HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-07-2001-8lORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 7, 2001
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Contract with OWASA to Extend Main Water Lines to Historic Rogers Road
Neighborhood
DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Interlocal Agreement
10/8/1997 Brough Memo to Carrboro
Mayor and Board of Aldermen
10/1611997 County Attorney Letter to
BOCC
4/4/2000 County Engineer Memo
Excerpt from Agreement For
Solid Waste Management (Paragraph #6)
7/11/2000 County Engineer Memo
12/7/2000 County Engineer Memo
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rod Visser, ext 2308
Paul Thames, ext 2303
Geoffrey Gledhill, 732-2196
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To consider approving a contract with the Orange Water and- Sewer Authority
(OWASA) for constructing extensions to existing OWASA water lines to serve designated
properties of the historic Rogers Road neighborhood.
BACKGROUND: Governing boards from all member governments of the Landfill Owners'
Group (LOG) approved a series of benefits to be provided to neighborhoods in the vicinity of the
existing landfill on Eubanks Road. In early 1999, a sub-committee of the LOG met and issued
recommendations regarding the extension of water lines to serve various properties in and
around the historic Rogers Road neighborhood.
In accordance with the interlocal agreement governing the organization and structure of solid
waste management in Orange County, it has become the responsibility of the County to
implement the remaining landfill community benefit commitments. At its meeting on November
3, 1999, the BOCC adopted a resolution directing staff to begin working with OWASA to begin
the process to design and construct the water lines that will serve the Rogers Road
neighborhood. County and OWASA staff have conferred a number of times since then.
OWASA has developed a proposal under which OWASA would contract for and manage this
construction project. The project is moving along well. Construction could begin March of this
year. The attached draft contract between Orange County and OWASA provides the
mechanism for constructing the water line extension project along with the necessary project
administrative and engineering/design services as well.
Details must still be worked out as to public financing of availability fees charged by OWASA,
and how the on-site plumbing costs that will ultimately be incurred at each individual dwelling
unit will be paid. Likewise, how those costs will be funded has yet to be determined. However,
it has been the Board's stated intention to use reserves from the landfill enterprise fund to pay
the costs of extending the water lines into the Rogers Road neighborhood as depicted on the
map exhibit to the draft interlocal agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The projected cost of constructing the water line extension project with
administrative and engineering costs is $550,000. This cost is to be borne by the landfill
enterprise fund. Other costs such as availability fees, connection costs, etc., will be determined
at a later date. Likewise, the source or sources of funding for these costs will be determined at
a. later date.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board approve the contract
between OWASA and the County in substantially the form of the attached draft and authorize
the Chair to sign it, subject to final review by staff and the County Attorney.
NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION OF A WATER MAIN EXTENSION PROJECT IN
THE ROGERS ROAD AREA
This Interlocal Agreement for the construction of a water main project in the
Rogers Road Area is dated as of , 2000, and is by and between Orange
Water and Sewer Authority (hereinafter OWASA), an authority organized under Chapter
1621A, North Carolina General Statutes, and the Caunty of Ooge (hereinafter County),
organized-under Chapter-_-_... North Carolina
WHEREAS, the County desires at i exp' construct and install an
extension of water main along Rog ection with Allen Street, to the
Chapel Hill Urban Services bo immediately east of Rogers Road, as
detailed in the attacheap inbM A (hereinafter the Project); and,
WHEREAS, the ffWdesires OWASA to design and construct this.water main
project for the Rogers Road Area;
WHEREAS, OWASA deserves to assist the County with the successful
completion of this Project;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the financial and other
responsibilities of the parties for the water plain extension project for the Rogers Road
3
Area, as represented in the map included in Exhibit A (the Project).
T
2. Design phase.
a. A design consultant shall be selected by and under contract with
OWASA to develop plans for the Project The design shall be based on specifications and
requirements provided by OWASA. Both parties shall approve the scope of work for the
design consultant.
b. The costs of the design work shall initially be paid for by OWASA.
The County shall periodically reimburse OWASA for all costs associated with the design
of the Project
c. In order to ensure pmper'and effective project management, the design
0
consultant and any sub-.consultants shall report to OW who shall work closely
with County staff to ensure the County's requireuf the 'ect are met. In the
event of any apparent conflicts between the s?d OWASA s requirements, the
parties shall work together to mpromise and accommodations for the
i
Project. I In clo o lion with OWASA and consistent with the need for
effective project management as outlined in Section 2c above, the County Staff will have
full access to the design consultant and all relevant sub-consultants for any aspect of the
Project OWASA'will authorize the design consultant and subcontractors to meet with
County representatives or provide any information needed by the County on any aspect
of the Project.
3. Construction phase.
a. The bidding procedure for the construction contract shall be
administered by OWASA. County staff will participate in review of bid documents and
submitted bids.
b. The contract will be awarded and entered into by OWASA, taking into
consideration the recommendations and requests of the County.
c. As identified in the construction contract documents, all expenses
associated with the water main extension project shall be the final responsibility of the
County. The County shall periodically reimburse OWASA for all construction-related
expenses.
d. In order to ensure proper and effective project management with the
X!,
construction contractor, OWASA staff will administer tract. OWASA will keep
the County fully advised with respect to the
regular reviews by
County staff, so. that any potential problem
4. Post construction oy ntg
a
of the public water main
facilities.
5. Duration of the agreement.
and resolved.
"s of-the parties.
tion of the Project, OWASA shall retain title
for operations and maintenance of these
a. The design and constriction responsibilities and obligations of the
parties small continue until the Project has been completed unless terminated as specified
in Section 5b of this agreement
b. The County may terminate this agreement without cause prior to
award of contract for construction. If the agreement is terminated, the County agrees to
pay OWASA for all cost and expenses incurred prior to termination. There shall be no
6
termination of this agreement once the Project has been awarded to the contractor for
construction.
