Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-21-2006-10bORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 21, 2006 Action Agenda Item No. . SUBJECT: BOCC Questions: Buckhorn Road EDD/Community Water/Sewer Project - Project Completion! Timing Issues DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: County Engineer's Memo w/attachments County Engineer, 919-245-2303 PURPOSE: To update the BOCC as to responses staff have so far obtained for questions asked and concerns raised by Commissioners relative a STAG versus County funded utility extension project for the Gravelly Hill Middle School. BACKGROUND: The Construction Grants and Loans Section (CGLS) of the Division of Water Quality (DWO), 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 CGLS for its review and approval prior to submission to the EPA for final approval. It has become evident that this review process will delay completion of the portion of the utility extension project that will provide water and sewer service to the Gravelly Hill Middle School until late November, A strategy to avoid a delay of this magnitude - to reconfigure the STAG funded project to break out the and separately fund the portion that would serve the school - has been discussed by the Board. The Board has directed County staff to seek answers and assurances from CGLS and the Gity of Mebane as to how such a strategy might affect the STAG funding process; how improvements to Mebane infrastructure may be funded; and how much time savings could actually be realized by the strategy, The answers to these questions is provided in the County Engineer's memorandum, attached, and the documents included with that memorandum, FINANCIAL IMPACT: If it can be assumed that the BOCC would have agreed to fund the entirety of the overall Buckhorn and Central Efland utility projects, there is no impact on the amount of funding. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board: • designate the appropriate funding sources/strategies it deems appropriate; and • direct staff to move forward accordingly. MEMORANDUM TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners COPIES: John Link, County Manager Rad Visser, Assistant County Manager Donna Dean, Budget Director Pam Jones, Purchasing/Central Services D~irec~to'r FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Engine~~< ~~[ ~ DATE: February 21, 2006 SUBJECT: West Ten Middle School/Buckhorn EDD-Community Utility Extension Project - BOCC Questions ATTACHMENTS: County Engineer's 2/17/2006 letter to Bobby Blawe, Bobby Blowe 2/17/2006 email #1, Bobby Blowe 2/17/2006 email #2, Cecil Madden 2/20/2006 email, revised time line chart The purpose of this memorandum is to update the Board as to responses staff have so far obtained for questions asked and concerns raised by Commissioners relative a STAG versus County funded utility extension project for the Gravelly Hill Middle School. The Board has asked if the City of Mebane has a formal CIP process for upgrading its water and sewer infrastructure and was the upgrade of the existing 8" sewer line (the 1200 feet of line Mebane now proposes to upsize to 12" to address capacity concerns raised by CGLS) considered in the plan or process. City Manager Robert Wilson and City consulting engineer Darrell Russell have indicated that the City does not have a formal CIP process for these infrastructure upgrades and had not scheduled the existing 8" line for upgrade, The Board has asked, if the City does expect the County to participate financially in the cost of upgrading its existing infrastructure, how much cost is involved and can that cost be offset somehow. The City is asking that the County participate in the amount of $50,000 in upfront costs, The City, which proposes to dispense with tap-on fees to the school as well as to existing single family residences in the Buckhorn Community, has indicated in principle its willingness to enter a contract with the County whereby the Gity reduces its usual utility (sewer and or water) rates that would be applicable to the Buckhorn Community residents to approximately $4.50 per 1000 gallons of use, This reduction would be applicable until the $.50,000 has been expended (projected to be in excess of 5 years, given estimated water consumption levels).. County staff and City staff continue to work toward capturing this agreement in a written contractual document. -2- The Board has asked if its STAG funding is in danger of being reduced or otherwise negatively impacted by reconfiguring the overall Buckhorn Road EDD/Community and Central Efland project withdrawing the portion of the project intended to serve Gravelly Hill Middle School from the grant funding process. CGLS Chief Bobby Blowe has responded -via email -the CGLS has no problem with the Gravelly Hill portion of the project being broken out and that this does not endanger the funding in any way.. Mr. Blowe has also indicated that