HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-30-2002 - 1 (AOG) 1
ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTS
AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 30, 2002
SUBJECT: Assembly of Governments Discussion Items
DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
As noted in "Background" section Rod Visser, ext 2300
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To discuss topics of mutual interest among the governing boards of Orange
County and the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough.
BACKGROUND:
1. SAPFO Implementation Timeline and Decision Points
For the past several years, the governing boards of the County, Towns, and school systems
have been discussing the possible adoption of a Schools Adequate Public Facilities system. As
noted in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), that reflects the recognition of the need to
work together to ensure that new growth within the County's two school districts occurs at a
pace that allows Orange County and the school districts to provide adequate school facilities to
serve the children within new developments. It is also important to continue to maintain a
Capital Investment Plan (CIP) that is financially feasible and synchronized with historical growth
patterns. Staff will provide a brief review of an MOU Decision Matrix which lays out the major
decision points for each jurisdiction that will consider implementation of the MOU and
Ordinance, and of a timeline that could lead to implementation of a Schools Adequate Public
Facilities system by February 15, 2003. Staff and attorneys will be available to review and
respond to questions elected officials may have about information contained in the following
attachments.
Attachment la Schools Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding
Attachment lb Exhibit A — Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Attachment 1 c Decision Matrix of MOU Elements
Attachment Id Schools Adequate Public Facilities MOU and Ordinance Possible
Implementation Timeline
2. Southern Park and Collaborative Park Planning Process a
Southern Park, located just south of Southern Village along US 15/501 South, is a Town of
Chapel Hill park to be funded by Orange County from 1997 and 2001 County bond funds. On
March 25, the Chapel Hill Town Council adopted the Conceptual Plan for Southern Communty
Park, as developed by a citizens task force during 2001. The Board of County Commissioners
began its review of the conceptual plan on October 1st. Following County approval of the
conceptual plan, and Town/County agreement on a process for construction and project
approval, the Town will begin Special Use Permit review for the park. Staff will be available to
respond to elected official questions regarding the proposed park design.
Attachment 2a Project Summary(Excerpt from 1114102 Conceptual Plan Committee Report)
Attachment 2b Conceptual Plan Map
3. Issuance Plan for 2001 County Bonds and Alternative Financing
The County Commissioners have approved a plan for the issuance of November 2001 voter-
approved bonds and alternative capital financing. County staff are working with the Local
Government Commission on a $3.475 alternative financing deal that will close in December
2002. The first sale of 2001 bonds is scheduled for an LGC sale on March 11, 2003, in the
amount of$19.175 million. The attached spreadsheet lays out the current plans for obtaining
proceeds to finance various capital projects through FY 2007-08. Staff will be available to
respond to any questions about funding for projects of specific interest to each jurisdiction.
Attachment 3 Table — Proposed Projects by Fiscal Year
4. Regional Transportation Issues
Time is allotted for the Boards to discuss any transportation matters that may be of mutual
interest to the local governments.
No Attachments
5. Drought and Collaboration on Water Supply and Protection
The County has been working collaboratively (note the accompanying H2Orange flyer) with
other jurisdictions, including water providers, to promote water conservation and good
stewardship of this resource. The importance of this effort has been sharpened by the
collective experience of Town and County residents in dealing with mandatory water restrictions
brought about by the ongoing drought. Elected officials may wish to discuss measures that
should be considered to continue the focus on water conservation, water supply protection, and
other related topics addressed at the Orange County Water Summit in May 2002.
Attachment 5a H2Orange Flyer
Attachment 5b Meeting Summary— 5116102 Orange County Water Summit
6. State Budget Impacts — FY 2002-03 and Beyond 3
Time permitting, the Boards may wish to discuss impacts felt on their budgets, programs, and
services resulting from withholding by the State of local government revenues during the current
and previous fiscal years, as well as concerns about the next fiscal year. Handouts from a
recent BOCC work session on this topic are provided just for information.
Attachment 6a Flowchart— Fiscal Year 2001-02 Financial Update
Attachment 6b Flowchart— Fiscal Year 2002-03 Financial Update
7. Information Items
At the request of various elected officials, background materials on the following topics are
provided simply for informational purposes. Staffs can follow up on any questions that may be
generated from review of these documents.
TOPIC DOCUMENT
Attachment 7a Release of Shaping Orange County's 10124102 OC Planning Staff
Future Report Memo
Attachment 7b Consideration of Recommendations on 8128102 Letter from Mayor Foy
Shifting of Urban Service Boundary South (this letter prompted a Chapel
of Chapel Hill and Carrboro Hill-Camboro Schools inquiry
on the feasibility of making
changes to the urban services
boundary; County staff
analysis of that request is
docketed for the 1116102
BOCC meeting)
Attachment 7c Mental Health Reform Update Orange-Person-Chatham
Area Program— Information
Report on Mental Health
Reform Progress
Attachment 7d Early Action Compacts — Presentation 10123102 TJCOG Executive
from the NC Division of Air Quality Committee Agenda Item
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact associated with discussion of these
topics. There are no action items requiring formal Board decisions.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Boards discuss the topics listed
and provide appropriate direction to the respective staffs.
QC-i1 .L�..
Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01;
Draft completed by staff 2/8/02
SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into this day of ,
200_, by and between the Town of , the Town of , Orange
County, and the (the "School District").
WHEREAS, the portion of Orange County, served by the [Chapel Hill/Carrboro] [Orange
County] School System has for the past decade been experiencing rapid growth in population;
and
WHEREAS, this growth, and that which is anticipated, creates a demand for additional
school facilities to accommodate the children who reside within new developments; and
WHEREAS, the responsibility for planning for and constructing new school facilities lies
primarily with the [Chapel Hill/Carrboro] [Orange County] School Board, with funding provided
by Orange County; and
WHEREAS, [Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Orange County and the Chapel Hill School District]
[Orange County, Hillsborough, and the Orange County School District], have recognized the
need to work together to ensure that new growth within the School District occurs at a pace that
allows Orange County and the School District to provide adequate school facilities to serve the
children within such new developments;
WHEREAS, the parties have worked cooperatively and developed a system wherein
school facilities are currently adequate to meet the needs of the citizens of the county and will
continue to maintain a Capital Investment Plan (CIP) that is financially feasible and
synchronized with historical growth patterns;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Memorandum hereby agree as follows:
Section 1. The parties will work cooperatively to develop a realistic Capital Improvement
Plan for the construction of schools such that, from the effective date of this
Memorandum, school membership within each school level (i.e. elementary,
middle or high) does not exceed the following:
Elementary School 105% of Building Capacity
Middle School 107% of Building Capacity
High School 110% of Building Capacity
a. For purposes of this Memorandum, the term "school membership" means
the actual number of students attending school as of November 15 of each
year. The figure is determined by considering the number of students
enrolled (i.e. registered, regardless of whether a student is no longer
attending school) and making adjustments for withdrawals, dropouts,
deaths, retentions and promotions. Students who are merely absent from
g:\craig\sapfo\mou-final 1
Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01;
Draft completed by staff 2/8/02
class on the date membership is determined as a result of sickness or some
other temporary reason are included in school membership figures. Each
year the School District shall transmit its school membership to the parties
to this agreement no later than five (5) school days after November 15.
b. For purposes of this Memorandum, "building capacity" will be determined
by reference to State guidelines and the School District guidelines
(consistent with CIP School Construction Guidelines/policies developed
by the School District and the Board of County Commissioners) and will
be determined by a joint action of the School Board and the Orange
County Board of Commissioners. As used herein the term "building
capacity" refers to permanent buildings. Mobile classrooms and other
temporary student accommodating classroom spaces are not permanent
buildings and may not be counted in determining the school districts
building capacity.
C. Prior to the adoption of the ordinances referenced in Section 2, the parties
shall reach agreement on the following:
(i) A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that will achieve the
objectives of this Memorandum;
(ii) A projected growth rate for student membership within the School
District's three school levels during the ten year life of the CIP;
(iii) A methodology for determining the projected growth rate for
student membership; and
(iv) The number of students at each level expected to be generated by
each new housing type(i.e., the "student generation rate").
d. After the adoption of the ordinances referenced in Section 2, the Orange
County Board of Commissioners may change the projected student
membership growth rate, the methodology used to determine this rate, or
the student generation rate if the Board concludes that such a change is
necessary to predict growth more accurately. Before making any such
change, the Board shall receive and consider the recommendation of a
staff committee consisting of the planning directors of the Town(s) and the
County and a representative of the School District appointed by the
Superintendent. The committee shall provide a copy of its
recommendation to the governing boards of the other parties to this
memorandum at the time it provides such recommendation to the Board of
Commissioners. In making its recommendation, the committee shall
consider the following, and in making its determination, the Board of
Commissioners shall consider the following:
g:\craig\sapfo\mou-final 2
Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01;
Draft completed by staff 2/8/02
(i) The accuracy of the methodology and projected growth rate then
in use in projecting school membership for the current school
year;
(ii) The accuracy of the student generation rate then in use in
predicting the number of students at each level actually generated
by each new housing type;
(iii) Approval of and issuance of CAPS for residential developments
that, individually or collectively, are of sufficient magnitude to
alter the previously agreed upon school membership growth
projections; or
(iv) Other trends and factors tending to alter the previously agreed
upon projected growth rates.