6. The County shall allocate su$icient funds to pay for all the expenses actually
incurred within the scope of this agreement..
7: Both parties agree that it may be necessary to change the scope of work for the
design consultant and/or the construction contractor. Change orders required for the
Project will be approved by OWASA. However, OWASA shall keep the County fully
advised with respect to all change orders necessary for completion of the Project.
S. Payment of the design consultant and the construction contractor will be
administered and made by OWASA. The County will 'ced monthly and will
reimburse OWASA in full within 30 days for all . rela to this project as
provided in Sections 2b and 3e. In
reimbursement, the County
0. d construction expenses
ASA all reasonable administrative
overhead cost associat for erseeing and managing the project OWASA
shall itemize all such the monthly invoices billed to the County.
9. Each party will designate a single point of contact for the day-to-day
administration for all aspects of this agreement for the express purpose of efficient
project management It will be the responsibility of this contact person to disseminate
information to their respective organizations.
10. Both parties recognize the importance of timely reviews and approvals. Each
party will use their best efforts to provide and complete responses to issues dealing with
plan reviews, proposed change orders, payment, and project acceptance.
_ ?-•
11. All amendments to this agreement shall be approved by both parties and must
be in writing.
12. Both parties agree that there are many issues and details relating to the
successful completion of this project which are not specifically covered in this
agreement. Both parties further agree to share a guiding principle of "trust and support"
with respect to successfully resolving any issues which may arise during the duration of
this agreement.
The patties have entered into this Interlocal Agreement this day of
2000.
John M. Link, Manager
County of Orange
vin; executive Director .
Water and Sewer Authority
Date
Approved to form
Robert Epting, Esquire
orange Water and Sewer Authority
Date Date
Approved to form
Geoffrey E. Gledhill, Attorney
County of Orange
E)(MIT W
WATER MAIN EXTENSION PROJECT
FOR ROGERS ROAD AREA
FEBRUARY 2S, 2000
'Mad
CHAPEL HILL
URBAN TRANSITION
BOUNDARY
$„
s"
4"
Line 9
N
5
p Soo Peet
2,
s,.
I
P-
a
tt ?
LEGEND
?
12M
I/ Proposed Water Lines
MA-
4,ml,
Line 8
I
MEMORANDUM
Tc ' C4rrbora Mxyar and Board of Aldtrnwn
FROM: Michad B. Brough 04?
C )ATE: October S. 1997
$eneftts to t?Ieighbas of Existing Landfill
i sAdreu the ? i== at==ding the datioas
the Board has requested that Group to provide =%ain benefits to
of the Lap 0Wmcm,GroupI=dfil Neighbors 1 stg oar in the report that I
itadfiL" Of the eleven vest reco?i
the nei;ibors -of . ft exisdrtg aaly, by the rust two: extending water attd sewer
reviewed. siWficant kgil attract "are preserned
? to the. area and paYinS fa: alt ar a Porrioc of the costs (prittnrily. 4WASA fen) ?ocitted
with m kiq connections to.tbese utility lute&
w-aile. thm is no doubt that nulitY Pities can be cuerded to dw area in qr sdOG at °
expeust, eg principal gLmsdon is wbetiw :rtd w wbat extent reveavca geaaawd by Undmi fm
can be used to pay for such ac • ' rhr main obstacle is N.C.GS.153A-Z Iity
Provided
O caers may impale a fee for the uw of a
-The board of aocmrlr nos aced the cow of operarirra the ?1rY ad =y be
by ft ?tY. The 'fee for'tue etas' ? .tbetefon. ®? to be able to
hposed only an those who use the facility." (Emphases
or ? a
fees". a pay for utility CI-11
w
ugg o landfill funds daiw *Cm dm* ==m ? ex=tSions or cocmcdord me ne?.gY 0 the
wotdd be ? r
opetzam of ft U=IAIL
While the m1m is Wdly Erne from doubt- I bc&-4 a- Coo'd argttfimt an be made del
water II= to ?8 es mn be jtadW as is %Madarial cast
dte cast of exsatdircg "tips theory The is trail.
of the Isndfill under whist aaY be ? IS than of the landfill crWtes the posstbt7iry of
if nearby properties are on wills, the ? ??
.mtir rion of those wells, which m4ga subject the to narsame snits that couid
with or
pot=tially result in sib damages of od w injunctive relic! tha. Would i Ira wto allow
pc:s even prc?ctt the ItadFdl s opcradea Prying for the sioA owrAff u= • era is =MOM to pcovid'mg
neij,hboting properties to waned to the public water syst=, i
i? s?irxst such rp0jamtW ko diffcuttirs
i~vett assurr:ing the bzsic theory is sound. two potential pmbW= sbouk be eoxaidered.
for the concern over the polhnhoa of vmIIL The
Tlx r?rst is wbetltes uSere is any factual basis
cond :s whether there is any relationship Wwcdi the arcs that have been selected to receive
se
b=fits :.d the concern over well pollution. 1 have no informSdoa about eaha matter.
Cest
The payment of sewer line extemians opt of tar?dfiill jusdfied as an QP=t?4 funds is itiore pmbkrita Apptrcatly the exteasion of a sower line to the ? f im can the?lar?dfill be remov?d+ x?ta
because regulations requite that the liquid that kac
/0 f
s7?em. F?ct?s+oa Of & sewer titre vrauid sern tLi-s pm?o=
usd tr y L-1 & Xvva;e trr.?cm=4 cns to s other propesries im the Wu ra?00t be jvsdited
?jowewr, pr 3vi" xwcs line ate a by #06 fats wavld have to
on the sarC Wis. Thesxfare, Mv=uea otter th= thosc 8
be ,Wd to ft mc-' such extc 60"I-
'snurQ of such taste be the u1c of am
this txs to tw Ca?saty
Cma possible Ali =,4 tr=fex tixcr
d oupa The County could thec dead the =a to be
a.
aatnfare tc that C=b ra an
.3= eta
as pmt of the tsaris'F of all tsooll Mutfared arty p?"p?- By the County might be
Fns .
ysrplus. Sctl it, ttsssa the VC000443 ? th'.. =51 of sewer lute acta'rsi teed to =f th= is s ry
bovttd? wag FO=*d3 '0 ?f what ? Ir?Y p?bk:u ? COUM ? ?7 ?ft 014" and
thzt Im the
opinion as to the Este of moons thsa 1 do about the te?litr of 8
i ftmda for ? other tt= dw l?i1•)
Town AnarrAy U* K=p th ?,adfil
Pro's Dora the We of laud p? vrs .