the EPA has no knowledge as to the original configuration of the STAG project and consequently has now and will have no concern as to any project reconfiguration, The Board has asked if Mebane's proposal to modify its existing infrastructure (redirecting the discharge from one pumping station and increasing the line size/capacity of a 1200 foot section of its gravity sewer) is going to satisfy CGLS requirements as to the capacity of Mebane's infrastructure. CGLS staff has provided email correspondence indicating that Mebane's proposal appear to be satisfactory in principal and theory, but that final approval depends on Mebane being able to show by engineering calculation and hydraulic modeling (computer simulation modeling) that the proposal should actually work, Mebane's consulting engineer has indicated today that he expects to complete the process of developing engineering calculations and hydraulic modeling and submitting the documentation to CGLS for CGLS staff review by Thursday, February 23`d. We anticipate the CGLS staff will complete its review of this material early in the week of February 27th. If I may provide additional information or clarification of the information included herein at this time, please advise. ORANGE COUNTY HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA l~anafr er .'r (7~be February 17, 2006 Mr. J.. Robert Blowe, PE, Chief Construction Grants and Loans Section Division of Water Quality Department of Environment and Natural Resources State of North Carolina 1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NG 27699-1633 ~rla6fr6ed/7s2 Dear Bobby: As per our recent and ongoing discussions, I know that you are aware that Orange Gounty is working closely with your staff and the City of Mebane in an urgent effort to effect an August 2006 opening of a 700 student middle school that has been proposed to be served by the currently configured STAG financed sewer extension project, Again, as per our discussion, it has become clear that the elements of project review and approval dictated by the STAG process are going to be too time intensive to allow for a possibility of the August opening. Consequently, the County is evaluating a strategy of reconfiguring the STAG project to remove the portion of the project that will serve the school from the grant process. Insofar as reconfiguring the STAG project and moving forward with the broken out portion of the project, it would be helpful if you will confirm my understanding of the Construction Grants and Loans Section position on this concept, I currently understand the position of you and your staff to conform to the following points: CGLS expects to receive a formal letter from Orange County requesting that the middle school service area portion of the STAG project currently under review be broken out of the STAG project and that the STAG project be reconfigured to include the northern Biackhorn community (social/environmental justice area of concern) with the central Efland area (which was going to be the second or delayed element of the original project); Neither CLGS nor the EPA will have a problem with reconfiguring the grant to exclude the school service area portion of the projector including the northern Buckhorn community service area with the central Efland service area and this reconfiguration will not endangering the grant funding for the reconfigured project, AREA CODE (919) 245-23Q0 688-7331 FAX (919) 644-3004 Ext. 23QQ Mr. J. Robert Blowe February 17, 2006 Page 2 The permitting responsibility for the grant-excluded portion of the project (school area) will remain with the Construction Loans and Grants Section; Funding eligibility issues (power and control center shelter, landscaping and pavement, all at the middle school pumping station) that have been raised by CGLS staff in the STAG review process are not issues if this portion of the project is broken out of the STAG grant CGLS concerns as to the capacity of Mebane's existing infrastructure will be satisfactorily addressed if Mebane: 1) installs a 12 gravity sewer line to replace the entire 1200 linear foot section of existing 8" gravity sewer line between the point where the Industrial Drive pumping station force main currently discharges and Mebane's existing 12" outfall main; 2) provides an Engineer's report using DWO-approved methodology, 3.6 peaking factor, calculations and modeling to demonstrate that a) reducing the flow rate of the LJ Rogers pumping station from 200 to 100 gpm; and b) redirecting the LJ Rogers pumping station flow from the Industrial Drive pumping station to the existing 8 force main at a point between the Industrial Drive pumping station and the existing discharge into Mebane's gravity system; will leave the Industrial Drive pumping station with sufficient pumping capacity to receive the projected flow from the school project and the flow -existing and projected -from the sewer service areas