If any such change is made in the projected growth rate, the methodology
for determining this rate, or the student generation rate, the Orange County
Board of Commissioners shall inform the other parties to this
Memorandum prior to February 1St in any year in which such change is
intended to become effective what change was made and why it was
necessary.
e. The Orange County Board of Commissioners shall provide a copy of the
updated CIP to each of the parties to the Memorandum as soon as it is
revised, annually or otherwise.
Section 2. The towns and the county will adopt amendments to their respective ordinances,
in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, to coordinate the approval
of residential developments within the School District with the adequacy of
existing and proposed school facilities.
Section 3. The following process shall be followed by the School District to receive and take
action upon applications for Certificates of Adequacy of Public School Facilities
("CAPS") submitted by persons who are required by an implementing ordinance
conceptually similar to that attached as Exhibit A to have such certificates before
the development permission they have received from the town or county becomes
effective.
a. On February 15th of each year, the School District shall calculate the
building capacity of each school level and the school membership of each
school level as of November 15th of the previous year. Also on February
15th of each year, the School District shall calculate the anticipated school
membership for each school level and the anticipated building capacity for
each school level as of November 15th in each of the following ten years.
These calculations shall be made in accordance with the provisions of
Section 1 and also in accordance with the remaining provisions of this
section.
g:\craig\saDf6\mou-fina1 3
Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01;
Draft completed by staff 2/8/02
b. School membership calculations made on February 15th (utilizing the
previous November 15th data) for each of the ten years following the year
in which the calculation is made (the base year) shall be determined by
applying the projected school membership growth rates determined in
accordance with Section 1 of this Memorandum to the actual school
membership numbers of the base year.
C. The school building capacity calculations shall be based upon the
following:
(i) A calculation of the existing building capacity within each school
level;
(ii) The anticipated opening date of schools under construction;
(iii) The anticipated opening date of schools on the ten-year CIP for
which funding has been committed by the Board of
Commissioners as a result of an approved bond issue, an approved
installment purchase agreement, or otherwise; and
(iv) The anticipated closing dates of any schools within the School
District.
d. By comparing the existing and calculated school membership to the
existing and calculated school building capacity each year, the School
District shall determine what remaining capacity (if any) exists or is
projected to exist to accommodate new development. The School District
shall make that information known to the local governments within 15
days of the comparison.
e. As CAPS are issued for new developments during the course of the twelve
month period from February 15th of one year to February 15th of the next
year, the School District shall continually reduce the remaining available
school building capacity in each of the ensuing years wherein new
students are projected to be added to the school system by the
developments for which the CAPS are given during that year.
f. When an application for a CAPS is submitted, the School District shall
determine the impact on school membership for each school level as
calculated on February 15th in each year of the period during which the
development is expected to be adding new students to the school system as
the result of such new construction. In making this determination, the
School District shall rely upon the figures established under Section 1 of
this Memorandum as to the number of students at each level expected to
be generated by each housing type, and data furnished by the applicable
planning department as to the expected rate at which new dwellings within
developments similar in size and type to the proposed development are
g:\craig\sapfo\mou-final 4
Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01;
Draft completed by staff 2/8/02
likely to be occupied. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if, upon request of
the applicant, the planning jurisdiction approving the development
imposes enforceable conditions upon the development (such as a phasing
schedule) to limit the rate at which new dwellings within the development
are expected to be occupied, then the School District shall take such
limitations into account in determining the impact of the development on
school membership.
g. If the School District determines that the projected capacity of each school
level is sufficient to accommodate the proposed development without
exceeding the building capacity levels set forth in Section 1 of this
Memorandum, then the School District shall issue the CAPS. If the
School District determines that the projected capacity of each school level
is not sufficient to accommodate the proposed development without
exceeding the building capacity levels set forth in Section 1, then the
School District shall deny the CAPS. If a CAPS is denied, the applicant
may seek approval from the appropriate planning jurisdiction of such
modifications to the development as will allow for the issuance of a
CAPS, and then reapply for a CAPS.
h. The School District shall issue CAPS on a "first come first served" basis,
according to the date a completed application for a CAPS is received. If
projected building capacity is not available and an application for a CAPS
is therefore denied, the development retains its priority in line based upon
the CAPS application date.
Section 4. A CAPS issued in connection with approval of a subdivision preliminary plat,
minor subdivision final plat, site plan, or conditional or special use permit shall
expire automatically upon the expiration of such plat,plan, or permit approval.
Section 5. The towns and the county will provide to the School District all information
reasonably requested by the School District to assist the District in making its
determination as to whether the CAPS should be issued.
Section 6. The School District will use its best efforts to construct new schools and
permanent expansions or additions to existing schools in accordance with the CIP.
Section 7. Orange County will use its best efforts to provide the funding to carry out the
Capital Improvement Plan referenced in Section 1 above.
Section S. In recognition of the fact that some new development will have a negligible
impact on school capacity, a CAPS shall not be required under the following
circumstances:
a. For residential developments restricted by law and/or covenant for a
period of at least thirty years to housing for the elderly and/or adult care
living and/or adult special needs;
n•\crai v\sanfo\mou-final 5
Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01;
Draft completed by staff 2/8/02
b. For residential developments restricted for a period of at least thirty years
to dormitory housing for university students.
If the use of a development restricted as provided above changes, then before a
permit authorizing such change of use becomes effective, a CAPS must be issued
just as if the development were being constructed initially.
Section 9. The parties acknowledge that this Memorandum of Understanding is not intended
to and does not create legally binding obligations on any of the parties to act in
accordance with its provisions. Rather, it constitutes a good faith statement of the
intent of the parties to cooperate in a manner designed to meet the mutual
objective of all the parties that the children who reside within the School District
are able to attend school levels that satisfy the level of service standards set forth
herein.
g:\craig\sapfo\mou-final 6
f frTac�n Er�f- 16
Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01;
Draft completed by staff 2/8/02
Exhibit A
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE THAT THE ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC
SCHOOL FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE NEW DEVELOPMENT
BE CONSIDERED IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS
WHEREAS, the portion of Orange County served by the [Chapel Hill/Carrboro]
[Orange County] school system, has for the past decade been experiencing rapid growth
in population; and
WHEREAS, this rapid growth, and that which is anticipated, creates a demand for
additional school facilities to accommodate the children who reside within new
developments; and
WHEREAS, the responsibility for planning for and constructing new school
facilities lies primarily with the [Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Board] [Orange County
School Board], with funding provided by Orange County; and
WHEREAS, [Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Orange County and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro
School District] [Orange County, Hillsborough, and the Orange County School District]
have recognized the need to work together to ensure that new growth within the School
District occurs at a pace that allows Orange County and the School District to provide
adequate school facilities to serve the children within such new developments; and
WHEREAS, to implement the Memorandum of Understanding between [Orange
County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Board] [Orange
County, Hillsborough, and the Orange County School Board], the [governing body]
desires to provide a mechanism to assure that, to the extent possible, new development
will take place only when there are adequate public school facilities available, or planned,
which will accommodate such new development;
NOW THEREFORE, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section of the Development Ordinance is amended by
adding a new to read as follows:
ADEQUATE PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES
1. Purpose.
The purpose of this ordinance is to ensure that, to the maximum extent practical, approval
of new residential development will become effective only when it can reasonably be
expected that adequate public school facilities will be available to accommodate such
new development.
g-\crai g\sanfo\ordinance-final t
Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01;
Draft completed by staff 2/8/02
2. Certificate of Adequacy of Public School Facilities.
(a) Subject to the remaining provisions of this [article], no approval under this
ordinance of a subdivision preliminary plat, minor subdivision final plat, site plan, or
conditional or special use permit for a residential development shall become effective
unless and until Certificate of Adequacy of Public School Facilities (CAPS) for the
project has been issued by the School District.
(b) A CAPS shall not be required for a general use or conditional use rezoning or for
a master land use plan. However, even if a rezoning or master plan is approved, a CAPS
will nevertheless be required before any of the permits or approvals identified in
subsection (a) of this section shall become effective, and the rezoning of the property or
approval of a master plan provides no indication as to whether the CAPS will be issued.
The application for rezoning or master plan approval shall contain a statement to this
effect.
(c) A CAPS must be obtained from the School District. The School District will
issue or deny a CAPS in accordance with the provisions of the Memorandum of
Understanding between [Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Orange County, and the Chapel Hill
Carrboro School District] [Orange County, Hillsborough, and the Orange County School
District] dated
(d) A CAPS attaches to the land in the same way that development permission
attaches to the land. A CAPS may be transferred along with other interests in the
property with respect to which such CAPS is issued, but may not be severed or
transferred separately.