Fiil1. arKf Carrbo;o ?l hr+a dse t7 to
Send fir. O't v Covrit7?. C>xs arom Hc"C%c, C=bdro's sathocir7? to -
=d Mwer
spend Scxr2l Etutd mom=30 m attend ` will no (by M" lVo=,ed) be by
tiuds m extend .Brae to st: area Read is ( Y) C=*"'s
caws
C o is nog W dear.. .0* du weA °F ?? proposed to be sewed is wapiti Czrboro's . .
? ? Ne"rdW1C s, ainae W" otttx acts whiz Orove Coctaty and Chspd Jim m a
boa am the WWM =u1d.prabab17 Pudc"
j0W nZ to pro-A& scwex to ttK area.
taw ar?d
With respect to the peace to ? ? p?,mestt out of Est of
to hook up to the 13 irity lmcs aidRtccsl 2= t? L vmm? aoctld pm7 j
t#re fees irrctared by a who ittath to tie wb if p*ymeat is to be limiter fA low and
on the acne basis as thr C=tzian of thane ter makiaC =,:b ;ay==u w=W Fan+e w be
cr eratae iaa e ' tbaa ito l oa a¢peadiu= on FO? ? vetch
fo.tmd is N-CG5. l60A-456, w??, ? e Shut thb )Wocasw 1??
haltiz and Wctfa:e aeer? oo ff pas= low lo d
not be used.. Net
?'4se'
==Wed to ztz °'?? dscussed of sr?ez 1iook-oP fens for tfte 10-,
f=ds be t r WW'a ??ls aA of oncral Und
to NM the of ?
lrs srunmary. fkra kZ of j?ficWSW d. use of taridfdt my==
rcve??ucs can prow' 3,,ci by wclls ad wi?= weUs
limes to neighbors wh= pr° = ax eazt the payer of rcr3 to stnch tt
of ? $o
by }a.-?+fill an moat 11161 be ?efcs?+de?. owned l? m Fs"! f the c?
a Ux of tipping fees from t catutr! for save: hankfees. a
r?? to such, watt L'tr?es.
other t1 the l=dfttl. or to pay ate
to of cxt pay Frn« etc haok-zp fees ? Dew of iaw and r•??te irk MCA Pi'°?? .
bc:Iegaliy defe:tded.
,cs. zarree auent;oa m,? be Paid to tax basis °p'0
A?-t.fracz t1x satuae of ?t? ? ?? 1 am cestua ? this rcai ved
wtucih the dividing line bans awn srvta:d the ?ft of the farces that
tweful comidcntioa. bPA neidW l not tie other utamcys '? a''?rc
2
p
used in deteta%Wn$ which properties were to be benef ted grid which were noc. The degee. of
artention that must be paid to tl? s iaw varim depending on which souse of Rands is used to pay
for water line extetssions and hook-ups- If general funds are used.. then the issue of where to
draw the line pra*rertts a political ratan dhart a leggy issue. Howria. if landfill f? are used,.
then, the jusdfiadext for using such funds (desc?'?ibed above) prestar?es is some
relauonshEp ber*= the properties dus art benefited and the concern about well caninnmination.
_
:'
:
M
- _? _
' - ;
_-•.
.
.
..: ?
:,_.. `}? ?-
r ?__. _ -
.
-...;w ?: :
- -:raw QFFtcS _- -- ?. -
..w.?:?_rr;,•v..??w, :
to-
• ?'rt°
wyrr_..Fw w?^w.?
1-tiv: T??-:
-.-.?r•ti
F _?
-
`
.
y
?
.
.PT3
? ???..:•wT•?.ta .. s
?-?N-i._???:
Cora
Gri&-HARGRAVE±
?iC?
,
124 E TRTON SCRE7ir.? __ _ _ t "• `1 :. . A
, :?' c,; • -
P. O. D1tA%1M 1329
HI r a8=UCH, NORTH CAROLINA 27178
?
9t9-732.2196 • • •
t FROM THE DESK OF
FAX 919.7314997 GEOFFREY E. GLEDHILL
_? _... ....October 16, 1997 _
7 17 :7.:
Bill Crowther, Chair
Margaret Brown
Moses Carey, Jr.
Alice Gordon
Stephen Halkiods -
Orange County Board of Commissioners'
Post Office Box 8181 _
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Y
RE: Report of the.Landfll Owners Group/Landfill Neighbors Working Group'-
Recommendations for Improvements around the Orange Regional Landfill
Dear Board Membdrs:
At your October 6 meeting you requested that I look at the legal issues surrounding the
recommendations for improvements in the community of neighbors of the Orange Regional
Landfill which are contained in the September 18, 1997 Report of the Landfill Owners
Group/Landfill Neighbors Working Group. An important starting point of my review and
analysis of these recommendations is the second paragraph of the Report itself. It states: "In
no way should these recommendations be interpreted as compensation for siting of a future
landfill in the Eubanks Road area -- rather they are solely meant to address the compensation of
neighbors for having lived near the current landfill." (Emphasis added.) Any public
improvements that are trade in the area surrounding the Orange Regional Landfill must be legally
justified on some basis other than compensation for siting the Orange.Regional Landfill.. The
ability of the local governments of Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro to pay for the
recommended and any. other public improvements must rest on some basis other than
compensation. - '? • -
Most of the recommendations do not have significant legal implications. • Those that don't
may call for additional financial and people resources and in some instances some regulatory
tightening. • But -generally they can be,performed within the context of the operation of the
landfill enterprise. Only those that have significant legal implications will be addressed further
t in this letter. -
-- Orange County Board 'of Commissioners
- - page :2
October 16, 1997
/3 y - -
_-- - ti
I -think the easiest way to understand the legal issues surrounding the recommended
benefits is to "follow the money," What I mean by that is that the landfill enterprise can spend
landfill enterprise money on those benefits which are related to and incident to the landfill
operation. Those that are not must be legally justified using some other public purpose. For that
reason, it is immaterial whether implementation of the recommendations affects people who have
lived with the landfill for some period of time or have just become landfill neighbors or will do
so in the future.