now tributary to pumping station as well as that which will become tributary with the completion of the northern Buckhorn community (that will be coming on line with the completion of the reconfigured STAG project; and 3) provides letter with a schedule for submitting plans and specifications for the improvements/modifications outlined in (1) and (2) above CGLS will issue permission for Orange County to proceed with advertising the broken out portion of the existing STAG project upon receiving and approving Mebane's infrastructure improvement plans, Orange County's request to reconfigure the STAG project and approving Orange County's construction documents revised to reflect the circumstances of the broken out (school service area) project. Mr..l. Robert Blowe February 17, 2006 Page 3 The Orange County Board of Commissioners expects to make a final decision on requesting a reconfigured STAG project at its regular February 215 meeting. The financing of the reconfigured project represents an extraordinary variance from the County's normal capital project funding program and process. The Board has directed that staff acquire and provide all of the information in writing outlined above as well as similar information from other concerned parties (the City of Mebane and the Orange County Board of Education) so that it may make a fully informed decision. I appreciate your assistance in confirming this information as quickly as possible. If I need to provide additional clarification or detail in this matter, please advise. Sin Paul K. Thames, PE County Engineer Cc Board of County Commissioners John M. Link, County Manager Robert Wilson, Mebane City Manager Dr, Shirley Carraway, Superintendent, OC Board of Education Orange County Board of Education Paul Thames- Re. Orange County - Buckhom Project Page 1 From: Cecil G Madden To: Paul Thames Date: 2/20/2006 4:31:27 PM Subject: Re: Orange County - Buckhorn Project Hello Paul, I have reviewed your letter dated February 17, 2006. With regards to the capacity of Mebane's existing infrastructure I offer the following points 1. We are not concerned about how Mebane resolves the capacity of the downstream gravity sewer, The 8-inch force main can be extended down to the existing t2-inch gravity sewer or the 8-inch gravity can be replaced with a 12-inch gravity sewer It is the City of Mebane's choice. 2. Upon receipt of an engineering report that justifies the flows and the firm pumping capacity of the Industrial Drive pump station we will review the engineer's justification. The assumptions that you presented are ones that have been discussed, and appear to be plausible; however, we await a complete engineering report that addresses all of the assumptions.. 3. The project which replaces the 8-inch gravity line with an new 12-inch gravity line (or some other method) could be done by the fast track permitting method in the regional office. When this is done the application should indicate zero additional flow will be tributary to the Mebane WWTP. We need a schedule for submitting this application and a schedule for completing the construction. 4 The proposal of reducing the capacity of the L.J. Rogers pump station, as proposed by Darrell Russell, P.E, should be submitted to this office with plans & specifications and a Non Discharge permit application. A copy of the application is attached (Not the Fast track Type). Please provide a schedule for submittal of the plans, specifications, and permit application. We also need a schedule for completing the proposed construction. 5. We are not yet convinced that redirecting the L.J. Rogers pump station force main to the 8-inch Industrial Drive force main will have the desired effect on the capacity of the Industrial Drive pump station. The engineers report must support this proposal. If this is required based on the engineer's report and it is adequately supported, then we suggest that the work related with this be submitted with the L.J.. Rogers pump station work outlined in point 4 above. Again we need schedules for submittal and completion of construction. 6 Our permit for the work south of I-85 will contain a condition that will not allow any flow tributary to these Tines until the construction work outlined in items 3, 4, and 5 are complete and operational, With regards to proceeding with the work south of 1-85 (Proposed to be non funded) 1, Revised plans & specifications must be provided with written responses to all questions raised to date. Once we are satisfied that our concerns have been adequately addressed you will be allowed to proceed with the advertisement based on a phone call from our office. We will at that point be drafting the City's permit. You need the permit prior to awarding the construction contract, 2 We trust that the remainder of the work North of I-85 and Efland (which is to be funded with the STAG grant) is to be handled like a typical STAG Grant Project. We