3. Service Levels.
(a) This section describes the service levels regarded as adequate by the parties to the
Memorandum of Understanding described in subsection (b) with respect to public school
facilities.
(b) As provided in the Memorandum of Understanding between [Orange County,
Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District] [Orange County,
Hillsborough, and the Orange County School District], adequate services levels for public
schools shall be deemed to exist with respect to a proposed new residential development
if, given the number of school age children projected to reside in that development, and
considering all the factors listed in the Memorandum of Understanding, projected school
membership for the elementary schools, the middle schools, and the high school(s) within
the [Chapel Hill/Carrboro] [Orange County] School District will not exceed the following
percentages of the building capacities of each of the following three school levels:
elementary school level 105%
middle school level 107%
high school level 110%
e:\craig\sanfo\ordinance-final 2
Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01;
Draft completed by staff 2/8/02
For purposes of this ordinance, the terms "building capacity" and "school membership"
shall have the same meaning attributed in the Schools Adequate Public Facilities
Memorandum of Understanding among the Towns of ,
and Orange County and the Board of
Education.
4. Expiration of Certificates of Adequacy of Public School Facilities.
A CAPS issued in connection with approval of a subdivision preliminary plat,
minor subdivision final plat, site plan, or conditional or special use permit shall expire
automatically upon the expiration of such plat, plan, or permit approval.
5. Exemption From Certification Requirement for Development with Negligible
Student Generation Rates
In recognition of the fact that some new development will have a negligible
impact on school capacity, a CAPS shall not be required under the following
circumstances:
a. For residential developments restricted by law and/or covenant for
a period of at least thirty years to housing for the elderly and/or
adult care living and/or adult special needs;
b. For residential developments restricted for a period of at least
thirty years to dormitory housing for university students.
If the use of a development restricted as provided above changes, then before a
permit authorizing such change of use becomes effective, a CAPS must be issued
just as if the development were being constructed initially.
6. Applicability to Previously Approved Projects and Projects Pending
Approval.
(a) Except as otherwise provided herein, the provisions of this ordinance shall only
apply to applications for approval of subdivision preliminary plats, minor subdivision
final plats, site plans and conditional or special use permits that are submitted for
approval after the effective date of this ordinance
(b) The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to amendments to subdivision
preliminary plats, minor subdivision final plats, site plans, or special or conditional use
permit approvals issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance so long as the
approvals have not expired and the proposed amendments do not increase the number of
dwelling units authorized within the development by more than five percent or five
dwelling units, whichever is less.
g:\craig\sapfo\ordinance-final 3
Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01;
Draft completed by staff 2/8/02
(c) The [governing body] shall issue a special exception to the CAPS requirement to
an applicant whose application for approval of a subdivision preliminary plat, minor
subdivision final plat, site plan or conditional or special use permit covers property within
a planned unit development or master plan project that was approved prior to the
effective date of this ordinance, if the [governing body] finds, after an evidentiary
hearing, that the applicant has (1) applied to the School District for a CAPS and the
application has been denied, (2) in good faith made substantial expenditures or incurred
substantial binding obligations in reasonable reliance on the previously obtained planned
unit development or master plan approval, and (3). would be unreasonably prejudiced if
development in accordance with the previously approved development or plan is delayed
due to the provisions of this ordinance. In deciding whether these findings can be made,
the [governing body] shall consider the following, among other relevant factors:
(1) Whether the developer has installed streets, utilities, or other facilities or
expended substantial sums in the planning and preparation for installation of such
facilities which were designed to serve or to be paid for in part by the
development of portions of the planned unit development or master planned
project that have not yet been approved for construction;
(2) Whether the developer has installed streets, utilities, or other facilities or
expended substantial sums in the planning and preparation for installation of such
facilities that directly benefit other properties outside the development in question
or the general public;
(3) Whether the developer has donated land to the School District for the
construction of school facilities or otherwise dedicated land or made
improvements deemed to benefit the School District and its public school system;
(4) Whether the developer has had development approval for a substantial
amount of time and has in good faith worked to timely implement the plan in
reasonable reliance on the previously obtained approval;
(5) The duration of the delay that will occur until public school facilities are
improved or exist to such an extent that a CAPS can be issued for the project, and
the effect of such delay on the development and the developer.
(d) The decision of the [governing body] involving a special exception application
under subsection (c) is subject to review by the Orange County Superior Court by
proceedings in the nature of certiorari. Any petition for review by the Superior Court
shall be filed with the Clerk of Superior Court within 30 days after a written copy of the
decision [of the governing body] is delivered to the applicant and every other party who
has filed a written request for such copy with the Clerk to the [governing body] at the
time of its hearing on the application for a special exception. The written copy of the
decision of the [governing body] may be delivered either by personal service or by
certified mail, return receipt requested.
g:\craig\sapfo\ordinance-final 4
Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01;
Draft completed by staff 2/8/02
(e) The [chair or the mayor] of the [governing body] or any member temporarily
acting as [chair or mayor] may, in his or her official capacity, administer oaths to
witnesses in any hearing before the [governing body] concerning a special exception.
7. Appeal of School District Denial of a CAPS.
The applicant for a CAPS which is denied by the School District may, within 30
days of the date of the denial, appeal the denial to the [governing body] of [local
government from which development permit is sought]. Any such appeal shall be heard
by the [governing body] at an evidentiary hearing before it. At this hearing the School
District will present its reasons for the denial of the CAPS and the evidence it relied on in
denying the CAPS. The applicant appealing the denial may present its reasons why the
CAPS application should have, in its view, been approved and the evidentiary basis it
contends supports approval. The [governing body] may (1) affirm the decision of the
School District, (2) remand to the School District for further proceedings in the event
evidence is presented at the hearing before the [governing body] not brought before the
School District, or (3) issue a CAPS. The [governing body] will only issue a CAPS if it
finds that the CAPS should have been issued by the School District as prescribed in the
Memorandum of Understanding among the School District, Orange County and the
[governing body]. A decision of the [governing body] affirming the School District may
be appealed by the applicant for a CAPS by proceedings in the nature of certiorari and as
prescribed for an appeal under Section 6(d) of this ordinance.
8. Information Required From Applicants.
The applicant for a CAPS shall submit to the School District all information
reasonably deemed necessary by the School District to determine whether a CAPS should
be issued under the provision of the Memorandum of Understanding between the
[governing body], Orange County, and the School District. An applicant for a CAPS
special exception or an applicant appealing a CAPS denial by the School District shall
submit to the [governing body] all information reasonably deemed necessary by the
[governing body] to determine whether a special exception should be granted as provided
in Section 6(d) of this ordinance or for the hearing of an appeal of a School District
denial of a CAPS as provided in Section 7 of this ordinance. A copy of a request for a
CAPS special exception or of an appeal of a School District denial of a CAPS shall be
served on the superintendent of the School District. Service may be made by personal
delivery or certified mail, return receipt requested.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective
The foregoing ordinance, having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote
and was duly adopted this day of , 200_.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent or Excused:
gAcraig\sapfo\ordinance-final 5
Ic.
/
\
3
�
�E° ~ >
� � 3
� l /
2 \ �
Q /
g
�
a § �
� »
_« 5 & l ) �g
$/
} f
k /
as u
¢ 2 �
Updated 10/17/02
f
K
STUDENT
PROJECTIONS AVG 5 PROJ Average-5 projections created from Fall 2001 membership Decision
data. Forthcoming
Section lc(ii)
STUDENT 35,10
,
PROJECTION METH COHORT/ Use 3, 5, 10 Cohort and Tishchler Linear and Orange County Decision
TISCHLER Planning Linear Wave. Forthcoming NO
MOU Section lc(iii) LINEAR OCP
STUDENT GEN RATE
TISCHLER Use Tischler and Assoc. Student Generation Rates Report Decision made: YES
from 2001. Tischler
MOU Section lc(iv)
Note 1: An earlier SFTF draft report included recommendations concerning building capacity and recommended that mobile classrooms("portables") not be included as part
of permanent capacity.
Note 2: Many of the variables noted in Section lc (i— iv) of the MOU will be reanalyzed each year by the Planning Directors, School Representative Technical Advisory
Committee and recommendations made,if necessary, and distributed to all parties to the agreement.
2
At6"1Y-r7C'-7t 1�
Updated 10/24/02
SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) AND ORDINANCE
POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE
Mid-September 2002 School Facilities Task Force Review and Recommendation of Memorandum of
Understanding variables as delegated by Board of County Commissioners.
Late September 2002 Special Schools and Land Use Councils meeting(Sep 25)
Schools and Land Use Councils Review and Recommendation of Memorandum
of Understanding/School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance based on local
government, School District and Schools Facilities Task Force responses(which
incorporate public input).
October 16, 2002 Schools and Land Use Councils transmit final version of Memorandum of
Understanding/School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, including all
determined variables,for consideration by local governments and school
districts.
ORDINANCE ADOPTION
October 21,2002 5:30 PM dinner/work session regarding Schools Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance prior to regular Board of County Commissioners meeting at Southern
Human Services Center
Late October 2002 Discussion at October 30, 2002 Assembly of Governments meeting.