The extension of public water and sewer to the community identified in the Report is the
first recommendation that has significant legal implications. Using the "follow the money"
approach, my thoughts on the water and sewer recommendations follow.
Extending a sewer line to the landfill for landfill operations, including leachate collection,
is a legitimate expense of the landfill enterprise and presents ro legal problem. The same is true,
I tliink,.of a water line extension to serve the landfill itself.- Extending water lines to those in
the community who now receive their water from weiLs may be justified and as a landfill expense
on the theory that the water from the wells is contaminated or could become so. It seems--to me
that the community of homeowners or lot owners who could receive public water at the landfill
enterprise expense would have to be determined based on a reasonable set of criteria- This set
of criteria should, of necessity, include some factual basis, including inferences from facts latown,
.hat the risk of well contamination is more than imagined. In my opinion no other extension
of public water or sewer can be done or paid for by the landfill enterprise. This is so for more
than one reason. However, it is enough to say that North Carolina General Statute § 153A-292,
which provides for the imposition of fees for the use of a County collection and disposal facility,
in subsection (b) limits the use of the fe; imposed for the use of a disposal facility. "The fee
for use may not exceed the cost of operating the facility ...."
Since the landfill enterprise cannot pay for the erasion of public water and sewer
beyond what is discussed above, public water and sewer extensions serving other purposes must
be justified under some other public purpose theory and paid for using some other source of
funds- There are planning issues associated with the extension of public, water and sewer
recommended in the Report of the Landfill Owners Group/L-andfill Neighbors Workizc Group.
Gene Bell's WATER AND SEWER EXTENSION ZITO THE RURAL BUFFER memorandum
addresses most if not all of those planning issues. I know that those planning issues have no[
been resolved However, for pu0oses of discussing the legality of extending public water and
sewer to the Orange Regional Landfill community identified in the Report, I will assume that
there will be an acceptable resolution of,the plaruung issues.
-Orange County, - Chapel Hill and Carrboro all have die -power to spend general fund
revenue to provide public water and sewer to the citizens in their . jurisdictions (municipal
} boundaries for the towns; outside of municipal boundaries for the County). Further, it is
--=_Orange Cry',Board of .Commissioners
Page-,3
ry ?..
October 16, 1997.
reasonable to assume annexation by the towns of their respective transition areas. The towns can
provide public water and sewer in their transition areas. Furthermore, and in my opinion
significantly, the entire identified community can be served with public water and sewer using
the general fund revenue of Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro in a joint undertaking.
This would allow a "blurring" of jurisdictional lincs by reasonable assumptions concerning
financial contribution to the enterprise- I think there could be quite a bit of latitude in these
assumptions given that the enterprise in question would be one of constructing public water and
sewer utilities and not their operation thereafter. The operation of these utilities would
presumably fall to. OWASA,once they were constructed.
Fees for connection to the water and sewer utilities can be justified, if they are all to be
paid, on the same basis as the line extensions themselves. However, if only those-fees associated
with homes owned by persons with low and moderate income are to be paid, then landfill
enterprise funds would not be available. Low and moderate income homeowners' fees can be
paid by the local governments. under the community development programs and activities power
of the County, Carrboro and Chapel Hill found in N.C. Gen. Scat. §§ 153A-376 and 160A-456,
copies of which are enclosed.
The legal analysis for public transportation in the Orange Regional Landfill community
is the same as the general fund public water and sewer extension analysis above. The practical
issues are different but the legal issues are the same.
Relocatin, future annexation boundaries by referendum is, in my opinion, problematic.
I have previously written to the Board advising against holding non-binding or "straw" ballot
referenda not expressly authorized by the North Carolina General Assembly. The annexation
boundary and the joint planning transition area boundary should be determined through d-,e joint
planning process already in place.
One of the recommendations in the Report of the Landfill Owners Group/Landfill
Neighbors Working Group calls for using at least 50 acres o" the Greene tract for recreation
facilides. The Greene tract is presently an asset of the Orange Regional Landfill enterprise. I
have not done an exhaustive research project on this question. However, transferring the Greene
tract out of the enterprise and essentially declaring it to be surplus property for landfill purposes
raises a legal question because the property was purchased with landfill tipping fees,'which by
law cannot exceed the cost of operating the landfill. The question further becomes one of
whether the Greene tract is or ever can become truly surplus given the potential liability
associated with owning and operating a landfill forevermore. and the cost of its continued
operation. Put another way, can the Greene tract be disposed of by the landfill enterprise while
tipping fees are charged for operations expenses, including the potential for future payment of
environmental mitigation expenses due to past, present- and future landfill, practices, that could
otherwise be avoided because of the availability of the Greene tract 5sset? I have not reached
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Page 4
October 16, 1997
a conclusion on this question because it is my view that inclusion or not of the Greene tract, in
whole or in part, as an asset of the landfill enterprise to be used or disposed of by the owner and
operator of the landfill enterprise is first a practical and political decision, the details of which
are necessary for the legal inquiry.
