HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-16-2006-4ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 16, 2006
Action Agenda
Item No. 4
SUBJECT: Buckhorn Road EDD/Community Water/Sewer Project -Project Completion
& Timing Issues
DEPARTMENT: County Manager/Budget PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
2/14/06 County Engineer Memo
Project Timeline Chart
Proposed/Existing Infrastructure Maps
2/15/06 Budget Director Memo
2/02/06 ERCD Director Memo
INFORMATION CONTACT:
John Link, County Manager,
919-245-2300
Paul Thames, County Engineer
919-245-2303
Donna Dean, Budget Director
919-245-2151
PURPOSE: To update the BQCC as to issues affecting County efforts to provide an August
2006 completion of the portion of the Buckhorn EDD/Community utility project that will provide
water and sewer service to the Gravelly Hill Middle school, and to discuss options/strategies to
overcome those challenges.
BACKGROUND: The Construction Loans and Grants Section (CLGS) of the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ), NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is the
regulatory/review agency charged with permitting projects funded by Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG). The STAG grant process calls for
the Grantee to submit an Environmental Assessment (EA), an Engineer's Report (outlining
existing project conditions and proposed improvements) and construction documents (plans
and specifications) to CLGS for its review and approval prior to submission to the EPA for final
approval.
This review process has created two sources of delays in the County's effort to get the
Buckhorn Road EDD/Community project underway:
• Delays in CLGS reviews of the EA and Engineer's Report have extended the overall state
and federal review/approval process (more than 8 weeks, to date) to a point where it is
possible that project construction cannot begin until the time when it needs to be completed;
and
• CLGS engineering review staff (construction documentation review) has ruled that the City
of Mebane's existing wastewater utility infrastructure has insufficient capacity to accept an
additional wastewater flow, including flow from the Buckhorn EDD/Community project. Their
position, at least currently, is that they will require upgrades/modifications to Mebane's
existing infrastructure before they will allow the Mebane system to receive wastewater flow
from the Buckhorn Road EDD/Community project.
There are two potential strategies that may be utilized -with the Board's approval - to overcome
the delays outlined above:
• While there is no way to recover the two or more months lost in the CLGS staff review
process, the County could choose to take the step of withdrawing the portion of the
project associated with school utilities from grant consideration, Such withdrawal would
eliminate the need for federal review and allow the project to be bid much more quickly
than the grant process allows. This strategy does require that the BOGC reconfigure or
defer some of the County's funding priorities, a process that will be more fully described
during the BOCC's February 16`h worksession.
Should the BOCC elect to pursue this strategy, a project timeline as shown in the
timeline attachment chart may be achieved. This, of course, assumes that a timely
resolution or CLGS accommodation on the issue of Mebane's infrastructure can be
achieved,
To date, CLGS engineering review staff continues to insist that all issues with Mebane's
infrastructure be resolved prior to allowing wastewater from the EDD/middle school
portion of the Buckhorn project to be conveyed to Mebane. However, NC DENR
regulatory requirements do provide for processes that allow time delays for necessary
infrastructure improvements. For example, a "Special Order of Consent " or SOC is an
agreement between DENR and a utility provider having actual infrastructure/operational
violations that allows the necessary infrastructure improvements to come about over a
specified time period .
County staff will continue to work with Mebane officials and CGLS staff to refine the
scope of required improvements to Mebane's infrastnucture, County officials and staff
will also continue working with Mebane officials and staff to induce CLGS staff or other
DWQ regulatory officials to accept areasonable - in terms of time - strategy to make the
necessary improvements to Mebane's infrastructure.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Potential financial impacts are addressed in the attached memo from the
Budget Director. The Board is asked to consider how it may wish to reallocate funds to
accomplish the additional infrastructure improvements outlined in the County Engineer's memo.
One option would be to draw perhaps 20% of the needed funding from the "menu" of currently
funded projects noted in the Budget Director's memo, with the balance coming from a
reallocation of planned debt far conservation easements to the water and sewer infrastructure
project. Of course, there are many other combinations of funding reallocations which the Board
can consider during this Febnaary 16 work session.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board:
• remove the portion of the Buckhorn EDD/Community utility project that will serve the
Gravelly Hill middle school from the STAG grant process; and
• designate the appropriate funding sources/strategies; and
• direct staff to move forward with this portion of the project accordingly.
