The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 03-21-2006-9eORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 21, 2006 Action Agenda Item No. `~ ~. SUBJECT: Reconfiguring STAG Funded Buckhorn Road EDD/Community Water/Sewer Project to Allow Gravelly Hill Project to Move Forward with County Funding DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): Email memo and attachments from Rep Price's office (Darek Newby) Fax letter from CGLS (Bobby Blowe) County Engineer's letter to CGLS (Bobby Blowe) Draft Letter from BOCC to CGLS INFORMATION CONTACT: County Engineer, 919-245-2303 PURPOSE: To respond to BOCC direction to County staff to obtain written/formal correspondence from Rep. Price's office and the Construction Grants and Loans Section (CGLS) indicating that a reconfiguration of the County's Buckhorn and Central Efland STAG funded project(s) will not affect the level of STAG funding; and to provide a letter from the BOCC to CGLS stating the Board's intent to reconfigure,the STAG funded project to break-out and expedite the portion of the project that will extend water and sewer service to the Gravelly Hill Middle School. BACKGROUND: For the past several weeks, the BOCC has been discussing a process to expedite the utility extension project that will provide water and sewer utilities to the Gravelly Hill Middle School. It was determined that the most expeditious way was to reconfigure the County's STAG funded Buckhorn EDD/Community/Central Efland project in such a way that the portion of the project that would serve the middle school would be broken out of the STAG process and funded solely with County funds. However, the Board indicated that it wanted assurance that the reconfiguration of the project would not adversely affect the total amount of the STAG funds. earmarked for the project or projects for the Buckhorn and central Efland areas. At the March 2, 2006 BOCC meeting, the Board specifically asked for 1) written. assurance from the State/CGLS that the actions being taken will not affect the STAG grant, and. 2) confirmation from Congressman David Price's office that his office does not believe that the actions being fiaken will adversely affect the STAG grant. Attached is a letter from John R. Blowe, Section Chief of CGLS indicating that his agency has no objection to a reconfigured project. He also noted that CGLS would need a letter from the BOCC stating its intent to reconfigure the project. A draft of such a letter is attached for the Board's review, and approval. Also attached is an email correspondence from Darek Newby of Rep. Price's office containing excerpts of the Congressional Record showing FY03 and the FY05 STAG awards to Orange County. The FY03 excerpt shows a $900,000 grant for "wastewater infrastructure needs" as a project description and the FY05 excerpt shows a $500,000 grant for "water and wastewater infrastructure improvements" as a project description. According to Mr. Newby's email, this description provides flexibility in how the funding for the projects is targeted. Insofar as a project description is concerned, this language is that which the EPA will utilize in its evaluation of nature and scope of the County's project. Furthermore, CGLS staff has advised that the project description language cited in Mr. Newby's email is identical to that being utilized by CGLS for its evaluation of the nature and scope of County project. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Financial Impacts are those that have been outlined in previous discussions of this issue. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board: • Receive the letter and email as adequate assurance that reconfiguring the County's STAG funded utilities projects will not affect the currently existing level of STAG funding available to the County; and o authorize the Chair to sign the letter to CGLS, indicating the Board's intent to reconfigure the STAG project such that the portion of the utilities to serve the Gravelly Hill Middle School will be broken out of the STAG process and expedited by funded that portion solely by County funding sources and that utility extensions that will serve the northern Buckhorn Community and the central Efland community be combined to move forward within the STAG funded process. RE: STAG grants (3) THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN SCANNED FOR KNOWN VIRUSES From: Newby, Darek To: 'pthames28@netscape.net' Cc: gwilder@co.orange.nc.us Subject: RE: STAG grants Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 09:45:27 -0500 I'm not certain