Very truly yours,
COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE, P.C.
GEG/lsg
Enclosures
xc: John M. Link, Jr.
lsg-1Q
bdofcom4.ltx
/6
MEMORANDUM
TO: County Commissioners
John Link, County Manager
Geof Gledhill, County Attorney
COPIES: Rod Visser, Assistant County Manager
FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Engine
DATE: April 4, 2000
SUBJECT: Rogers Road community waterline project
As per the direction of the BOCC, County staff have met with OWASA staff to develop a plan to
undertake the project to extend waterlines to the historical Rogers Road community on the northern
boundary of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Attached is correspondence from Imtiaz Ahmad, PE, Director of
Engineering for OWASA, outlining OWASA's proposal for its role in the Rogers Road waterline
project. This correspondence includes: 1) a draft interlocal agreement between the County and
OWASA, outlining the role and financial responsibilities for both the County and OWASA in designing
and constructing the project; 2) a projected timeline for the project from start to finish; 3) projected or
preliminary design, construction and administrative costs for the project; and 4) a project site map. I
have evaluated this material and discussed some potential and minor revisions to the'project map and
costs with' Mr. Ahmad. These revisions are not significant, and of course, will be finalized during the
project design phase.
From an engineering perspective, the proposal from OWASA appears to be reasonable and to fit the
County's needs and the BOCC's expressed desires fairly closely. The proposal does not provide for a
sharing of project costs with potential project beneficiaries living outside the target neighborhood as
might be accomplished through an assessment process. However, any cost savings to the County
through such an assessment process would not likely be significant. Furthermore, the public hearing and
other requirements associated with an assessment process could easily add six months or more to the
project completion time line.
Mr. Ahmad has expressed OWASA's willingness and readiness to initiate the formal Request for
Proposal (RFP) process to secure a engineering design consultant for the project at any time, even prior
to execution of an interlocal agreement. However, as the overall process by which the County will take
responsibility for the landfill and landfill related activities has been delayed, I have advised that
OWASA not move forward with the RFP. My assumption is that the BOCC will address an interlocal
agreement with OWASA once the Board is confident that the outstanding issues related to the landfill
takeover are resolved. I would not advocate that the County ask OWASA to begin soliciting engineering
proposals too far in advance of formal BOCC approval of the landfill takeover agreements. However, at
the direction of BOCC, the RFP process can be initiated immediately.
If I may provide additional information at this time, please advise.
l-7-
February 25, 2000
OWASA ORANGE WATER & SEWER AUTHOR=
Quality Service Since 1977
February 25, 2000
Mr. Paul Thames, P.E.
County Engineer
Orange County
Post Office Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
RE: WATER MAIN EXTENSION .PROJECT IN THE ROGERS ROAD AREA
Dear Mr. Thames:
This is in continuation of our February 9, 2000 meeting in regards to the above
referenced project. Based on our understanding of the project we are providing you, for
your review and comments, a draft copy of an Interlocal Agreement between OWASA
and the Orange County.
Exhibit A of the draft agreement represents the area included for extension of public
water mains as a part of this project The agreement has been compiled with the
understanding that OWASA's staff will manage this project during the design and
construction phases. Once the project is complete, OWASA will assume ownership of the
public water main for operation and maintenance. The draft agreement also reflects our
understanding that the County agrees to reimburse OWASA for all expenses related to
this project, including design, construction and all reasonable administrative overhead
costs associated with OWASA's staff for overseeing and managing this project.
The total length of the project is approximately 7,000 LF. We envision that it will take
twelve (12) months to complete the project Please refer to Attachment "A". We also
estimate that the total project cost will be $550,000, as detailed in the Attachment "B".
I am looking forward to working with you and Orange county on this important project.
Please call me if you need more information.
Sincerely,
WAUII-I?
M. Imtiaz Ahmad, P.E.
Director of Engineering and Planning
Attachments
c: Ed Kerwin
Tom Condit
.n
February 25, 2000
JS
ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED WA R MAIN EXTENSION PROJECT IN THE ROGERS ROAD AREA
+ Start Project/Develop Agreement with County Two Weeks
+ Secure Engineer One Month
+ Design Completion, Permit Approval and Easements Five Months
+ Advertise for Bids and Award of Contract Two Months
+ Construction Phase Three Months
+ Project Closeout One Month
Total Time Twelve Months
1
February 25, 2000
ATTACIMMNT B
COST ESTIMATES FOR
PROPOSED WATER MAIN EXTENSION PROJECT FOR
ROGERS ROAD AREA
COSTS'
1. Line 1. 12" WM Along Rogers Road, From Allen $226,000
To Chapel Will Urban Transition Boundary (3,560 LF)
2. Line 6 8'.' WM Along Rauch Road (850 LF) 40,000
3. Line 7 8" WM along Purefoy Road (1,120 LF) 48,000
4. Line 8 8" WM Along Sandburg Lane (890 LF) 43,000
5. Line 9 8" RIM In Rauch Rnad/Puzefoy Road 137,000
Area North and East of Rogers Road (2,920 LF)
6: Line 10 8" WM In Allen Street and Properties South (1,180 LF) 40,000
7. Estimated Cost of Design, Easement and Construction 534,000
8. Estimated Cost of OWASA's Administrative Overhead (3%) 16,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF THE PROJECT $550,000
x All costs are based oa report titled, "Cost Estimates for Extending the Water and Sewer Systems to Serve
the Area New the Orange County Sanitary Landfill", dated October, 1997. Cost are inflated by 5% per year
to reflect Year 2000 dollars.
'Zo
addressed in the bargaining process are (1) the specific future us ,
or ranges of use, to be made of the remainder of the Greene act
(including issues of devoting different portions to different uses,
devoting portions to public uses and the possibility o making
portions available for sale or private use), and (2) whether to impose
specific use restrictions, either through deed restrictio or through
governmental regulation. The Greene Tract Owners agree. at during the
°bargaining period" each should provide opportunity f public comment
on possible or proposed uses or dispositions.