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Qrange County Board of Commissioners
COPIES: John Link, County Manager
Rod Visser, Assistant County Manager
Donna Dean, Budget Director
Pam Jones, Purchasing/Central Services Director
FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Engineer
DATE: February 14, 2006
SUBJECT: West Ten Middle School/Buckhorn EDD-Community Utility Extension
Project Issues Leading to Potential Delays in Project Completion
The purpose of this memorandum is update you on two issues that represent a high
probability far causing significant delays -beyond the projected Augtast 2006 opening of
the Gravelly Hill Middle School - in the completion of the Buckhorn EDD/Community water
and sewer extension project. 1've also outlined a possible strategy for addressing these,
These two issues are:
Possible required infrastructure upgrades to the Gity of Mebane's existing
wastewater utility infrastructure and
Delays in the NC Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality,
Construction Loans and Grants section reviews,
1, Possible Required City of Mebane Infrastructure Upgrades
The Construction Loans and Grants Section (CLGS, of the NC Division of Water
Quality, State DENR is the regulatory/review agency charged with permitting projects
funded by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) State and Tribal Grant Assistance
(STAG) grants. CLGS has ruled that the City of Mebane's existing wastewater utility
infrastructure has insufficient capacity to accept a~ additional wastewater flow This
includes flow from the Buckhorn EDD/Community project.
Specifically this infrastructure is the Industrial Drive wastewater pumping station and
the gravity sewer lines where the pumping station force main discharges. Attachment 1
shows a partial layout of Mebane's existing pumping and collection system with the
affected facilities identified.
On January 30 during an informal meeting involving the Chair, Vice-Chair and staff
from the County and the Mayor, one council representative and staff from Mebane, the
CLGS concerns were discussed. At that time, Mebane officials said with assurance that
the City would address the CLGS comments as necessary to resolve that issue.
-2-
On February 7 the Mebane City Manager, the City's contractual engineer and I met
with CLGS staff to present a report and a proposed strategy to upgrade the Mebane
infrastructure,
On February 9, CLGS staff replied to Mebane's report and infrastructure upgrade
proposals with requirements that Mebane:
• Determine the adequacy of the remaining pumping of the Industrial Drive pumping
station by submitting additional wastewater flow data and projected wastewater
flows from the system's existing but undeveloped (vacant lots) service area to the
Industrial Drive pumping station; and
• Increase the flow carrying capacity of the portion of the gravity system where the
force main from the Industrial Drive pumping station discharges.
As the CLGS still is to provide the total requirements, the cost of the improvements that
may be required to satisfy CLGS as to the capacity of Mebane's infrastructure is
unclear„ As soon as Mebane can ascertain the total requirements, how to address
these and associated costs, we will let the Board know.
Should CLGS require that all issues with Mebane's infrastructure be resolved prior to
allowing wastewater from the EDD/middle school portion of the Buckhorn project to be
conveyed to Mebane, the ensuing process to improve that infrastructure appears to be
very likely to delay the completion of the County project beyond the proposed August
2006 opening of the middle school, This process would include determining exactly
what improvements will be required, designing and permitting those improvements,
determining funding sources and constructing the improvements,
There may exist a possibility in which the standard NC DENR regulatory process will
allow some delay in the application of the requirements to upgrade Mebane's
infrastructure. The Special Order of Consent (SOC) is an agreement between an entity
with needed infrastructure improvements and DENR regulators that allows the
improvements to take place over a specified time.
County staff continues to work with Mebane officials and CLGS staff to refine the scope
of required improvements to Mebane's infrastructure. At this time, the ultimate effect of
Mebane's infrastructure issue on the middle school utility timetable is unclear. The
County also may not be able to influence this issue,
2, Delays/Time Required in the NC Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality Construction Loans and Grants section Reviews
The CLGS staff charged with reviewing the Environmental Assessment and Engineer's
Report portion of the required project submittals has inexplicably delayed its already
lengthy review process by approximately eight weeks.