what the general STAG requirements are, other than that the projects be focused on water and wastewater infrastructure. But in terms of what EPA will look at, other than its general eligibility requirements for STAG projects, the language from the VA/HUD bills themselves leave a fair amount of flexibility on how you target the funding to water and wastewater infrastructure projects. Does that answer your question? From: pthames28@netscape.net [mailto:pthames28@netscape.net] sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:00 AM To: Newby, Darek cc: gwilder@co.orange.nc.us subject: STAG grants Darek, I appologize if you have already received and replied to this email, originally sent out from my Orange County email account, however the County email system appears to be fried and I cannot determine if emails sent in the last week have actually gone out. Likewise, the only emails getting back through appear to be spam. Greg Wilder forwarded me your email containing the attachments containing the references to the two STAG's that Rep. Price obtained for Orange County. This information has been very helpful and we certainly appreciate your efforts. To date, these two references are all that we (Orange County and the NC Construction Loans and Grants Section) have been able to obtain that include any project description for the STAG's. One final point of clarification, though: is it your understanding or belief that this project description language -basically "wastewater infrastructure needs" and "water and wastewater infrastructure improvements" - is all there is for the EPA to utilize in its determination of whether Orange County's final project meets the overall intent of the STAG funding? Thanks for you help. Paul Thames »> Newby, Darek 3/8/2006 10:41:32 AM »> Reseeding with the attachment this time. From: Newby, Darek Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 10:41 AM To: `gwilder@co.orange.nc.us' Cc: Russell, Dave; Auman, Rose Subject: STAG grants Greg Per our phone conversation, I am attaching a PDF file of the page containing the Orange County STAG earmark from the FY03 VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations conference report, followed by the page containing the Orange County STAG earmark from the FY05 conference report. In addition to the normal requirements for the STAG program, EPA will look at this report language http://m02.mail.netscape.com/15106/nc/en-us/MaiUdisplay-message.aspx 3/15/2006 RE: STAG grants in determining whether Orange County submits an ~._.'/ application that is eligible for the funds. Let me know if you have any questions and please keep me posted on Orange County's use of the funds. Darek Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free ~ More Storage (Import Yol~r Contact List 11ttp ://mail.netsc ap e. com http://m02.lnail.netscape.com/15106/nc/en-us/MaiUdisplay-message.aspx 3/15/2006 -Paul Thames - RE: STAG grants 0 From: Newby, Darek To: Newby. Darek, Greg Wilder Date: 3/8/2006 10:43:48 AM Subject: RE: STAG grants Reseeding with the attachment this time. From: Newby, Darek Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 10:41 AM To: 'gwilder@co.orange.nc.us' Cc: Russell, Dave; Auman, Rose Subject: STAG grants Greg: Per our phone conversation, I am attaching a PDF file of the page containing the Orange County STAG earmark from the FY03 VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations conference report, followed by the page containing the Orange County STAG earmark from the FY05 conference report. In addition to the normal requirements for the STAG program, EPA will look at this report language in determining whether Orange County submits an application that is eligible for the funds. funds. Darek Let me know if you have any questions and please keep me posted on Orange County's use of the Darek Newby Legislative Director Office of Rep. David Price 202-225-1784 202-225-2014 (fax) CC: Russell. Dave, Auman. Rose 03/08/2006 11:29 IFAX 1c710@US.House.gov D 1461 261. $900,000 for Meridian, Mississippi for wastewater im- provements; 262. $900,000 for Jackson, Mississippi for water infrastructure improvements, 263. $900,000 for Fayette, Mississippi for the Jefferson County water and sewer improvements project; 264. $900,000 for the Upper and Lower River Road Water and Sewer District, Montana for wastewater infrastructure improve- ments; 265. $1,350,000 for the City of Conrad, Montana fora waste- water and drinking water project; 266. $1,350,000 for the City of Belgrade, Montana, for waste- water treatment; 267. $1,350,000 for