During the "bargaining, period," no Green;y"'
ract Owner shall (1)
file any legal action or proceeding to force sale or division of
the Greene Tract, or (2) enter into any agre ent to sell, mortgage or
otherwise transfer all or any part of it ownership interest in the
Greene Tract, in either case without the consent of the other Greene
Tract Owners. To the extent permitted law,=. Chapel Hill agrees not
to initiate any proceeding to rezone y portion of the Greene Tract
during the "bargaining period," thout the consent of the other
Greene Tract Owners. Execution delivery.' of this Agreement by the
Greene Tract Owners constitute consent of the Greene Tract Owners for
Chapel Hill to rezone the E it E property'as described in this Part
5. Chapel Hill states its ent intent to accommodate any agreed--
upon future uses or range f uses of the remainder of the Greene Tract
in its Development Cod Ordinances and states its recommendation to
future Chapel Hill'Gov ing Boards to the same effect.
After the "bar ining period" is completed, namely, the day after
the last day of t bargaining period, no Greene Tract Owner shall (1)
file any legal ction or proceeding to force any sale or division of
the Greene Tr t, or (2) enter into any agreement to sell, mortgage or
otherwise t sfer all or any part of its ownership interest in the
Greene Tr t, in either case without giving the other Greene Tract
V least 60 days' prior notice of such filing or entering into
ent. in addition, after the "bargaining period" is completed,
e Tract Owner may give .60 days' prior notice of an election
longer bound by the above restrictions pertaining to the uses
hether to impose use restrictions on the-remainder of the
act, and such election shall be effective at the end of the
notice period.
The Parties agree that any non System use of any portion of the
remainder of the Greene Tract or any disposition of any portion of the
remainder of the Greene Tract shall result in payment to the County of
a County will finance commuaity benefits from System funds to
the extent legally permissible.
The Parties will cooperate to provide public benefits to the
community of residents and property owners in the neighborhood of the
existing landfill.
9
7-/
The Parties note the expected forthcoming report of the Landfill
Community Benefits Committee that has been studying the question of
community benefits. Upon the release of the report, each Party shall
provide for its Governing Board to discuss the working group's proposal
for community benefits, and shall provide for such legal and other
staff analysis of the proposed list as it may deem appropriate
(especially including legal analysis concerning the use of System funds
to pay the costs of such benefits). After each Party has completed its
own analysis, the Parties shall work together, diligently and in good
faith, to reach an agreement as to community benefits to be provided.
The process of determining community benefits shall continue to include
participation by persons belonging to the relevant community. Final
determinations of the public benefits to be provided, the sources of
financing and the mechanisms for providing the benefits, however, shall
be made only by further agreement of all the Parties.
The Parties state their preference that benefits be financed from
System funds to the extent permitted by law. To the extent permitted by
law and by generally accepted accounting ;principles, to the extent
determined by the Parties and notwithstanding any other provision of
this Agreement, the costs of providing public benefits as described in
this Part 6 may be treated as an expense of the System and may be paid
from System Revenues.
The public benefits contemplated by this Section are to be
considered as separate and distinct from.any compensation determined to
be owed for any "taking" of an interest in property as determined by
state or federal law.
The Parties hereby establish the orange County S Waste
Management Advisory Board to advise the County's Gov ing Board on
matters related to the System and the Solid Wast anagement Plan and
Policies. The Advisory Board shall meet for e first time not later
than November 1, 1999, on the call of t members appointed by the
County.
The Parties will continue work through the existing Landfill
Owners' Groun ("LOG") on mat i's of solid waste management policy and
operations until the Adv' cry Board begins to meet. The LOG shall
continue to .operate by onsensus, but the Parties intend that the LOG
shall make no recd dations for major financial commitments until it
dissolves or is r _laced by the Advisory Board.
Each P ty shall appoint two members to the Advisory Board.
Exhibit sets forth details concerning the Advisory Board's
respo abilities and the procedures that it shall follow, and also sets
fo the Parties' agreement as to the appointment and terms of office
In
zz
MEMORANDUM
TO: Geof Gledhill, County Attorney -
FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Engineer
DATE: July 11, 2000
SUBJECT: Hillsborough process for developer reimbursement for utility extensions
Attached please find, as per your request, the segment of the Hillsborough Town Code dealing with
water and sewer utility acreage, front footage, availability, etc., fees. Also included is a section of a
utility contract with the developer of Scotswood dealing with a reimbursement of utility fees received.
from water and sewer taps occurring on lines lying off of the Scotswood property but that were
necessary to extend utility service to Scotswood. After two conversations with Hillsborough
engineering and planning staff (Town Engineer Kenny Keel and coordinator Julie Fogleman) I am still
unclear as to current Town policy on fee reimbursement practice. It appears that developers may be
eligible to be reimbursed their investments from front footage fees, but this eligibility is determined
during the process of utility negotiations. There does not appear to be any provision for developer
reimbursements in written Town policy.
I have spoken with OWASA staff about this type of fee reimbursement practice and have been told that
OWASA once had a policy allowing such reimbursements, but the policy was abolished approximately
two years ago. It certainly appears that an effort to require that OWASA reinstate such a policy on
either a limited (this project only) or non-limited basis would be something of a problem.