-3-
5
The remaining review and construction portions of the project under the STAG grant
process move project completion to mid/late November 2006.
Attachment 2 shows an alternative timeline leading to project completion in mid August
under the possible strategy I've outlined in Item 3 below.
3. Possible Strategy
Completion of the utilities needed for an on-time opening of the middle school remains
an overarching goal of efforts on the Buckhorn EDD utility project, While there is no
way to recover the two or more months lost in the CLGS staff review process, the
County could choose to take the step of withdrawing the portion of the project
associated with school utilities from grant consideration,
Such withdrawal would eliminate the need for federal review and allow the project to be
bid much more quickly than the grant process allows, This results in the Attachment 2
timeline. This, of course, assumes that we can come to some resolution or CLGS
accommodation on the issue of Mebane's infrastructure.
Under this approach:
The County would reallocate a portion of currently programmed debt financing to
construct the school utilities.
• Assuming the CLGS and EPA will provide the necessary approvals, the grant
project would then be reconfigured to encompass the Buckhorn Road Community
(the area between I-85/40 and Norfolk-Southern Railroad) and Central Efland.
Alternatives for reconfigured debt financing that could be used to address the $1.5
million needed to pursue this strategy will be presented at the Board's February 16
work session.
Staff will continue to work with CLGS and the City of Mebane to address the infrastructure
issues and will update the BOCC as to the status of this project at the Board's February 16
work session, It still may be possible to deliver the portion of the Buckhorn
EDD/Community project that will serve Gravelly Hill middle school in time for an August
2006 opening, but the timing will be very tight and the effort - bath in terms of staff time
and financial commitment -will have to be seamless in terms of execution,
If I may provide additional information or clarification of the information contained herein
please advise..
~D ~~ ~D Q~~ ~D o~ `p ~ o~ o~ o 0 0 0~ p o o p O o o chi o 0 0 0
O i0 ~ o f~ ~D ~ O I~ C~ O !~ ~ ~-+ N !!7 (lt Q~ I.n CU 0~ ~D C'~ o f~ d- ~
(~ O r+ (1J CU O ~-+ (U N O ~-+ ~~+ (U O O ~--+ (lJ (U O ~-+ r-+ (U O ~--i ~ N C7 O ~--+ (1J (1.1 0 ~
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Authorize Bid
Advertisement
Advertise and
Take Bids
Evaluate and
Award Bids
Issue Notice
to Proceed
..
Construction ~ \ \ ~
Phase \ . \ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Buckhorn Road EDD/Middle School Project Tineline Cas of Oz/14/06)
- B\CC <not grant) Funded -
Aithorize Bid Advertisement (1 week) -The process to get the required legal notice/advertisement in a newspaper consumes approxlmatley one week
between Board authorization to place the advertisement and the date the advertisement actually appears In the newspaper.
Advertise and Take Bids (2 weeks) -County bldding procedures normally require 4 to 6 weeks, however, if potential bidders are contacted In advance and
advised as to the nature of the protect and timeframe for the bldding process, the advertising and bId process can be shortened to two weeks if nt
least three responsive bidders actually submit bids on the protect.
,Evaluate and Award Bids (2 to 4 weeks) -• County staff must assure that the apparent tow bidder has met nil County-adopted bidding requirements Including
teh minority/women/disabled owned business contractor/subcontractor/supplier goals or has made the required good faith efforts to achieve those goals
prior to making -and scheduling - n recommendation that the BOCC award the contract to the low bidder.
T.-.~. .., Al..+irp O Pro d [ w ks) -There Is a standard contractual requirement that there be n two week period between the Award of Bld and Issuing the
Notice to Proceed. This period allows the contractor awarded the bid the time necessary to meet the contractual bonding/Insurance requirements.
,E,Qnstruction Phase (17 weeks/120 days) -The overall protect construction time from Notice to Proceed until protect completion/owner acceptance Is 120 days.
The water utility construction portion of the protect can be completed In approximntley half that time.