Missoula, Montana for the Mullan Road Corridor Sewer Project; 268. $180,000 to the Town of Granite Falls, North Carolina for water infrastructure improvements; 269. $270,000 to the Town of Bakersville, North Carolina for water infrastructure improvements; 270. $90,000 to the Town of Drexel, North Carolina for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 271. $180,000 to the Town of Spruce Pine, North Carolina for construction of the Cemetery Hill Water Storage Tank.; 272. $450,000 to the City of Henderson, North Carolina for the next phase of the rehabilitation and expansion of the water treat- ment facilities of the Kerr Lake Regional Water System; 273. $900,000 to the City of Concord, North Carolina for the Tri-Gounty Regional Water Project in Cabarrus, Rowan, and Stanly Counties, North Carolina; 274. $225,000 to the County of Granville, North Carolina for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 275. $675,000 to Richmond County, North Carolina for water and wastewater inficastructure improvements; 276. $900,000 to the Neuse Regional Water and Sewer Author- ity in Lenoir County, North Carolina for water infrastructure im- provements; 277. $900,000 for Orange County, North Carolina for waste-~ water infrastructure needs; 278. $360,000 to the Town of Cary, North Carolina for con- struction of a biosolids dryer facility; 279. $450,000 to the Town of Highlands, North Carolina for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 280. $450,000 to the Buncombe County, North Carolina Solid Waste Management Facility for water quality protection infrastruc- ture improvements; 281. $360,000 to the Town of Mooresville, North Carolina for water infrastructure improvements; 282. $450,000 for the Town of Robbins, North Carolina, for water treatment plant improvements; 283. $180,000 for water and sewer improvements in Morgan- town, North Carolina; 284. $135,000 for water and sewer improvements in Albermarle, North Carolina; 03/08/2006 11:29 IFAX 1c710@US.House.gov November 19, 2004 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 248, 5250,OD0 to the Duckett Creek Sanitazy District in Missouri For wastewater infra- structure improvements; 249. 5150,000 For the Rosodyn Corporation in Butte, Montana for a waste recovery from municipal waste treatment plant; 250. 3300,000 to the City of Lincoln, Ne- braska for water and wastewater infrastruc- ture improvements; 251. S55U,000 to the City of Omaha. Ne- braska for the Combined Sewerage Overflow Project; 252. 5400,000 to the City of Fallon, Nevada for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 253. S90ti.D00 to the City of Henderson, Ne- vada for wastewater infrastructure improve- ments; Z54. 5150,000 to the City of Nashua, New Hampshire for wastewater infrastructure im- provemen ts: 255. 5200,000 to the New Hampshire Depart- ment of Environmental Services for sewer system expansion in Franklin, New Hamp- shire; 256. S200,000 to the City of Somerworth, New Hampshire for wastewater infrastruc- ture improvements; 257. SI,D00,000 to the Township of Parsip- pany, New Jersey for water infrastructure improvements; 258. S25U,000 to the City of Wildwood. New Jersey for storm sewer outflow reconstruc- tion; 259. 525(),000 to the New Jersey Municipal Utilities Authority for the Peninsula at Ba- yonne Harbor Water Infrastructure Improve- ment Project in Bayonne, New Jersey; 260, 5400,000 for the Passaic Valley Sewer- age Commission in New Jersey for the Com- bined Sewage Overflow Program; 261. S10D,000 far the Bergen County Utilities Authority For wastewater infrastructure im- provements in Englewood, New Jersey; 262. $3DD,ODD for the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission for the Hacken- sack Meadowlands Ecosystem Restoration; 263. S10D,000 to the City of Lordsburg, New Mexico for water infrastructure improve- ments; 264. S10U,000 to the City of Bayard, New Mexico fiat the Ft. Bayazd Effluent Reuse System; Z65. S15t1,000 to the City of Ruidoso Downs, New Mexico for wastewater infrastructure improvers~ents; 266. 5150,000 to the City of Elephant Butte, New Mexico for wastewater SnTrastructure improvements; 267. 5150,000 to the City of Los Luhas, New Mexico to build a sewer interceptor line; 268. SI50,DDD to the City of Espanola, New Mexico for wastewater infrastructure im- provements; 269. 5200,000 to the City of Tijeras, New Mexico for water infrastructure improve- ments: 270. 5200,000 fnr Bernalillo County, New Mexico fnr the South and North water and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 271. 