November 2002 All local governments and School Districts address MOU and adopt,or readopt
accordingly, if necessary. A transmittal of final version will be made.
November, December, Local governments adopt actual SAPFO regulation through their typical Public
January Hearing process.
November 6, 2002 Board of County Commissioners Agenda Item for adoption of Memorandum of
Understanding and Model Ordinance.
November 11, 2002 Board of County Commissioners Work Session—if necessary for adoption.
November 15, 2002 Receipt of membership numbers by school levels from School District for
Planning Directors, School Representative Technical Advisory Committee
(PSTAC),begins 2002 School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance student
projection report.
November 19, 2002 Board of County Commissioners Agenda Item for adoption of Memorandum of
Understanding and Ordinance if not acted upon on November 6 or November 11,
2002.
Early January 2003 Planning Directors, School Representative Technical Advisory Committee report
issued to School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance parties.
January 2003 Local governments and districts provide input to BOCC regarding SAPFO
variables.
Early February 2003 Board of County Commissioners certification of 2002 School Adequate Public
Facilities Ordinance system
February 15, 2003 New development subject to School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.
Project Summary
The Southern Community Park Conceptual some of the major concerns raised in the
Plan Committee has developed a proposed planning process:
conceptual plan for the 70- acre property
that we believe would meet many of the Preservation of Open Space
community's parks and recreation related
needs while preserving significant portions of About 60-70%of this site would be left as
Dog-
the site as open space. open space. Most of the site south of Dog-
wood Acres Drive would remain undis-
The Committee met from February until turbed. Woodland trails would provide
September 2001 and considered a wide range access to these natural areas.Large buffers
of information including: would protect neighbors,the Highway 15-
• Comments provided by citizens at 501 entranceway, and the park drainage
meetings ways. A new meadow area would be created
• Comments provided through the out of an area that is now a young pine
Committee's web site grove.
• Comments received at two public
Active Recreation
forums
• Information and comments gener- Most of the active recreation would be
ated by committee members clustered near the northeast corner of the site
• Site analysis just south of the Southern Village Park and
• Information and opinions provided Ride lot.Specific facilities recommended for
by the consultant inclusion in a first phase of the park include:
• Staff gererated information. • Athletic/soccer fields(2)
• Youth ballfield
The committee recognizes that the needs of • Dog park
the community are varied and sometimes in • Extension of the Fan Branch Trail
conflict with one another. Citizens spoke • Large play area
with passion concerning the need to both • Water play area(spray park)
preserve open space and develop the prop- • Basketball courts(2)
erty for active recreation.The committee • Roller hockey court
also considered the need to protect estab- • Small court area(horseshoes,
lished neighborhoods,protect sensitive bocce)
natural areas,the lack of certain types of • Performance area
active recreational facilities,and the lack of • Disc golf course
large properties for future park • Picnic shelters(one large,several
developement. small)
• Recycling center(to be developed
The proposed conceptual plan is intended to by Orange County)
blend these many needs into a coherent plan • Bio-retention ponds
that takes advantage of the property's topog- • Parking
raphy,vegetation, and location.The plan • Restrooms (3)
proposes the following general solutions to • Maintenance shed
4
The plan also includes possible features for a
second phase and several facilities that could
be built, if needed,in the future.These
include:
• Community center building
• Outdoor leisure pool
• Youth athletic/soccer field
• Expanded parking(all lots can be
expanded)
Access
Most of the park's access would be provided
via an extension of the main drive through
the existing park and ride lot and Highway
15-501.This would leave only incidental
access at Dogwood Acres Drive and Merritt
Road.
Safety
Vehicular access is primarily provided
through a traffic light controlled intersection.
Recommendations are included that would
address safety related issues on Dogwood
Acres Drive including:
• Speed of vehicles in the park
• Safety of trail users crossing the
road
• Pedestrians accessing the park
from the Dogwood Acres neigh-
borhood
We believe that the park as proposed would
provide meaningful recreation opportunities
for a wide variety of interests for genera-
tions.
5
Pe SS -
2 N
wr r,1[RwR rKW
oB rh}
80!A 451120
45J125112 0
5�. W CrNRI MILL a"CAM C[NMR
, V'TIOW z r, 2 Basketball Courts
I 'Roller Hockey Court' ,
Sid
J '� y t +, r' ao•swe '
'jll Bocce ball Court V ° l wttanro.rn
4M� K,
wrcnnr[�niu.cnRRe�R� M 131y3�a D-
' r
Rlde_L
t
K l 1 1 i
- — i�• bUt>�O 3�rt $�,itl(�f(rl� ,. // � __ ��(� f l ut� _.w, t,i r O o� '..o _ l��.
:-._ . ;:�\1,, ({! :,t rr rriirr/(///t�l�Y•.� 1�-- � ` �' o ��0 1' a. . 40W� .. '
L �
r-' j t l�/'l!.i/�i 1<,�f� � I � ' � � — ��-___.' I,"��I_'7L�;—yr yti t � •.
Future Cornn'1y
Center`1, t l
f}?llr � yJ�;•'�Jitili �,- � � tr/�- , \.. \. ..' � - � '�q_ S- . 1 , ,f +' .r
� �J�/!, `I l`l �-��r�J;� �t�, `!��! � � _ _ > /•.' � J� "� Cb11dt�,';;r�a�$r F�la��':
,�i J/i t�`t rr eCw f J �� �a•r �
/ Z
'a(TI�I`r ` ; hh / � �'rcroc Area A
\ s\ t I}X111�J1Jl i1J! Nrf UAROY5' r r! ..__ r �• *\ �a3—_ - -
? 2 Atletrateld
C
r!, ,.._I! f cF+�4►voGOra//'�1 J 'l/x i , t� l t t mf
m7 » o Picnic Aryu, i
!/r.�j) llllf! I i �i 1�ir�11���'1�/' - � �\� ♦. t -"� r 5 .�
11 r'Jik _ �_ V.
_ Possible Ycttlletic Field
Of
i�,t.=.;.'.\n✓�-uhf -� `ilb r��' L.\'1 i `'' \ - �
ECM 1V171 \�\ , -` � , \. , \\ —•r p,,rk1 ii
t\ f\----------
� , ,n tyo,:�% , rails Legend
(}
/, Ir'1S„ �t j!r rte! / .✓ I( i/i
\ l`\ '1 Gl �/^
1. "�. ,,�i�,- • \ I�i f.- r -.-.i Greenway Trail
,
mil•'{'• ✓• Other Paved Trails
Natural Surface Trails
tiv
K Southern Community
p Park
3m �• I,- Town of Chapel Hill
' ` •'� November 7, 2001
- Scale: 1"-100'
�Ac h iv en
3
Table 4. Proposed Projects by Fiscal Year(September 3,2002 Revision)
revisions reflect BOCC budget work session discussions that haw taken place through 6124/02.Proposal maintains the priorities and timelines submitted by the County's bond
roposal(ass Table 5.Comparison of Proposed Projects to Be Included in Bond and Alterative Financing Issuances for Fiscal Year 2002-03. partners.Purple highlighted cells rellsct staff proposed changes from the
FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-OB FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 Total -
Bond Altematlw. Bond Altemadve Bond Altemative Bond Alternative Bond , Altemative Albmative Bond AltamaUve Protect Total
A B O
Schools C 0 E F G H I J l M N
CHCCS-Cha I F4a H h 1
5750.000 SO 51.250.000 SO 30 SD SD SO SO SO 50 32.000.000 SO 52.000 000 2
CHCCS EIementa at0 SD SD s0 SO St,125.000 $0 S11.675.000 s0 SO I so SO $12.800.000: 50 5/2,800000 3
CHCCS EIementa 49 511.100,000 SO St,7OO.000 s0 SO s0 s0 SO 50 50 SO 312.800.000 50 $12,$00,000 4
CHCCS Unfunded from Bond
Request Ina yef.demrfi d by
CHCCS) SO s0 s0 s0 SD $3,700,000 so $0 $0 $3,700.000 $3.700,000 s0 31 t:100,000 $11100,000 5
OCS-HiIlsbOrou h Eleme Ia $900 000 s0 s0 sp 30 i
SO $D 1 $900.000 SD 5800 000 6
OCS Oron a High Renovations s0 a 2::$950.000 s0 50 SO... so r s0 so SO 50 SD SO 5950.1X10 $930,000 .9
Total Schools $13,750,000 $950,000 $7,450,000 so f10 625,000 $5,350 000 515,173,000 $0 $O $3,700,000 S3,700000 L/7,000,000 $13,700.000 $60,700,000 10
Parks.Recreation&Open
S ace
Cedar Grove District Park - f0 t t
3200.000 s0. $500.000 -s0 5500.000 so so S0 $0 so SO $1.200,000 SO $1,200,000 12
Cha Hill District Park S2OO.000 so 5500.000 -SO $500,000 s0 SO SD SO SO 50 51.200.000 $0 f1 200,000 13
1--i Cheeks Park Phase 2)
$125.000 SD $725.000 SO so so $0 SO SO so s0 $250,000 s0 $250,000 14
Fairview Padc 52170.000 -SO 5500.000 $O S150,000 so EO SO So s0 s0 $850.000 SO $850,000 15
GreemvaY Develo ent 5400,000 so 3200,000 SO $575.000 $0 5575.000 s0 $0 so so $1,750.000 SO $1,750,000 16
Homestead Aquatics Center $0 s0 $3,500.000 $0 so SD so so
Janos I -CY(Including _ SO SD $Q $3,500,000 f -SO u 500,000 t7
Priority Projects identified
during Capital Needs Advisory -
Task Force 51.750.000 SO $1,750,000 so 51.750,0110 - $0 $1,750,000 s0 so SO SO 57.000.000 I s0 $7,000,000 18
SmiN Middle Schoa Park 5250.000 $0 so so $0 SD $0 i SO SO $0 $0 $250.000 s0 (230,000 19
soccer super Fund 5500.000 SO 5600.000 SO 5600.000. $0 5300.1XX! 30 s0 so $0 $2.000.000 so fz,000,000 20
Soutnem Cormuni Park $0 s0 50 s0 51,000.000 I s0 51.0001000 SO SD SO SD $2.000.000 $0 52000.000 21
Total Parks,Recreation and
Open Space $3,823,000 $0 $7,873000 f0 55,075,000 SO $3,625,000 s0 s0 so - - f0 $20,000,000 $0 $20,000,000 22
Affordable Housing $1,300,000 f0 61,300,000 - SO $1,400,000 so $0 $0
f0 f0 $0 S4.000.00O $O $4,000.000 23