0
svo D soo tzov leoo
PpP
FpHP`- Scvv 1" = 600'
6L
y us ro
I
1'~ ~~v~~
NOTE. 6EE MAP NO. S FOR EXISTING ! 6aHRRHx RMlpb
SEWER SYSTEM THAT WILL SERVE T R" Ia'zp
eUCKHDt2N COMMUNITY ~ g~ - -"
6; O11+ rI
6 ITAR ER jL(~''~~'~~-1,~. ,/~' f '~ 'f
? Y t~ ~ 6 ~ " E R N61ON ~`~-AJ
U KNORN OA
I ~ y NO OF I-8 M NI ~% ~RRA"'milml9
t A/a
1 y~-
I ~~ fiE %Nli F,
~P I SVN.VII' SUfJ1 I / /
y IO ltlt 6V.ittW r
j ~_ Ila ? /
- a~5tW6 ~~ 1'L WY 1 -- -
P e'iur _- - I RaUp+T~ (Wrr 1 ___ __
- y
- IF „"'-- ro fR¢
xc
Wl W ~-~' 4Y1. MY aVMOW ImJ ~,_I'I~',~~.~~,__
~.,"-m cnmvunm uc ~d .ao Io um ~ r`} to aAlpx I.m on --... "'-"...~""-
< _ P
__ PROPOSED B"GRAVRY _"-~~-_-
- - sANRnaY SEWER •--._.._--•--.
E%16TING 61NRAAY SEWER E%TENSION FOR ~•--
EY 6ERVING BULKHDR RESIOENT6 ALONG
OUIN Of I-85 BUC%HORN ROAD
~ ~ o
w
ono o~w
a o
~ N -END OF 6'FORCEM N, ado t[OO
BEGINNING OF B'G W PR PO6 O6" ORLE MAI ~~ aUm
GAxRARY 6EWER 6Y FR PU P6 TIDN
6ER NG IOOL SCHOOL ROPO6ED GPM WEG TEN
PRDPOSE06"FORLE AI Ap PUMPS ATIONSER NG
fRDM PUMP 6T D T POLE fiCHO LSRE
WILL SERVE MID LEG
cmT to an lm 1+0 w6mt6nro, lM II1I)
EXTENSION OF CITY OF MEBANE'S
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM THAT WILL SERVE BUCKHORN COMMUNITY
FOR ORANGE COUNTY
SCALE 1'=600'
LEGENG
-- PROPOSED GRAVRY6ANRARY SEWER
PROPOSED FORLE MAIN
------ EXISTING GRAVitt GANRARY 6EWER
------ EXISTING FORLE M1VUN
------ EJUSTNG WATERONE
---..-- E%16TING MANHOLE
PROPO6E0 MANHOLE
-~F- DIRECNON OF FLOW ARROW
WANRtt LAKE-OFF OG PROPOSED SANITARY
SEWER E%EIISION6 60UM SLOE OF I-85
Np. IIEM OUANTh'
i __
B~ GRAMIT SEWER (PVC) 1,02] LF
2 B" CRANtt SEWER (DUCTILE IRON) G2 LF
] 4' 010. HNIHOLEfi TEACH
G• FORL£ YMN (pUCRIE IRON) %.5T5 IF
5 210 GPN PONP SiAiION 1 EACH
p]ANRIY TAKE-OFF pF PROPOSE- SSANITARY
SERER E%ENSIONS NOR1H SDE OF I-05
N0. IIEN OUANNIT
i 0• GPANiT SETYW (PVC) ],855 lF
2 0~ GRAMTY SEWER (OUCRLE IRON) 1,515 LF
3 A' M0. NANMOLE6 25 EACR
~ti.j
I~NJlLJ1~l4l~G
~~~~~~
~~a~aL
1 it Wod Moin 61mo1
pmham, N.0.2T/O1
p 010.402.0368
f 818.688.3444
wnW.c)Ipa.com
SANITARY
SEWER
EXTENSIONS
BY ORANGE
COUNTY FOR
BUCKHORN
COMMUNITY
OFNDt
ERT DF IEWIE
tOG E WASwNGivN SF
0C&NE. NC 2>302
EIFPHONL (919) 56]-5901
OEVIDPFR
OP,WGE LOUNR
200 GOUIN LWEROH 51,
IMIS80flWR1, Nt tT2)B
1HOmONE (919) 215-2JW
PROPOSED
SANITARY
SEWER SYSTEM
SERVING
BUCKHORN
NORTH OF I•BS
AND
SOUTH OF I-B5
JoL NVmbec d5o
^ CUIIfiEPi PIAN I
66ee1 Tllle:
MAP N0. 6
~"/
bi
f
1+
bl
Y
CITY OF MEBANE
<- y -
I
•+
1
q(6NIG
n' <An
~~~~~~
a~~~
~6~~JO,AA
1 N West Maln 61ma1
Ouehom, N.F 21]01
p DiD.p02.0360
1 OID.p00S6C6
wWW Cjtpo.com
SANITARY
SEWER
EXTENSIONS
BY ORANGE
COUNTY FOR
BUCKHORN
COMMUNITY
DNNER
arc of u~u1E '..
