional arrangements for guiding development of our
highway system.
The key element in this portion will be ongoing, extensive liaison with
local officials throughout the region.
IV. SCOPE OF SERVICES
We propose a study design that includes four separate tasks. This
section describes each of these work tasks.
Task 1: Analysis of Current and Future Transportation Trends.
Working with the steering committee, we shall assemble all the available
travel data for the Triangle area. Most of this information we already have
in hand, so this part of the task should require primarily that we verify
with the cities and with the N.C. Department of Transportation that our data
are complete and up-to-date. As part of this task we shall also collect
information from the jurisdictions within the Triangle area regarding their
transportation decision making. We shall interview the transportation staff
members in each jurisdiction as well as the Research Triangle Foundation.
We shall collect all documents describing the organizational structures as
they pertain to transportation in their jurisdiction. We shall meet with
the Metropolitian Planning Organizations (MPO) in the two urbanized areas.
We shall collect and review all planning documents for these jurisdictions.
We shall also interview the primary private transportation providers in the
region, including Raleigh Transportation Services, Carolina Trailways, and
Southern Coach. Finally, during the Task 1 we shall prepare a detailed plan
for conducting the interviews and meetings in Task 3.
Task 2: Analysis of Alternative Service and TSM Strategies. We shall
then identify approximately six public transportation service options for
further analysis. These options shall include fixed-route transit services,
carpool and vanpool approaches and light rail and other more exotic
technologies, as well as TSM actions, including development of commuter
lanes. They shall be selected with the advice of the steering committee.
We shall examine each one at the level of detail sufficient to identify the
capital and operating costs, the ease of implementation, the required
management structure, any pertinent legal constraints, and the overall
impact on the regional travel problems. This analysis will be a first-cut
feasibility analysis and shall identify which options warrant further
consideration.
The analysis in Task 2 will provide particular emphasis on the
involvement of private operators in the transportation service options. For
each option, we shall identify the opportunities for contracts with private
providors of services, and other actions by local governments that will
promote private sector participation. One of the criteria to be used in
evaluating the service options is the extent to which the service option
encourages private participation.
Task 3: Analysis of Alternative Organizational Structures.
An essential component of the proposed study is close liaison with local
officials throughout the Triangle region. This liaison will begin at the
outset of the study. We propose that the Secretary of Transportation send a
letter. to local public officials, including elected officials and managers,
describing the study and notifying the officials that the study team will be
contacting them during the study. We propose that this initial letter not
ask the officials for any information but simply inform them that the study
effort is beginning.
•
Our intensive liaison work will begin at the conclusion of Task 2. At
that time the study team will send to each public official a copy of the
technical report which will outline the transportation trends developed in
Task 1 and the preliminary service and TSM alternatives from Task 2. Along
with this report will be a letter describing the study process and informing
the officials that the study team welcomes the opportunity to receive their
input and comments. The letter will further explain that the study team
will be in contact with the public officials to further discuss the study.
After that, the study team will undertake a round of one-on-one
meetings with prominent local officials. This liaison work will initially
focus on the city and county managers within the region and then quickly
. move to the mayors and county commission chairmen. The purpose of these
meetings is two-fold. First, we shall seek to clarify any information from
the technical report that may not be clear to the officials.. During this
process we shall ask them for comments and reactions concerning the report.
Second, we shall ask the officials to express their thoughts about how the
transportation problem may be solved in the region. While service options
will be outlined, emphasis in this phase of the study shall be on exploring
with these officials ways to address the organizational issues. We intend
that his portion of the discussion will last as long as the officials wish
and will be open-ended. The study team's role will be to facilitate
discussion, to provide suggestions regarding alternative service and
organizational strategies, and to guide the discussion. We shall not be
proposing a particular service and organizational strategy, but rather we
shall be eliciting from the officials their comments and suggestions. After
each meeting, we shall follow up with a letter thanking the official and
suggesting a further meeting.
After this initial set of meetings, we shall prepare an interim
document which outlines service options and which proposes and analyzes a
series of different organizational options for the Triangle region. One
such option will be a region-wide transportation authority. Another option
will be a region-wide transportation management association composed of the
jurisdictions and the major private employers. There will also be other
options as yet unspecified. For each of these options, there will be a
description of what they are, how they might function, how they might be
operated, what they could legally do, and how much they would likely cost.
We shall also examine how each of the alternative organizations would relate
to the already existing institutional structure for developing our highway
system. This interim report would be intended to elicit discussion and to •
focus that discussion on the viable organizational alternatives. This
report would also be sent to all the local public officials, and again a
second set of meetings would be scheduled with these officials. During the
second round, we shall attempt to meet with more than one public official at
one time. In so doing, we will hopefully develop a basis for understanding
and communication among the public officials as well as a consensus
regarding which organizational and service options are most appealing.
_._—_ L
•
Task 4: Final Report. At the conclusion of Task 3 we shall prepare
a written report that will accomplish two objectives. First, the report
will completely describe the activities in which we have engaged during the
study. It will describe the analysis and data, as well as the liaison
efforts. Second, the final report will focus on an in-depth evaluation of
the organizational options and will provide guidance on which service and
TSM options appear to be most feasible for the Triangle area. This part of
the report will be a revised version of the interim report that was used in
the second round of public officials meetings. It will describe each
organizational option, and it will provide in a matrix form a detailed
evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of each organizational
option. Among the evaluation criteria will be the following attributes:
operations capabilities; ability to provide area-wide service; ability to
raise capital ; and accountability to local elected officials. The service
and TSM options will be outlined and evaluated according to relative
capital and operating requirements, effectiveness in meeting transportation
needs, and liklihood of private sector participation. This report will be
provided in draft form to the Department of Transportation for review and
will then be revised. A final camera-ready copy will be provided at the
conclusion of the project to the Department of Transportation.
"
z-A5/54:.
• Tiz-of-iRx:ra,.-T-L -t 1.4
-rz-roc. . .
. .
•
• . . _
OF N o;-
L--(--"Thrztj&_11,1r S 4-1 Z:LE_
• r2 . -1z._;17 (LI-r1
-47cr.ve rc-rzzt- C C.,45172 tJ-.1 L..rjazr2-1 )
41 g
not_A G 1-40-411-*
•
• . 4:TN'"="-
1;-;7_,
. -7-1-"? —
•
•
GORMAN GILBERT
ft Professor
Department of City and Regional Planning A}"
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA ) f t )j
Chapel Hill, NC.27514 •
919.962-5204
North Carolina
• Department of Transportation
Public Transportation Division
David D. King
Director
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N. C. 27611 ' % Office (919) 733-4713/
North Carolina
1 Department of Transportation -
Public Transportation Division
Douglas M. Sharer
Urban Program Manager
P. O- Box 25201
\Ra:eigh, N. C 27511 °" § Office (919) 733.4713/
_
_
Pefei 1 .,
atileqf
(044-
'&11.2i 1 j 0
,
_ .
. .
. . _ .
_ ....___ .
_
. _
_ .
. _
_ .
_
_ . _