Conservation Easements SO $1,000,000 s0 - SO s0 $500,000 $o $750,000, so "So goo so s0 53.000.000 f3 000 000 24
Senior Centers - -
70 25
Chapel Hill Censer 540p,0o0 50 51,000,000 $O Sfi00.000 51,075,000 SO SO 50 SD $O 52,000,000 5/.075,000 $3,075,000 26
: fVOnheMCentral Orarge
Center 3100.000 s0 $500.000 SD $1,400.000 $1,075.000 so SO SO 50 SO $Z,000.000 "s1 W5.000 $3075,000` 27
TOtal Senior Canters $500.000 so $1,500,000 SO $2,000,000 $2,150.000 s0 s0 so so s0 $4,000,000 52.150,000 $6,130,000 28
Other County Facilities
Community College Satellite -
s0 f0 29
Cam $(Count Match so s1,o004000 s0 SO SO - $3,000.000 $0 s0 s0 $0 so SO $4.000,000 $4000000 30
Govemmern Servmces Center
Addition s0 s0 so _ s0 sp $0 s0 $0 $0 54,000,000 54.000.000 SO $B.OW.000. (8.000,000 31
Justice F n so so $0 so so so s0 S61000.000 50 s0 $0 s0 38.000.iX70 fs 000.000. 32
Ora a Ent. nses s0 5525,000 SO So SO s0 s0 - - s0 s0
Planning 8 Ag Center SD $0. 30 t 3523.000- $523,000 33
Renovations and Farmers
Market SO s0 s0 SO so s0 so -s0 s0 s0 $500:000 SO 55004000 $300.000 34
Total Other COUn Fxlittle. so $1,523,000 f0 30 $0 $3,000,000 SO 56,000,000 f0 $4000900 14,5 00,000 f0 $19023000 -$19,025,000 35
Total $19,175,000' 53,475,000 $17,925,000 $0 $19,100,000 $11,000,000 $18,800,000 56,730,000 $0 $8,430,000 $8,200,000 $75,000,000 $37,875,000 $112,875,000 36
18,030,000 17 650.000 .`,; 1.500.. $13.100. tA7w, 0 4 ,000 172,700,000y 17
lwxx:
Orange County Residents are feeling the impact of a drought that has plagued our state over the
past five years. We are experiencing little to no rainfall and a high demand for water. Our
situation is urgent and all citizens must take an active role in reducing water use. Conserving
water now can lessen the consequences later. Drought Hotline 644-3333
Kitchen
• Eliminate leaks by replacing old gaskets. A dripping faucet can waste 3,600 gallons a year.
• Install faucet aerators.
• During water restrictions use bottled water, paper plates, and single-service drinking and eating utensils.
• Keep a pitcher of cold water in the fridge, instead of running water until it is cold.
• Don't leave the water running while rinsing dishes.
• Don't use a garbage disposal. Certain food scraps can be composted or wrapped in newspaper and placed
in the garbage.
• Only use dishwasher with full loads, and use the'water-saver'setting if available.
• Don't rinse dirty dishes before loading into dishwasher; scrape clean and let the machine do the rest.
• Don't thaw frozen food under running water.
• Use bagged ice.
SUMMARY 1
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY WATER SUMMIT
MAY 16, 2002
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met on May 16, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. at the Southern
Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina for a water summit.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioner Moses Carey
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Margaret W. Brown, Alice M. Gordon and Stephen Halkiotis
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: S. Sean Borhanian
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., and Clerk to the Board Beverly A.
Blythe (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA
FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
NOTE: THIS WAS NOT AN OFFICIAL MEETING SINCE ONLY 2 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTENDED. THIS VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT WILL BE PLACED IN THE PERMANENT
AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
1. INTRODUCTION
A. Opening Remarks
Chair Jacobs made opening remarks. Welcome. We are pleased to have so many people that
we wanted to have here today at this water summit, which is hosted by the Orange County Commissioners.
Commissioner Moses Carey is sitting over here by the window. Commissioners Margaret Brown, Alice
Gordon, and Steve Halkiotis will probably be here by and by. We will take time, so that everybody who is
sitting up here can introduce himself or herself. I will be glad to recognize other people who are here. If you
are representing one of the water providers, and you would like to come sit up here, there is still room. So
please feel free.
My name is Barry Jacobs, I am also one of the Orange County Commissioners. We are pleased
to host this water summit. We wanted to start off with a little comment from Ambrose Pierce to set the tone,
and it's a definition of neighbor. "A neighbor is one whom we are commanded to love as ourselves and who
does all he knows how to make us disobedient." We are all neighbors, but if we do not communicate, then
we develop misunderstandings. Sometimes personalities get in the way. Sometimes we simply do not
recognize that we have common interests. So what we really are all about is trying to get beyond the frictions
and divisions. We assume that the water providers who are here today are here out of a sense of self-
interest. Self-interest is good in this setting. What we want to do is talk about the issues that brought us to
come to the conclusion that it would be a good idea to have this water summit and to have these players in
the same place at the same time. We are proud in Orange County of how long we have been committed to
protecting watersheds, water supplies. We, in fact, in discussing this meeting, we protect the water for all of
the municipalities and for Orange-Alamance. Everybody who is here, we help protect your water, because
we protect the watersheds. We are not a water provider. Obviously, we cannot keep on doing things the way
that we have been doing them over the course of the years. As growth takes place, it changes some of the
equations, it bumps us against one another, and it starts to affect the resources that we have. We are
obviously also in a difficult financial climate, more difficult for some than for others, but difficult for all of us.
That may not go away. That may make.us look at things a little bit differently. And we are also in a changed
climate period, whether it is temporary or not. We went to capacity use in the Eno River system two and a
half months before we normally do because of drought conditions. We are working on an update of our
comprehensive land use plan. We first did it 20 years ago. Obviously it has been amended many times
since. But we are trying to incorporate a lot of the thinking that has changed and also trying to incorporate
the plans of those who have a participatory role in how Orange County grows.
When we talk about learning the challenges and concerns of the water providers, we think it would
be useful to have some common understanding of what we are each doing, a common language, and a
common sense of at least understanding. Before we can even talk about collaboration or cooperation, we.
2
need to at least understand where the other person, or in this case, entity, is coming from. I think all of the
utilities are committed to providing safe drinking supplies, quality water, we want to have a sufficient quantity
of water to provide for the customers, the citizens; and we want to do it in a way that is environmentally
sensitive and that is cost effective. As far as our interests, we are trying to be very up front. We have a
number of interests. As I said, we are not a water provider, but we are a sewer provider in the Efland area,
and we recently decided to go ahead and at least complete a master plan for an Efland sewer system. We
started the Efland sewer in the early 80's in response to some failing septic systems, and we are still
perfecting that plan now and have a million dollars in bond monies that will be applied to expanding the
current system. Even though we are talking about Orange County in general, and you all have different parts
of Orange County, we are really talking mainly about the central part of Orange County today in terms of
whom we have brought together. And you can see that there are a number of issues—a new County middle
school. The County school board would like to put one near where we have an elementary school, but we do
not have sufficient water for fire suppression. Economic development, we have existing businesses and an
850-acre designated economic development district between Efland and Mebane that has no provision of
services contemplated, nor have we identified a source of those services. I would like to welcome the
members of People for Progress, who are sitting in the back several rows. This is a community that kind of
falls in a no-man's land between Mebane and Efland, not really in anybody's service area. They have water
and sewer problems, and we need to figure out a way to coordinate so that we can address those problems
in a way that is satisfactory, that brings them the service that they need. When we talk about water and
sewer boundaries, we have an agreement that was recently put in place between Hillsborough; OWASA,
which represents Chapel Hill and Carrboro, as well as Orange County; and the Orange County government
that delineates the water and sewer boundary for each utility so that we know who is going to provide where
and which areas will not have service provided unless there is a public health emergency. We do not have
those kinds of agreements in central Orange County.