Ia9 E WASxwpTOx s.
NERWE xc nwx
1DERIONE: (919) 561-59m '...
DGDDPER ''".
OPAVpE COUNR '.
200 SOUM GVERpN 4. ''..
kU500ftDUGR NC 2]Z10
iEIEPNONE (919) &5-x303 ',
600 o fioo 1200 Ipoo
- _ ......
Scale 1~ 600' i
CITY OI' MEBANE'S
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM THAT WILL SERVE BUCKHORN COMMUNITY
POR ORANGE COUNTY
scats )°=soo'
LEGEND
------ E%15TIN0 GRAVRYSANRARYSEWER SERWNG DUCRHORN
______ E%ibTING FORCE MAIN SERVING BUCRH0IW
_____- gpDR10NAl SANRARY SEWERS TRIBITTARY
TO E%ISRNG PUMP STATION6
___...__ E%ISTiNG MANHOLE
~~ DIRECTION OF FLOW ARROW
FASTING 6ANITART SEWCR SYSTEM fRON NCDANE SCRWNG SOM
THE NOflIN SOE AND SWIH 40E Ci i-85 FOR 6ULTWORN
N0. DEM ___ gUANNTY
1 MEBANE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
~.--_-----_--_- 2.50 M.G.O.
2 15- g9AM1Y SANITARY_5_ENFRS_
----~--_- 2.241 LF
1 t2- GRANtt SANITARY SEYF_RS 1,400 li
1 B- GRAWTY S0.NITPRY 6EWER5 1,22T ti
5 B' FORCE MNN IRON INpU51RIAL DflIVE PUMP STATION 10,510 Lf
FASTING SANITARY SEWER STSIEN fR01A MEBANE
SERWiC NORiN SIDE OF i-&6 FOR BUCKHORN
ND. ^Eli WMIRtt
1 ID' GRANTT SANITARY SCWER T,]60 LF
EASRNG SANITARY SEWER SYSIEN FRON MEBANE
SfAYJIG SDUTN 4DE OF I-85 FOR BUC%NORN
ND. _ ITEM gUANRtt
i lp' GRAVITY SANRARY SC15ER 5.460 LF
EXISTING '...
SANITARY
SEWER SYSTEM
SERVING
BUCKHORN ',
NORTH OF I.65
AND
SOUTH OF 1-65
FDR COU6TRUrnoN
JoE NUmCer. WSB
CONCEPT PLAN
aM1eal Tlie:
MAP N0. 5
q
To: John Link, County Manager
From: Donna Dean, Budget Director
Subject: Possible Options for Additional Funding for Efland Water and Sewer
Date: February 15, 2006
Per your request, I have reviewed options for additional funding necessary to complete the
water and sewer infrastructure in Efland.. Possible solutions include (1) "deferring" currently
available monies from County projects, (2) including monies in the alternative financing plans
scheduled for issuance in April 2006, or (3) some combination of item t and 2, Any deferments
that the Board pursues would be reinstated in the upcoming 2006 2016 GIP..