5200,000 to the City of Brookhaven, New York For storm water infrastructure Im- provements; 272. 510((,000 to the Chenango County Agri- cultural Society of Chenango County, New York For upgrades to the water and septic systems at the Chenango County Fair Grounds :md for a study; 273. 512:1,DDD to the Town of Schulyer, New York For water system improvements; 274. S20U,000 to the Vfflage of Bridgewater, New York for water infrastructure improve- ments 275. 3200,000 to the Towns of Springport and Fleming, New York for water and waste- water infi•astructure Improvements; 276. 5300,000 to Rockland County, New York for the Western Ramapo sewer extension and water reuse project; 277. S250,000 to the Village of Deposit, New York For wastewater infrastructure Improve- ments; 276, 5250,000 to the Town of Blooming Grove, New York for wastewater Infrastruc- ture improvements; 279. 5300,000 to the Village of Sea Cliff, New York for the Sanitary Sewer System Infra- structure Development and Management project; 280. SIID,DDD for the Village of Mamaroneck, New York for sewer system improvements; 281. S150,000 to the Town of New Castle, New York for the Phase II Storm Water Compliance Program; 282, 5250,000 to the City of Oswego, New York for sewer overflow system improve- ments; 283. 5275,000 for the Warnerville Water Dis- trict in Waznerville, New York for a water and sewer project; 284. $25D,DDD to the Town of Cheektowaga, New York for the Plant No. 3 overflow reten- tion facility; 285. S650,000 to the Erie Water Authority for water infrastructure improvements for the Town of Newstead and Village of Williamsville, New York; 286. 5200,000 to the TownNillage of East Rochester, New York for sewer infrastruc- ture improvements; 287. 31,000,000 for Dutchess County Water and Wastewater Authority in Hyde Park, New York for wastewater infrastructure im- provements; 288. 512,000,000 for continued clean water improvements for Onondaga Lake, New York; 289. 54,000,000 to Monroe County Water Au- thority in New York State For the Eastside Water Treatment Project; 290. 5900,000 to Wayne County, New York for construction of a waterline along North Geneva Road; 291. 5600,000 to the Wayne County Water and Sewer Authority For water infrastruc- ture improvements in the Town of Huron, New York; 292. S4,000,D00 for drinking water infrastruc- ture needs in the New York City Watershed; 293. 54,000,000 for water quality Infrastruc- ture improvements for Long Island Sound, New York; 294. $I.DDD,DDD for water quality lnFrastruc- ture improvements for the Jamesville, New York sewer project; 295. 5350,000 to the Town of Elbridge, New York for the construction of a waterline; 296. SSDD,DDD to the County of Onondaga, De- paztment of Community Development in New York For water and wastewater infra- structure improvements; 297. 5500,000 to Cayuga County in Victory, New York for water infrastructure improve- ments; 298. S250,000 to the Town of Landis, North Carolina for water and wastewater infra- structure improvements; 299. 52DD,DDD to Harnett County, North Carolina to install pump stations and a forcemain as part of a central wastewater treatment rehabilitation project; 300. 5200,000 to the Towns of Biscoe, Star, and Troy, North Carolina for the Mont- gomery County, North Carolina Sewer Project; 301. 5200,000 to the Towns of Hamlet-Rock- ingham, North Cazolina for wastewater in- frastructure improvements; 302. S200,000 to the Town of Farmville, North Carolina for wastewater infrastruc- ture improvements; 303. 5150,000 to the Cities of East Arcadia, Bolton and Sandyfield, North Carolina for a regional water system; 304. 5200,000 to the Town of Wendell. North Carolina For the Buffalo Creek Interceptor project; H10855 305. 5250,000 to the City of Chazlotte, North Carolina for the wastewater plant expansion; 306. 520D,000 to the Town of Apex, North Carolina for wastewater infrastructure im- provements; 3D7. S1,500,000 to Wake County, North Cazo- lina for water infrastructure improvements in cooperation with the Town of Cary, North Cazolina and Durham County, North Cazo- lina; 308. SSDD,DDD to Orange County, North Cazo- lina for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements: 309. ;650.000 to the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) in North Carolina for a water reuse project; 310. 5200,000 to the Town of Hillsborough, North Carolina for water and wastewater in- frastructure improvements: 311. 5880,000 for the Eastern Band of Cher- okee Indians for water infrastructure im- provements in Cherokee, North Carolina; 312. 