I cannot go through this without mentioning conservative use of limited resources. I walked down
to Seven-Mile Creek, which is near my house, before I came here in fact. It was hard to leave. I brought one
of our other constituents, this mussel. And when we talk about all of this, we know that we have to protect
the environment. We know that, for instance, the Eno River cannot be pumped dry like it used to. We know
that we have to provide not only for ourselves, but for our descendants. And in order to do that, we think it
would be good to work together.
We recently co-sponsored with the Chatham County Commissioners a symposium on emergency
preparedness, looking regionally primarily at the threat posed by a possible nuclear accident at Shearon
Harris, but even more generally, looking at emergency preparedness and how we might improve it in case of
any kind of major threat to public health. And it was certainly striking, the lack of coordination, the lack of
leadership from the State, the lack of coordination on a regional level. We have put that up there because
some of the same kinds of thinking may need to be done to link us better. We have linked water lines, but we
do not have linked thinking, we do not have linked planning. These other issues, I do not think I need to read
to you, but they all come into play when we talk about providing water and protecting watersheds.
And finally, another quote from Ambrose Pierce, "Discussion, a method of confirming others in
their errors." We hope to have a good discussion. We do not come here with a sense that we want to tell
you what the outcome should be. We look forward to working with all of you. As you know, within the last
several years Commissioner Halkiotis and I have met with all of the entities that are here to just try and reach
out and say, 'We would like to work together. We would like to identify common areas of interest." And we
appreciate the fact that you are here.
He asked everyone up front to introduce themselves and say whom they represent.
B. Roundtable Self Introductions
Bob Atwater, Chatham County Commissioner
Katie Calvin, City of Durham Public Works Director
Moses Carey, Orange County Commissioner
Louis Cheek, Mayor Pro-tem, City of Durham
Don Cox, Orange County Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor
Mike Gering, Hillsborough Town Commissioner
Kenny Keel, Town of Hillsborough Engineer and Utilities Director
Ed Kerwin, Executive Director of OWASA
Faye Metcalf, Orange-Alamance Water System
Bernadette Pellisier, Chair of the OWASA Board 3
Eric Peterson, Town of Hillsborough Manager
Joe Phelps, Mayor of Hillsborough
Margaret Pollard, Chatham County Commissioner
Terry Roland, City of Durham Environmental Resources Director
Darrell Russell, City of Mebane Engineer
Ron Singleton, Chatham County Public Works Director
Marshall Staton, Pearson Equipment, Architects and Engineers— Representing Orange-Alamance
Bill Strom, Chapel Hill Town Council Member
Clark Thomas, Pierce and Whitman - Representing Orange-Alamance Water System
Robert Wilson, City Manager of Mebane
Chair Jacobs recognized Orange County Manager John Link and Carrboro Manager Bob Morgan.
2. PUBLIC WATER UTILITY PROVIDERS PRESENTATION/REPORT
A. Town of Hillsborough—Eric Peterson
For quite a few years now, we have been purchasing water from the City of Durham up until the
past year, and we have an interconnection with them and purchase water during times of drought and to
meet our peak demands. We just completed construction of a reservoir about a year ago. As of today, it is
about 65-70%full. We are hoping that will be enough to get us through the summer without having to
purchase any more water from Durham during peak situation. Even though we have just completed the first
of two phases of the reservoir, we are projecting, based on the current scenario of current customers and
obligatory customers that we have already signed water and sewer contracts with, that the capacity will
probably be eaten up in a period of three to five years, depending on what the growth scenario looks like.
Once you take the obligatory customers, we probably have room for another 600-700 residential units in
Hillsborough, or that type of an equivalent. Unfortunately, we spent a lot of money on the reservoir and we
could be reaching peak capacity. What this means is in that three to five-year period, it may be one day per
year, it may be a dozen days per year, but we need to purchase water from someone else because we
cannot meet our peak demands. So we will have the choice in a few years whether or not we want to
purchase water again from Durham or OWASA, or go ahead and proceed with the second phase of our
reservoir project and our water plant, which have to be done simultaneously. So we get a double whammy at
one time, we cannot do one without the other. Once that phase II expansion is completed, we can go ahead
and probably go another 10 years under an aggressive growth scenario, 15 years under a more modest
growth scenario. So even under modest and controlled growth conditions, we are going to be looking at a
need for a long-term water source in the 15-year range. We are still reeling from the cost of our first reservoir
and are going to try to delay these expansions as long as we can so we can build up some additional capital
facility fees to make it a little more manageable. As the Mayor mentioned, we are doing everything we can to
stabilize our water rates, as they have been going up considerably in recent years. That is what we are
bringing to the table, we have a Band-aid approach for the next 10-15 years. Thereafter, we are going to
need some help and we are willing to cooperate with our neighbors and hope that somebody in here may be
able to help us out in the long run.
Chair Jacobs: Can you give us a little detail about capacity in terms of numbers of gallons?
Eric Peterson: Sure. I have a handout that has some detailed information about capacity. We
currently have 3 mgd plants and under stage II water restrictions, that combined with the reservoir output, we
can yield just under three million gallons a day. With the reservoir coming on line, we were about reaching
plant capacity. As far as getting into the phase Il, that will add another 1.2 million gallons per day when that
takes place. The unfortunate thing about Flynt Fabrics leaving town a couple of years ago was we lost 20%
of our revenue overnight. The customers felt that immediately. Our use is down now to about 1.1 mgd and
peak days are at about 1.9 mgd. We do have a fair amount of development that has been approved outside
of Hillsborough that has yet to come online that we are capable of servicing. So we have a fair amount of
water that is available, it is just earmarked to different developments.
Chair Jacobs: And you have purchased water from Durham before and sold to Orange-
Alamance before, is that correct?
4
Eric Peterson: What was happening primarily was we were passing through. Durham was
selling to Orange-Alamance, and it was getting passed through our system. There have been some other
occasions where we have sold directly to Orange-Alamance.
Chair Jacobs: And you are still a customer of Durham?
Eric Peterson: Yes, we rely on the interconnection, fortunately, between OWASA and Durham,
for emergency provisions, and Durham basically kept Hillsborough afloat and we are very appreciative of the
support for many years. Once again, in just a few years, it may be that we will be discussing with Durham
what type of a timeframe we may need to buy from them on a continuing basis until we are prepared to
expand the reservoir and the water plant.
B. Orange Alamance Water System _Clark Thomas
My name is Clark Thomas, with Pierce and Whitman, here representing Orange Alamance today.
I'll try and address these questions one at a time. Orange Alamance is currently serving about 3,400
customers, and that is based on a certain percentage of commercial, industrial, but the majority of it is
residential. It is serving the flux of the people between Mebane and Hillsborough. Their system is kind of
strung out and it is serving quite a few people in quite a few different areas. Currently they have a water
treatment plant drawn out of Lake Orange. The water treatment plant has a capacity of 1.35 million gallons
per day and they have three wells. One well is about ready to come into operation right now. The total
capacity of the combined wells is around 305,000 gallons per day. The supply that they have varies, of
course, based on the river flow and the level. Their current safe yield is at 370,000 gallons a day out of the
river. The historical low, based on restrictions, went down to 700,000 gallons a day in 1997 and 1998. The
average demand is around one million gallons a day, with the peak at about 1.34 million gallons per day at
this time. Based on their current demand and their current supply, they are not meeting their demand. They
are having to purchase water, and they are purchasing water from Graham Mebane and also from
Hillsborough, and also Durham. Right now they do not have any long-term contracts with these providers.
They are buying on an as need basis and as an emergency basis. So maybe this summit will help open
some of the doors to extend these talks.
Since they are not meeting their current demands, they are going to need some help in the future
also. The provisions that they are probably going to explore in the future are to obtain more sustainable
water supply will be long-term contracts, maybe installing some more wells, or even the potential purchase of
raw water. Thank you for your time.
Chair Jacobs: Could you describe for people what Orange Alamance is and where its service
area encompasses.
Faye Metcalf: Orange Alamance is a non-profit membership organization. It was organized back
in 1965 by a group of residents that had a dream of providing water for the rural areas of Orange and
Alamance Counties. In June of 1969, that because a reality. They started pumping to the first customers,
which were about 350 customers, along the area of Highway 70. And now we have approximately 3,700
customers. But we serve the areas of Efland, parts of Mebane, Graham, Haw River, and Swepsonville. It is
a pretty spread out system, but it is all in the rural areas.