Option 1. Borrow from Currently Available Funding in County Projects
My review of County projects with available (unspent) funds included those funded with pay-as-
you-go monies and 2004 two-thirds net debt reduction bonds (approved by the Board and
issued in 2004), The review was centered on two areas - (1) availability of unspent funds and
(2) criticality and timeline of current County projects, Examples of these projects include
parking improvements at Whitted Human Services Center, equipment and vehicle
replacements, Carrbora Library, roofing repairs, Central Recreation and Gym repairs, Jail
renovations, water reduction systems and Blackwood and Cate Farm stabilization, The chart
below offers my observation of projects, all or portions of which the Board may choose to defer
(and replenish at a later date according to a schedule that facilitates timely completion of the
affected project) to meet the funding shortfall for the water and sewer project:
Coun Pro ect
Ty J Potential Funding Available to
Offset Efland Water/Sewer
Shortfall Source of
Funding I~1
Americans with Disabilities ADA Pro'ects $50,000 PAYG
Animal Shelter Re airs ~ $29,000 PAYG
Blackwood Farm Structure Stabilization $75,000 2004 Two Thirds
Buildin Ent Access $50,000 PAYG
Ca itai Re airs/Re lacement Emer enc Reserve $25,000 PAYG
Carrboro Libra $50,000 PAYG
Cate Farm Structure Stabilization $125,000 2004 Two Thirds
Central Recreation Re airs $635,000 2004 Two Thirds
Court Street Annex/112 N. Churton Street Re airs $25,000 PAYG
Dickson House Re airs $7,500 PAYG
Elevator Re airs & Im rovements $70,000 PAYG
E ui ment and Vehicle Re lacemetns $267,000 PAYG
Fire Alarm S stems $15,000 PAYG
Floorin Re lacements $241,000 PAYG
HVAC Re lacements $258,000 PAYG
Histodc Courthouse Re airs $15,000 PAYG
Jail Renovations $625,000 2004 Two Thirds
OHS Tennis Court Resurfacin $15,000 PAYG
Paintin Interior & Exterior of Facilties $127,000 PAYG
Parkin Lot Re airs/Paulo $140,000 PAYG
Parks O erations Base $230,000 2004 Two Thirds
Roofin Pro'ects $200,000 PAYG
Si na a $10,000 PAYG
Solid Waste Convenience Centers Re airs $40,000 PAYG
Utilities Extension Develo ment $25,000 PAYG
Water Demand Reduction S stems 8 E ui ment $60,000 PAYG
Water roofin & Draina e $221,000 PAYG
School Park Reserve Fundin izt $391,300 PAYG
Total $3 942 800
"t PAYG =Pay-As-You-Go Funds; 2004 Two-Thirds = 2004 Two-Thirds Net Debt Reduction Bonds
tzr Monies transferred from School Park Reserve to General Fund in June 2005
io
While there may be unspent funds available in County capital projects that the Board could
redirect towards helping offset some of the costs of the Efland Sewer project, I would also like to
offer some observations to consider with regard to pay-as-you-go funding for County projects:
• In March 2005, staff presented a County Facility Needs assessment that outlined needs
totaling nearly $18 million for repairs and improvements for all County facilities.
• With the adoption of the updated Capital Funding Policy last spring, the Board indicated
its desire to focus attention to reinvesting capital resources towards repairing, preserving
and maintaining County facilities that had been unfunded for several years.
• For the current fiscal year, funding targeted for County projects was reduced by $1.2
million.. To that end, projects that the Manager recommended and Board ultimately
approved for funding for during the September 13, 2005 work session were ones that
were deemed the some of the County's highest priorities,
• Several opportunities and situations have arisen since the Board's approval of capital
funding allocations in September that will require additional funding, Qne example of
such a project is the purchase of the "Tweeter Building". At the time that the Board
approved the CIP, Commissioners had not approved the purchase of this property, Qne
of the elements of the property negotiation and financing included the County paying the
owner $50,000 to $100,000 "upfront" and the owner financing the remaining debt of
$1,685,000.. While the final negotiations are ongoing, staff had planned to propose that
we redirect some particn of the equipment and vehicle pay-as-you-go funds (total of
$267,000) towards the "upfront" payment for "Tweeter", Qther examples of un/under
funded projects that may need resources before the end of the current fiscal year include
relocation of the Highway 57 solid waste convenience center, completion of the CNG
fueling station, and laptops for inspection field personnel.