31,000,000 for McDowell County, North Carolina for water infrastructure improve- ments; 313. 5100,D00 to the Town of East Spencer, North Carolina for water and sewer rehabili- tation project; 314. SI50,000 to the City of Devils Lake, North Dakota for the Devils Lake water line; 315. S15D,DDD to the City of Lorain, Ohio for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 316. 5150,000 to Butler County, Ohio for the Butler County Waterline; 317. 5300,000 to the Village of North Balti- more, Ohio for the Water Street Combined Sewer Separation Project; 318. 5300,OOD' to the Village of Hicksville. Ohio for the Hicksville Wastewater Treat- ment Plant Project; 319. 5300,000 to the City of Defiance, Ohio For the Sewer Sepazation Project; 320. 5750,000 to the City of Circleville, Ohio for sewer infrastructure improvements; 321. S1,000,000 to the Burr Oak Regional Water District for water infrastructure im- provements in Perry County, Ohio; 322. 5550.000 to Greene County, Ohio For water and wastewater infrastructure im- provements; 323. 550,000 to the Logan Elm School Dis- trict for water infrastructure improvements in Circleville, Ohio; 324. 5220,000 to the Lancaster Campus of Ohio University for water infrastructure im- provements in Lancaster, Ohio: 325. 5155,000 to Fairfield County. Ohio For water and wastewater infrastructure im- provements; 326. 5350,000 to the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District for the Easterly/Doan Brook Watershed Pollution Abatement Project; 327. S1,000,000 to the City of Toledo, Ohio For wet weather flow and wastewater infra- structure improvements; 328. S1,000,000 to Ottawa County, Ohio for water infrastructure improvements; 329. S1,000,000 to the City of Sandusky. Ohio for wastewater infrastructure improvements: 330. 5350,000 to Ashtabula County, Ohio for the Rock Creek Village Waterline Extension; 331. 550,000 to Jackson County, Ohio For water infrastructure improvements; 332. 5550,000 to Guernsey County, Ohio for a water line extension; 333. 5500,OOD for the St. Mary's Municipal Government for wastewater infrastructure improvements in St. Mary's, Ohio; 334. 3625,000 for Urbana University in Ur- bana, Ohio for storm drainage and water and sewer line construction: 335, 5500,000 for the Delphos Municipal Gov- ernment For the Tri-County regional water system in Delphos, Ohio; 336. 5550,000 to the Metropolitan Sewer Dis- trict of Greater Cincinnati for the sanitary sewer overflow demonstration project in Cin- cinnati, Ohio; 03-16-2006 04:17PM FROM-Construction Grants And Loans `O~o~ ~° „~9QG ~ ~ ~ A ^C 9197156229 Micf~ae] 1=. Easley, Governor WilIiurn C;. Ross 7r.. secretary North Carolina DeParrmenl. of Env9ronment and Nacurnl Resources Atan w. l:timeEc, P.E. Director Division of WarcrQuulity (`// March 16, 2006 Mr. Paul K Thames, P.E, County Engineer Orange County Government Services Center Post Oflice Box 8181 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Mr. Link: We've reviewed your letter of February 17, 2006 slid 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 tlaat effect is needed for o«r files. In addition, we will need a revised Engineering Report reflecting the scope of the remaining project(s) before they can be approved. ;lf tlae review/approvall/construction sebedule of the remaining project i.s time sensitive, it is su-ongly 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 o.f the STAG project should pose no problems for either LPA nor us. `V1/e will continue to be the permitting agency for the middle school project, even if it no longer remains a pan of the STAG process. I=ending e]igibility questions fo•rthe 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 wi]] continue to work with you to find an acceptable solution that will a]].ow us to issue a permit so that the County can proceed to consu-uction. if you need additional information, please advise. Sincerely, / ~~ John R.131owe, P.E., Chief Construction Grants & Loans Section JRB/sd Construction Grants and Loans Section , 1633 Mail Service Genter Raleigh NC 27699.1633 NO1~~l.C.c'1I0~111.c1 Phone; 919-733.69001 FAX; 919-715.62291 Internet: www.nccgl.net An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10°1° Post Consumer Paper ~atur~lCt~ ORA.IVGE COUNTY HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA l'~ana9er's D~ae 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 Narth Carolina 1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1633 ~sla6lrs~eo~17S2 Dear Bobby: As per our recent and ongoing discussions, I know that you are aware that Orange County 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 recoii~iguring the STAG project to remove the portion of the project that will serve the` school from the grant pracess. ,. Insofar as rec~ifguring the..