await responses to all previously raised comments and look forward to your project South of I-85 moving forward in the near future. Please call if you have questions at (919) 715-6203. Regards, Cecil G. Madden, Jr, P.E. Supervisor I Paul Thames - Re' Orange County - Buckhorn Project Page 2 Design Management Unit Construction Grants & Loans Section Paul Thames wrote: Cecil, I am copying (attaching) you a letter that I sent to Bobby Blowe on Friday, seeking clarification on issues that touch on your review as well as the overall picture for this project. Perhaps Bobby has shared this and his response(s) with you already. Bobby's responses did not fully confirm all of those issues I was trying to nail down, instead generally referencing the ongoing dialogue with you and Seth on behalf of CGLS, Jim Thames and myself on the part of Orange County and Robert Wilson and Darrell Russell behalf of Mebane. I would appreciate it if you would look at the attached letter, particularly the portions (page 2) related to your review -specifically what you are expecting to receive from Mebane and Orange County in terms of documentation and when you will be authorizing Orange County to proceed with the portion of the project not involving the actual construction work that improves the capacity of Mebane's infrastructure. I also want to point out that Mebane - at least according to my last conversation with Mebane -now proposes to replace the existing 120D If of 8" gravity line with 12" line as opposed to extending the 8" force main to the existing end of the 12" gravity line. In any event, please review the letter and advise as soon as possible if my understanding as to what is required and the sequence of events is or is not accurate. Thank you for you assistance. Paul Paul K Thames, PE Paul Thames- Re: Buckhorn -Efland STAG process clarification Page 1 From: Bobby Blowe To: Paul Thames Date: 2/17/20D6 4:07:20 PM Subject: Re: Buckhorn -Efland STAG process clarification Paul, I've reviewed your letter and offer the following comments: We have no objection to the middle school area portion of the project being broken out of the STAG project. A letter to that effect is needed for our files. In addition, we will need a revised Engineering Report reflecting the scope of the remaining project(s) before they can be approved. If the review/approval/construction schedule of the remaining project is time sensitive, it is strongly suggested that you and /or your consultant schedule a time to come in and discuss the timeframes associated with the review and approval of STAG projects. Some portions of the review remain the exclusive domain of EPA Region 4 and we have little or no control over their schedules. In concept, the reconfiguration of the STAG project should pose no problems for either us nor EPA. We will continue to be the permitting agency for the middle school project, even if it no longer remains a part of the STAG process. Funding eligibility questions for the middle school project will no longer be a concern; however, the capacity issues of the downstream lines will have to be resolved. I believe that Cecil Madden of our staff is working closely with you and your consultant on various methods to address these concerns. We will continue to work with you to find an acceptable solution that will allow us to issue a permit so that the County can proceed to construction. If you need additional information, please advise. Paul Thames wrote >Bobby, >Please review the attached letter - MSWord format - in which I am >asking that you confirm or correct the County's understanding of our >STAG project review and requirement process as it applies or may apply >to "broken out" County project. We really need to have a response in >writing - an email or emailed letter will do - to present to the County >Board of Commissioners Tuesday night. Please advise if you have >questions. A hard copy will follow by US Mail >Thanks. Have a good weekend,. >Paul >Paul K. Thames, PE >County Engineer >Orange County >919-245-2303 Construction Grants & Loans Section 1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1633 Phone: (919)715-6212 Fax: (919) 715-6229 Paul Thames - Re Buckhorn -Efland STAG process clarification Page 2 CC: Daniel Blaisdell, Cecil Madden, Larry Horton, don evans Paul Thames - Re: Buckhorn -Efland STAG. process clarification Page 1 From: Bobby Blowe To: Paul Thames Date: 2/ 17/2006 4:37:50 PM Subject: Re: Buckhorn -Efland STAG process clarification No need to contact EPA. They don't even know what the project involves at this point. Y'all decide what you want the project to include, send us an Engineering Report and we'll go from there, Paul Thames wrote: Bobby, Thanks for your quick reply. Is it advisable that I contact someone in the EPA to insure that there will be no problem associated with breaking out the school portion of the project from the EPA standpoint? If such contact with