It is important to note that there has not been sufficient time for me to work with every affected
department head to determine the status of each project ar its most recent timetable,
Option 2. Include In the Alternative Financing Plans Scheduled for Issuance in April 2006
At the Board's retreat in January, I reviewed the debt issuance plans and capacity between now
and fiscal year 2007-08. In calculating the County's debt service capacity, I projected a $22,0
million alternative financing issuance this spring. The plan included, among other projects,
issuing $2 million far Conservation Easements,
Additional funding for the Efland water and sewer project was also identified as an emerging
funding consideration; however due to the uncertainty of the exact amount of funding needed as
well as the project's timeline, no dollar amount was identified for completion of that project,
Since that time, as indicated in other materials shared with the Board, many of these
uncertainties have become clearer.
I have talked with department heads regarding actual cash flow needs of the projects planned
for the upcoming alternative financing plans between now and fiscal year 2008, Based on
those conversations, the project with the mast flexible schedule during this period is
Conservation Easements. Therefore, an option for funding the project shortfall at this time
includes redirecting $1..5 million from Conservation Easements to Efland water and sewer
construction,
With this option, the $2 million funding for Conservation Easements would be included in
alternative financing issues in fiscal years 2005-06 ($500,000), 2006-07 ($600,000) and 2007-
08 ($900,000). David Stancil and I have worked together to outline a plan that meets the grant
timelines and the timetables of the property owners. While the Board has approved or
discussed several individual Conservation Easement projects on the horizon, staff feels certain
that with alternative financing issues over the next two years, cash flaw needs for these projects
can be met, and all projects will close on time.
The table below compares the January 20 debt issuance plans with a possible alternate plan
that includes spacing out the Conservation Easement issuances between now and 2007-08:
Orange County, North Carolina
Proposed Alternative Financing
Apri12006 Financing Arrangement
-----._ ...'F'eG~uary
January 2006 2006
School Projects Proposal Proposal
CHCCS Renovations $5,150,000 $5,150,000
OCS Gravelly Middle School
Construction $3,500,000 $3,500,000
Total School Projects $6,650,000 $8,650,000
County Projects
Animal Services Facility
Planning
$700,000
$700,000
Conservation Easements $2,000,000 $500,000
Chapel Hill Senior Center $4,150,000 $4,150,000
Efland/Buckhorn Community
Water and Sewer Construction
$500,000
$2,000,000
Sportsplex $6,000,000 $6,000,000
Total County Projects $13,350,000 $13,350,000
o a ropose erna rve
Financing for School and
County Projects
$22,000,000
$22,000,000
Finance, Budget, Purchasing and Manager staffs spoke with the Local Government
Commission (UGC) regarding the debt issuance plans outlined in the above chart. Comments
received from the t.GC staff regarding the plan were favorable.
For further information, feel free to contact me at extension 2151,
~a
Orange County
Environment ~ Resource Conservation
306 A Revere Road / 1?O 13ox 51.81
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: (9L9j 245-2590, Fax: (919) 64=43351
MEMORANDUM
TO: .John Link, County Manager
FROIvI: Da~rid Stanch, Environment and Resource Conservation Director
DATE: February 2, 2006
RE: Rescheduling of Conservation Easement Funding
As per our conversation, I have spoken with Donna Dean about the need to delay,
slightly, some of the conservation easement funding originally programmed for the
upcoming issuance of alternative financing to address oilier imminent needs.
The funding schedule that we discussed today ($500,000 in spring 2006, $600,000 in fall
2006, and $900,000 in spring of 2007) should enable us to close on the agricultural
conservation easements that are in the works from the 2004 and 2005 USDA grant
awards that we received, without adverse effects on our projected schedule of closings
(based on what we know of the timetables, which is as always subject to change),
Please let me know if I can provide any additional information