~STAG projecf.and moving fonrvard with,the broken out onion of tie ro ect, it would be helpful,if you will confrrr~ my.understanding of the P .p ,,1 :..•. ,, Constructio,q :Grants and.. Loans. Section' position. on ahis :concept I currently understand'the position of you and,your sta..ff to confiorm to the.following points: • CG~LS exprrdts,to receive:: a formal letter from Orange County~~requesting ..., that:the middle school service area portion of the STAG.project: currently under.:review. tie tiroken`out of the STAG project and tfia~ the STAG project be reconfigured to include the northern Buckho~rri 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 project or 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) 245-2300 688-7331 FAX (919) 644-3004 Ext. 2300 /o 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 DWQ-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. J. 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 21St 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. S 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 ~a March 22, 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, NC 27699-1633 Dear Mr. Blowe: Thank you for all your efforts to help Orange County, the Orange County schools and the citizens of the Buckhorn-Efland area bring utility service to central Orange County in a timely and appropriate manner. As per your letter of March 16, 2006, I write on behalf of Orange County and at the express direction of the Board of County Gommissioners of our intent to reconfigure our STAG funded utility expansion project currently within your review process. As you recall, the original STAG funded utility extension project that Orange County had discussed with you and your staff included an area along Buckhorn Road on both sides (north and south) of Interstate 85/40 and an area in the central Efland community along US Hwy 70, in the vicinity of the intersections of Hwy 70 with Efland-Cedar Grove.and Brookhollow Roads. In the interest of the timing for the opening of the Gravelly Hill Middle School in the Buckhorn Road area, that project was then split into two projects: an expedited project for the Buckhorn Road area and a project for central Efland. In accordance with the original plan to split the projects, Orange County has submitted plans, specifications, engineering reports and environmental assessments, etc., that describe the utility extension project that includes areas along Buckhorn Road north of Interstate 85/40 and areas along Buckhorn and West Ten Road south of interstate 85/40 (including the Gravelly Hill Middle School). We now find it necessary to reconfigure the project again, still in the interest of expediting the provision of utility service to the Gravelly Hill Middle School. Accordingly, this new configuration will have the area south of Interstate 85/40 13 Mr. J. Robert Blowe March 22, 2006 Page 2 broken out of the STAG funded process and financed through local funding sources. The new reconfigured STAG funded project will include sewer utility extension to the area along Buckhorn Road north of Interstate 85/40 and sewer utility extension to the central Efland community. As per your letter of March 16t", we understand that this reconfiguration poses no threat of loss of any STAG funding. It is likewise our understanding that the act of reconfiguring the STAG project is one that needs to be coordinated solely with Construction Grants and Loans and does not require any separate coordination with the US EPA or other federal funding sources. It is also our understanding both the broken-out locally funded project and the reconfigured STAG funded project will remain within the approval and permitting purview of the Construction Loans and Grants Section. I trust that this letter makes clear the County's intent insofar as the reconfiguration of the.STAG and locally funded projects is concerned and that this letter, in and of itself, meets your requirements as a formal statement of our intent. If this letter is not sufficient, is unclear in any way or is otherwise unsatisfactory, please contact me (email: barr~i(c~mindspring_com or telephone 919-732-4941) and advise as to what additional information, revision or formality is required to accomplish the desired reconfiguration. Sincerely, Barry Jacobs, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners. 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