the EPA is advisable in your opinion, please give me contact information so that I may start that process, Thanks again. »> Bobby Blowe 02/17/06 4:06 PM »> Paul, I've reviewed your letter and offer the following comments: We have no objection to the middle school area portion of the project being broken out of the STAG project, A letter to that effect is needed for our files. In addition, we will need a revised Engineering Report reflecting the scope of the remaining project(s) before they can be approved. If the review/approval/construction schedule of the remaining project is time sensitive, it is strongly suggested that you and /or your consultant schedule a time to come in and discuss the timeframes associated with the review and approval of STAG projects. Some portions of the review remain the exclusive domain of EPA Region 4 and we have little or no control over their schedules. In concept, the reconfiguration of the STAG project should pose no problems for either us nor EPA. We will continue to be the permitting agency for the middle school project, even if it no longer remains a part of the STAG process.. Funding eligibility questions for the middle school project will no longer be a concern; however, the capacity issues of the downstream lines will have to be resolved. I believe that Cecil Madden of our staff is working closely with you and your consultant on various methods to address these concerns. We will continue to work with you to find an acceptable solution that will allow us to issue a permit so that the County can proceed to construction. If you need additional information, please advise. Paul Thames wrote: >Bobby, >Please review the attached letter - MSWord format - in which I am >asking that you confirm or correct the County's understanding of our >STAG project review and requirement process as it applies or may apply >to "broken out" County project. W e really need to have a response in >writing - an email or emailed letter will do - to present to the County >Board of Commissioners Tuesday night. Please advise if you have >questions. A hard copy will follow by US Mail. >Thanks. Have a good weekend. >Paul >Paul K. Thames, PE Paul Thames - Re: Buckhorn -Efland STAG process clarification Page 2 >County Engineer >Orange County >919-245-2303 Construction Grants & Loans Section 1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1633 Phone: (919)715-6212 Fax: (919) 715-6229 Construction Grants & Loans Section 1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1633 Phone: (919)715-6212 Fax: (919) 715-6229 ~0 ~ ~D O O O \ ~ ~ M o ~ \ \ ~ (lJ (LJ 0 0 0 Authorize Bid Advertisement Advertise and Take Blds Evaluate and Award Bids Issue Notice to Proceed Construction Phase 0 O 0 t0 O cU (U 0 ~D ~p ~ ~ ~0 O O O O O \ ~ ~ ~ ~ M O (\ (~ \ \ \ \ \ M M C'~ C`') 4- 0 0 0 0 0 O O ~-, d- 0 0 d' 0 ~0 ~ O O d" (U o \ \ d- I.f) 0 0 0 O l.f~ 0 O IJ~ ~, 0 ~D ~0 ~p O O O (U (U o \ \ \ I.f) lf) ~D 0 0 0 0 ~D 0 Q~ ~0 0 O O O O O ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ M O ~ ~ (U o .-~ ~-, CU \ \ \ \ \ ~D ~ ~ r` ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O (~ ~D ~D ~ O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ CU (U \ \ \ M M M 0 0 0 0 O 0~ 0 O ~~ 0~ 0 ~ o ~D ~0 ~ ~ ~ \ \ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ o o .- ~ ~ o © c 00~~-,.- Proposed school opening --{~ Buckhorn Road EDD/Middle School Pro, Jett Tir~eline Cas of 02/21/06) - BCC Cnot grant) Funded - Authorize Bid Advertisement Ci week) - The process to get the required legal notice/advertisement In a newspaper consumes npproximntley one week between Board authorizntion to plnce the ndvertisement and the date the advertisement actually appears in the newspaper. Advertise and Tnke Bids (2 weeks) - County bidding 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 bidding process, the advertising and bid process cnn be shortened to two weeks If nt least three responsive bidders nctunlly submit bids on the protect. Evaluate and Award Bids (2 to 4 weeks) - County staff Must nssure that the appnrent low bidder has met all County-ndopted bidding requirements Including teh Minority/women/disabled owned business contractor/subcontractor/supplier goats or has mode the required good fnith efforts to nchieve those gonls prior to Waking - and scheduling - n recommendation that the BCCC award the contract to the low bidder. is=tee Notice to Proceed c2 week=) - There Is n stnndnrd contrnctual requirement that there be n two week period between the Awnrd of Bid and issuing the Notice to Proceed. This period nllows the contractor nwnrded the bid the time necessary to Meet the contrnctual bonding/Insurance requirements. Construction Phnse C17 weeks/120 davs) - The overall protect construction time from Notice to Proceed until protect completion/owner ncceptnnce Is 120 dnys. The water utility construction portion of the protect can be completed In approximatley half that time.