Insofar as the County collecting some sort of reimbursement of construction cost from owners/
developers of heretofore undeveloped property within the Rogers Road neighborhood is concerned, it
was my understanding during the initial discussions on this matter that such charges and
reimbursements were not appropriate. That is, the water lines were to be provided with public funding
for the public purpose of protecting the area residents from existing or potential adverse public health
impacts of harmful constituents of landfill leachate on potable ground waters derived from
neighborhood drinking water wells. As such, it would be inappropriate to extend or construct water
lines without charge to some individuals in the neighborhood while charging others. I also understood
that another source of funding (perhaps some combination of contributions from the general funds of
Chapel Hill, Carrboro and the County, grant funds, etc.) was to be utilized to provide for some level of
financial assistance, (perhaps a sliding scale ranged from full assistance to no assistance) to individual
home owners for payment of OWASA availability fees and plumbing costs on private properties. Under
a sliding scale process, the actual level of assistance to any particular homeowner, resident, property
owner or whatever, could be determined on a basis of need, providing of affordable housing or some
other stated criteria reflecting County values or goals. Again, as I recall this sliding scale strategy was
one which allowed the County to avoid contributing benefits to a for-profit operation of a developer or
landlord.
21,5
In any event, the construction project is moving forward, even without a signed interlocal
agreement/contract in place. A consultant, Hazen & Sawyer has been engaged and surveying is
underway. Surveying should be completed by the end.of July or first of August. If I can provide any
additional information, please advise.
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: County Commissioners
John Link, County Manager
COPIES: Solid Waste Advisory Board
Rod Visser, Assistant County Manager
Geof Gledhill, County Attorney
Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Management Director
.FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Engineer
DATE: December 7, 2000
SUBJECT: Rogers Road Water Line Project Issues
The purpose of this memorandum is to bring several issues to the attention of the BOCC, relative to the
Rogers Road water line project, to make recommendations as to how to proceed with financing project
components other than construction ofthe water main network. I understand that the Solid Waste
Advisory Board will be reviewing and discussing the Rogers Road waterline project at its next few
meetings, and will offer recommendations next Spring as the Board provides direction to staff on how to
complete the project. These issues are:
1. The timetable for completing the public water main construction phase of the Rogers Road project.
2. Strategies for determining which individual households (if any) in the community will receive public
funding (in what amount) for OWASA's availability fees and for the cost of the on-site plumbing
necessary to connect homes to the public water mains and to ensure that in-house plumbing is
sufficient to withstand municipal water pressures.
3. Paying for utility easements.
CONSTRUCTION TIME TABLE
During its April 17, 2000 deliberation on an interlocal agreement between Orange County and OWASA
for OWASA's management and construction of the Rogers Road water main project, the BOCC
reviewed OWASA's projected time for:
¦ finalizing the interlocal agreement
¦ securing an engineering consultant, conducting property and construction surveys and developing
engineering plans
¦ acquiring utility easements from NCDOT and private property owners
1
z?
¦ obtaining all necessary construction approvals and permits
¦ bidding and constructing all public water mains
OWASA indicated that twelve months, beginning at project authorization, would be sufficient to
complete all of these work elements. As OWASA was agreeable to beginning the project without
waiting until the interlocal agreement between the County and OWASA was formally executed, the
project was actually initiated in May.
As of this date, the interlocal agreement has not yet been finalized or executed. However, all
construction and property surveying has been completed, easements have been identified and final
engineering design has been nearly completed.
It is probable that, failing an unforeseen delay, the project will be ready to bid around January 1, 2001.
Given a timetable generally conforming to that outlined by the original time line, project construction
would begin on or about March 1, 2001 and be completed on or about June 1, 2001. However, a good
portion of the actual construction of the water mains would occur during wet weather and the process of
acquiring easements across private property has not yet begun. Construction problems related to poor
weather conditions and easement acquisition difficulties are potential sources of delay.
FINANCING PROJECT COSTS
There are four primary cost centers involved in providing water services to residents of the Rogers Road
Community:.
¦ Costs for water main construction costs (including easement acquisition costs, if any)
¦ Costs of OWASA availability fees ( a charge based on each water customer's pro rata share of
capital expenditures for common water utility infrastructure, such as the water treatment plant)
¦ Costs for constructing water service lines (plumbing connections between customers' house
plumbing and water meters which are located at the right-of-way or easement lines)
¦ Costs of plumbing upgrades at individual homes where necessary to insure compatibility with high
pressure municipal water service
Under rationales that a) County owned, landfill related property could ultimately benefit from the
availability of water, and b) being proactive regarding the potential migration of landfill leachate to
unprotected water wells in the Rogers Road community requires an extension of municipal water
service, the decision has been made to use landfill funds to pay the costs of water main construction.
Public funding of the water main construction means that no property or household within that portion of
the Rogers Road community that can be served by the project will face any assessment charge (charge
based on a pro rata share of water main construction costs that are typically charged to benefiting
parties).
Zb
However, with the exception of water main construction costs, no formal decision has been made as to:
a) which, if any, of the remaining costs will be financed by public funds; b) what level of funding will be
provided; c) how those funds will be allocated among homeowners, landlords, economically
disadvantaged households, etc.; or d) what the sources of funds will be.
OWASA's availability fees must be paid for each home or structure that is connected to the water main
system. Fora residential unit, this fee is typically calculated on the basis of the square footage of the
dwelling. Availability fees in-the Rogers Road community are expected to average approximately $900
per unit. Insofar as the Rogers Road project is concerned, a case may be made that availability fee costs
should be treated like water main construction costs and financed with landfill funds. That argument
maybe outlined as follows:
1) municipal water service is required to ensure that all household can avoid exposure to drinking
water contaminated with landfill leachate;
2) water mains must be constructed in the neighborhood to make water service available;
3) availability fees must be paid before homes or buildings can be connected to the water mains; and
4) accordingly, all availability fees should be financed in the same manner as the construction costs.
That is, the landfill funds may and should be used to pay availability fees for all occupied homes
within the Rogers Road community.
The extension of municipal water service to the Rogers.Road community will naturally increase the
value of all of the properties to which that service is available. However, on several occasions the Board
of County Commissioners has expressed its intent that the County's funding of water service to the
Rogers Road community not unnecessarily enhance the revenue generating potential of non-owner
occupied or development property. While all costs funded from the landfillfunds must be made
available for all homes,existing at the time the funds are expended, costs that are funded from other
sources maybe allocated more selectively.