Chair Jacobs: So it is capitalized by its rates and you have to be a member once you start
getting water, is that right?
Faye Metcalf: That's correct.
Chair Jacobs: And so you are helping them with a long-term plan?
Clark Thomas: That's the intention, yes.
Faye Metcalf: Actually, they are doing a water resources planning study for us at the current
time.
Chair Jacobs: What's your timeframe for completing that?
Clark Thomas: Soon, hopefully within the next month.
Bill Strom: Could you talk about your administrative structure a little bit, or the members? Do the
members vote on the directors? I'm more familiar with public water and sewer providers, so it would be
helpful to understand.
Faye Metcalf: We have a board of directors and we have an annual meeting each year. The
membership is allowed to vote on the directors and also they are nominated from the floor, but they are voted
on by the membership. We have a board of directors which totals nine.
5
C. City of Durham —Ter Roland
Terry Roland did a PowerPoint presentation. The City of Durham relies on two lakes for our water
supply. We have Lake Mickey with a total capacity of about 2.8 billion gallons, Little River Lake 4.6 billion
gallons, and a total storage capacity of 7.4 million gallons. We have a safe yield from all of those lakes, I
might mention the slide here says one billion gallons when empty. We have some physical limitations that
would put us in a tough situation to have to achieve getting that last one billion gallons of water out of the
lake. That is not to say we couldn't do it if we had to. But we don't count on it in our safe yield calculations.
We have 37 million gallons a day, based on a 50-year safe yield, using the storage that we have readily
available to us. We also have a web page that we keep up to date. Ever since last summer we've started
doing this and you can go to our web page and see current lake levels and what our situation is at anytime.
The web page is www.ci.durham.nc.us.We set a record low level last year in both Lake Mickey and the Little
River. Everybody knows it has been a pretty dry period. Our low levels in Lake Mickey got to 318.2 on
December 26, 2001 and the previous record low level had occurred in 1998. The Little River got down to
326.6, on January 6, 2002. That also set a record low level for us. Our current situation is Lake Mickey has
come back up about 19.65 feet, but we are still 3.15 feet below full. We were full about a month ago at Lake
Mickey, but the dry weather has started to pull it back down again, or the demand combined with the dry
weather. And Little River Lake hasn't filled up yet this year, which is kind of unusual for us. We have never
in the history of Durham not been full by the first of April, so we are kind of plowing new ground this year. We
are not concerned about it yet, but if it continues,we'll start to look a little closer at that. But we are about six
feet down still in Little River, but we've come up 22 feet. So we are a lot better than we were.
This is a projection of our demand. We are expecting to meet our average daily demand. Our raw
water safe yield at 37 million gallons per day, we would expect to meet about 2010,just a little beyond 2010.
of course, with the State guidelines at 80% of that number, we would be bumping up against that 80%
number about 2005. Because of that, we have a pending application now with the State for allocation from
Jordan Lake. Our water treatment capacity is currently 52 million gallons a day, and we have an expansion
underway now to increase that to 61 million gallons per day, but that's not finished yet. Our peak demand
would hit that 52 million gallon per day, based on the projection of previous demand,just beyond 2005 and hit
the 61 at about 2015. And again, we have the same 80% rule for water supply and water treatment, so we
would need to be looking at further expansion probably before that time.
The questions included a question about projection of population, and this is from our planning
department. We are projecting all the way to 2050 a population in Durham of about 329,000 people. At
2020, about 276,000.
These are our projected demands. In 2020, the projected demand is right out of our Jordan Lake
application. This is dealing with raw water supply, so the average daily 2020 demand is about 45, exceeding
our current 37. The 2050 demand is about 54 million gallons a day.
This is just something I threw in here so you can kind of see what we have been up against the
last several years, and most of you know what you have been up against. These are the lake levels of Lake
Mickey and Little River and the record low levels that we reached in 2001-2002. And you can see we came
close to that except for Little River in 1998. And I will mention, one thing we did this year and back in the fall;
having had the two dry years pretty much in a row, we typically don't see three dry years in a row, and really
didn't anticipate this year being as dry as its been. So we needed to do some work on Little River Lake and
we pulled the lake down intentionally for some of that work, and you can see that flat line on the curve there
where we were doing that work and the lake level just held steady while we were doing that. But Lake
Mickey continued to fall and meet the needs of the city, and so it reached pretty low levels. But we were able
to meet all the needs of the city during that period of time, and we did get to stage two of our water
conservation ordinance, which is a voluntary conservation, but we didn't run out of water.
Some of our potential future water supply we have in planning is the 10 million gallons per day
from Jordan Lake. We have been looking at Teer Quarry as a possible storage facility that could yield us
three to five million gallons. All of the water didn't get allocated from Jordan Lake, so there is the potential we
might get additional allocations from Jordan Lake in the future. We have been acquiring land since about
1989 around Lake Mickey for the possible future expansion of Lake Mickey by either raising that dam or
building a new dam. That's probably our most expensive alternative. It's not easy to raise an existing dam.
The current dam is about 80 feet tall, and the new dam would be probably 120 feet tall, so it is not going to be
a cheap dam to build when we have to build it. There is the possibility of a reservoir on the upper flat as well
that could either combine with the expansion of Lake Mickey or substitute for the expansion of Lake Mickey.
We don't have any land acquired for that, and most of that would be in Person County, so there is an issue of
6
interlocal cooperation to get that lake to become a reality. As part of our Upper Neuse Basin Study recently,
we did realize that that upper flat lake could provide some water quality benefits for Lake Mickey, so there
might be some reasons for doing a lake above Lake Mickey just to provide water supply and water quality
benefits. And then we have a very, very long-range study we are doing with Raleigh, Cary and Granville
County, looking at Kerr Lake as a possible future water supply. If you can imagine what the inter-basin
transfer issues were with Jordan Lake and multiply that by a factor of about 10 or 100, I'm not sure which it
would be, that's not going to be a simple task to accomplish. Virginia Beach worked on it for about 20 years,
I think, before they finally accomplished theirs. It won't come without a lot of work.
One of our most pressing concerns is that I don't want to repeat last year. I hope we're not going
to repeat last year, but we're certainly not planning any more work on Little River Lake, so we're not going to
be pulling the lake down for anymore maintenance. Because they are not full yet, we are concerned about
the coming year. This is a shot I threw in for your benefit of what Little River looked like on January 9, 2002.
This is the very upper end of it near 501 bridge. It looks pretty bad at that point.
Our most pressing concerns really deal with the feasibility of the Teer Quarry and the permitting
and construction of that. We included that in our Jordan Lake allocation request, and that was considered by
the State. And I think they assumed we would be able to accomplish that. So that's part of the reason why
we didn't get but 10 million gallons when we requested 20. So it's pretty important to us to have the
combination of Teer Quarry and Jordan Lake. So we have a feasibility study underway on that, and we just
don't have any permits yet. So we still have to work on that part. Assuming we can get all the necessary
permits, we could develop that as a water supply. And then Jordan Lake allocation and how best to
accomplish that, we've had some discussions with Chatham County as a possible partner in developing
Jordan Lake. And we've had some discussions about partnering with OWASA and Chatham County on the
development of Jordan Lake. We could do some interim things, possibly, with Chatham and with Cary to
initially get some of the water from Jordan Lake through a pass through their system. So there are some
short-term things that we could do. Long term, we're probably talking about another water supply intake and
water treatment facility on Jordan Lake to meet our long-term needs there. And then, of course, the feasibility
of upper flat and Kerr Lake alternatives. Whether those are possible or not, we don't know.
So that's basically the water supply situation in Durham. I'd be glad to answer any questions that
anybody might have at this point. I forgot to mention we are interconnected with Hillsborough, OWASA,
Cary, and Orange Alamance through Hillsborough. And we have contracts with Orange Alamance,
Hillsborough, Cary, Morrisville, and Chatham County. We also have a direct connect with Chatham County.
We are working on a contract and interconnection with Raleigh. We don't have that yet, but we're talking
about it. We also have discussions underway with-Granville County on a possible interconnect with them.
So pretty soon we'll be interconnected with everybody on all sides.
Ed Harrison: He.asked about the slide before the lake level graphs. Is there a relationship in
terms of sums between the reuse column and the projected demands of conservation, and can you talk about
each of those, why the amounts are about where you think they are?
Terry Roland: Well, I can't vouch for the math. That's right out of our Jordan application. Well,
it's pretty obvious they don't add up, but I can't explain why they don't except for rounding possibly. That's
the only explanation I have there. That was one of the requirements that as we looked at our projected
needs, we did have to look at the potential for conservation and reuse, and we're assuming a six percent
reduction in the total demand due to conservation. You have to keep in mind, we've had a pretty strong
conservation program underway in Durham for quite a long time now, and so given the magnitude of these
numbers and the fact that the State has enacted low-flow toilets and shower heads and a lot of the other
things that were sort of the low hanging fruit in the past for conservation, we think that even six percent is
pretty optimistic in terms of what we might be able to achieve. But we hope to be able to achieve those
levels. The reuse is really a function of our ability to capitalize and build that system. The biggest problem
with the reuse system is building the distribution system that it takes to get that water to the customers.