One financing strategy or process that the BOCC could consider using (and that would be familiar to the
Board) to finance much of the remaining costs of providing water service to the Rogers Road community
is very similar to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) process. Historically in Orange
County, CDBG projects have been used to fiord utility service extensions and home improvements for
low and moderate-income households. The typical CDBG process of identifying home improvement
needs as well as determining whether households meet low and moderate income criteria could be easily
adapted to determine which structures in the Rogers Road community need internal plumbing
improvements and which households should receive public-assistance for constructing service lines and
plumbing upgrades. :.
Unfortunately, the Rogers Road project is not a candidate for CDBG funds. However, Orange.County.-
could self fund a grant, deriving. necessary funds from the General Fund, local sales tax receipts. or some
other funding source. Once a fixed total funding limit is established, the Orange County Department of
Housing and Community Development could target and disperse those funds exactly as it would for a .
HUD funded CDBG project. Since the water main construction will not be complete prior to June 2001,
funds for this grant could be appropriated as a part of the FY 2001-2002 budget process.
The original survey of the Rogers Road community in the fall of 1998 identified 119 properties which
might be considered as apart of the community. Ultimately, five properties (parcel numbers 30, 115,
116, 117 and 118 on the map attached with the 1999 Rogers Road report and survey spreadsheet) were
eliminated from this count as not being a part of the community. One additional property - the Nunn
property (parcel 119) - was eliminated from the water main extension project as it was too remote from
the rest of the Rogers Road community (separated by large tracts of landfill property) to be reasonably
provided with water service. The remaining 113 properties can be separated into 35, parcels which
contain no structures at all and 78 parcels which contain one church, 73 occupied dwellings, 22
uninhabited dwellings and seven non-residential structures such as shops. Eleven of the occupied
parcels contain more than one structure.
Nineteen households declined to participate in the 1998 survey and furnished no information related to
condition of household plumbing, water quality problems, number of individuals in a household or their
ages, household income, or even the name of the head of the household. However, the survey did
provide a count of approximately 123 residents in 50 households. Of these, 105 individuals could be
categorized as being within law/moderate income households (according to 1998 HUD criteria for
Orange County). Twenty-two of the individuals that were counted were at least 60 years old and 26
were less than 15 years old.
The current estimate for construction of the Rogers Road water main system is approximately $550,000.
It 'is estimated that OWASA availability fees for all of the existing homes (including those not occupied
in 1998) in the Rogers Road community would approach $100,000. There are no reliable estimates at
this time for the potential costs of connecting all homes in the community to the water meters or for
improving plumbing in those homes which may need such work. However, it is reasonable to expect
that connecting all homes in the community to the meters could approach or even exceed $100,000 and
that another $100,000 would be necessary to make all necessary improvements to individual plumbing
systems. If the refusal of residents to participate in the original field survey could be construed to mean
that those households do not want or intend to receive municipal water service, it is possible that no
costs associated with availability fees or plumbing will be incurred for nineteen or more households.
This would represent a cost reduction of approximately S60,000 from the $300,000 total of availability
fee and plumbing costs cited above.
PURCHASE OF UTILITY EASEMENTS
The Rogers Road project involves the acquisition of approximately four acres of easement outside of
existing public rights-of-way or easements and across private property. The estimated cost of these
easements, if purchased, totals approximately $30,000. This cost was included in the $550,000,
preliminary project cost estimate.
As most of the project costs will be publicly funded, neither the County nor OWASA will have any
leverage (such as a reduction in assessment charges), other than the good will of property owners, to use
to acquire free or lowered cost easements. As construction of any particular water main segment
crossing private land cannot be undertaken until the necessary easements are acquired, acquisition of
these easements should commence very shortly. Accordingly, the BOCC. must authorize OWASA to
begin negotiating easement acquisitions and purchase prices as soon as practicable.
2,8
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
At this time, it is estimated that the total project cost to provide water service to all residents of the
Rogers Road community, including all water main construction, easement acquisition, availability fees,
on-site plumbing at all residential units, etc., will be in the $900,000 range. At least $550,000 of this
total will be funded from the landfill budget. If the BOCC decides to finance availability fees from the
landfill budget, then approximately $650,000 will be publicly funded. The BOCC may decide to fund
another $200,000 or more in the form of giants or low interest loans to pay individual homeowner's
costs associated with on-site plumbing requirements.
As outlined above, the project is-on schedule for water main construction to be completed early in June
2001. However, to meet that schedule, all utility easements must have been acquired by March 1, 2000
or thereabouts. Soon afterward the June water main construction completion, the process of connecting
individual homes to the system by installing individual water meters and completing on-site plumbing
construction and repair can begin. In the meantime, the BOCC must determine if and how it wishes to
fund those costs beyond the initial costs of constructing the water mains. This is necessary both from a
standpoint of creating a County budget for FY 2001-2001 and of informing and reassuring members of
the Rogers Road community as to the County's overall intent in terms of addressing the overall costs of
the project.
In accordance with the need to resolve these issues, staff recommends that the BOCC:
1) authorize OWASA to begin acquiring all necessary easements across private property and
negotiating the price, if any, for those easements;
2) authorize County staff to pay OWASA availability fees from landfill funds; and `
3) direct staff to begin the standard CDBG process of identifying home improvement needs as well as
determining whether households meet low and moderate income criteria to determine which
structures in the Rogers Road community need internal plumbing improvements and which
households should receive public assistance (grants or loans) for constructing service lines and
plumbing upgrades.
I understand that the Solid Waste Advisory Board will begin consideration at their December 14 meeting
of the financing questions related to completion of the Rogers Road water line project. Guidance from
the BOCC will be needed on these matters next Spring following the Board's receipt of input from the
SWAB.
If I may provide additional information at this time, please advise.