Ed Harrison: Is it programmed yet?
Terry Roland: It is not programmed in our CIP right now. We've sort of been waiting on some
big industry to come along that needed the water and they would help us with the capital side of that. So we
haven't programmed that. Given the current budget situation, we are not likely to program it until things get
better.
Don Cox: Terry, your scenario of activating the Teer Quarry—what are your plans for filling that?
Terry Roland: Well, we have three potentials there. Because of its location, Teer Quarry is,
adjacent to our raw water line that comes from Lake Mickey and Little River. It's interconnected to both. So,
7
potentially we could take water, and it's also adjacent to our raw water intake, I forgot to mention that. We do
have emergency raw water intake on the Eno River that we can take up to five million gallons a day from the
Eno as long as the flow is above 30 CFS from March through June and 10 CFS the rest of the year. We're
not taking water from the Eno right now because of the low flow and the time of the year. But we have taken
some water from there this year. We have that potential. As a part of the permitting, we would probably get
a permit to withdraw greater volumes from the Eno during high flow periods. We could fill that reservoir from
Lake Mickey, Little River, or from the Eno. Our planning is looking at that potential from all three. Like this
year, Lake Mickey filled up and overflowed. Little River is still not full. So, in that case, we could have been
pumping some water from the Flat River into Teer Quarry even though there might not have been any flow in
the Eno River, because there was water still available in the Flat River. Normally, though we would expect to
fill that quart'during high flows, whether they be in the Flat, Little, or Eno Rivers; and then pump it down in
low flow periods.
Ed Kerwin: When do you invoke mandatory conservation? At what supply inventory do you start
requiring restrictions in irrigation and that type of thing?
Terry Roland: We don't have a magic level because it is very dependent on the time of year
when that occurs. We've never gone to mandatory conservation but one time in my 28 years with the city
and that was before Little River Lake was completed. We have gone to stage 11, or voluntary conservation,
several times in the past, but we've gone to mandatory only once. Mainly because, when we go to
mandatory, we start impacting people's lives pretty dramatically and their ability to make a living, so we don't
do that unless it's really pretty serious. But we have a model that the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill helped us prepare that we use to evaluate our water supply and what the probabilities are of sustaining
the current demand and we track that constantly. And we use that really as our tool to determine when we
need to go to higher levels of conservation. It depends on where we are in lake levels and what time of year.
The earlier in the year that we're at lower levels, then the sooner we would have to enact more stringent
conservation. The current levels that we're at right now, the model is predicting average daily demands,
we're still at 100% meeting our demand. Now, you have to understand, and sometimes people forget this
when they see the levels at Lake Mickey and Little River go down, the reason we have those lakes is to draw
them down for water supply. If we never drew them down, we wouldn't need them. It's normal for those
levels to go down and we really have to make that decision on a week to week basis. We did get approval
from the City Council this year, a change in our ordinance, which would allow the City Manager to make that
call so we could enact more stringent stages of conservation a little more quickly. And that's not just for a
drought situation, but some other emergency—either a disaster or whatever. We could get in a situation
where we would need to go to stringent levels of conservation up to and including the complete shut down of
some customers and we hope we never have to do that. We will do what we have to do to keep everybody
with water.
Chair Jacobs: We know that the Durham staff is working with the Orange County staff about
possible changes in the urban growth boundary. Could you just explain a little bit about—we know it comes
into Orange County—but what's involved and how do you structure water rates for customers who are
outside your boundaries?
Terry Roland: We only have two classes of customers, and that is inside and outside the city.
We also have our bulk customers. Inside and outside the city, if they are Durham City customers, the outside
customers pay double the inside rates. The urban growth boundary was started in about 1974 by the city as
a way to manage growth, and I think it's served the city well. The boundary has been amended several times
over those years as the city grew and grew out to the boundary that existed. It's always been established
sort of in terms of how those areas could best be served with water and sewer. That's been used to help
determine where the boundary was. But it was also a growth management tool so that we didn't have a lot of
leapfrog type of development. And so it's served the city well in that regard. Inside the urban growth
boundary, but outside the city, water lines can be extended, but there is no city participation in that. Inside
the city water line extensions, the city may participate in that if they choose to. It sort of depends on the
project and what the circumstances are. But outside the urban growth boundary, if a developer wants to
extend the water system within the urban growth boundary, then that extension is all at their cost. We do
allow extensions outside the urban growth boundary for public health reasons. Those have to be certified by
the County Health Department as a certifiable public health problem. We also allow extensions outside the
urban growth boundary to serve schools and industries, but that takes special action of the City Council to
allow for extension outside the urban growth boundary. And then, of course, we do allow extensions outside
the urban growth boundary for interconnections with other utilities basically allowing those customers to take
8
advantage of financing the capital facilities charges that we would charge a normal customer through their
rate. The rate that they would pay, with the exception of OWASA, who has an agreement that predates these
agreements that we have now. That's a multiplier, depending on whether it's a committed contract or an
uncommitted contract. It's 1.2 times the inside rate or 1.45 times the inside rate is what our current
agreements are calling for. I think the OWASA agreement calls for an average of the Durham and OWASA
rates.
D. City of Mebane—Darrell Rusell
I've heard some comments a little earlier about working relationships between governmental
entities. Well, it can happen. For those of you who do not know, the City of Mebane and the City of Graham
jointly own and operate Graham Mebane Lake and Water Treatment Plant. Mebane's interest in that is a 1/3
ownership, Graham's is 2/3. They have been married since 1974. 1 will say that that arrangement has been
very beneficial to the city over the years and the founding fathers. I think that's proved to be a very wise
decision because it has allowed Mebane and Graham to both have adequate water supply for the past 25
years. And it looks like hopefully for another 20 years as well. The Mebane water supply is located on Back
Creek Watershed. That is in Orange County and Alamance County. It is a WS2 rated watershed. The
Graham Mebane Lake has a 20-year safe yield of 12 million gallons per day. So Mebane's ownership of that
would be four million gallons per day. The Graham Mebane Water Treatment Plant is currently a 6 mgd
plant, but it is undergoing an expansion and upgrade currently to double the capacity. Completion is
anticipated hopefully within eight months. So with that time, Mebane's capacity then would be four million
gallons per day in the water plant as well as four million gallons per day in the reservoir itself. Mebane's
current water demand on an average basis is probably 1.2 mgd. We have had some peak days of 2.5 mgd.
The projected water requirements for the year 2015 is 3.96 maximum day. So, as you can see, the projected
maximum day demand pretty much equals what their capacity will be. Mebane does have two interlocal
agreements —obviously with the City of Graham and they also have an agreement with Orange Alamance
Water System to sell and buy water on an emergency basis.
Mebane is projecting a 2015 population of around 11,800. Their 2000 population is 7,914. They
do anticipate continued growth in that corridor along 1-85/1-40. We've talked about challenges today. I think
all of us are seeing the challenges of being able to provide adequate water at reasonable rates. This last
project that Mebane undertook, they borrowed $5,400,000 and they had to increase the rates by 50%.
Maybe that's pretty low, I haven't heard what Hillsborough is going to. Based on their projected usage, it
does appear that Mebane is in pretty good shape for another 15 or 20 years. But certainly, you always have
to start thinking for the next round. So I would say that is a challenge for Mebane to start looking at. I'll try to
answer any questions.
Chair Jacobs: Could you talk a little bit about the annexation study that you are doing?
Darrell Russell: Yes, we are currently looking at a number of areas around Mebane in terms of
what may qualify for annexation and that study is nearing completion. I anticipate it being in the city's hands
next month sometime.
Chair Jacobs: So does Mebane envision that as the basis for a growth boundary?
Darrell Russell: That has not been determined.
Robert Wilson: I don't think so. What we've had in the last year and year and a half are some
areas that have requested water and sewer services, which we have discussed with you and Orange
Alamance also. And in these areas, we wanted to look to see if they would qualify for annexations to service
water and sewer. Our policy is something like Durham's, we do not extend water and sewer services at the
City of Mebane's cost—inside or outside. Water is extended at the cost of the requester, whether it is a
subdivision or a resident needing water. So the study we're doing now is a study of areas that we have been
requested to look at by Council to see if water and sewer service could be extended and at what cost and is it
feasible by cost to get it to those areas. I've had a conversation with engineers who have indicated to me that
some of the areas will not qualify for annexation under the general statutes. It is not what the City of Mebane
would like to do or the residents in some of these areas would like to do, but as you know, as you grow in
population, annexation gets a little more restricted. So some of these areas won't qualify for the annexation
anyway, but if they were to be annexed in those areas and water and sewer to be extended, or water as
we're talking here, it would be at the cost of someone to get it there— property owners, cost assessments, tap
fees, and things of this nature. The cost for an individual, if it were to be annexed, the cost for an individual to
get water and sewer in Mebane based on assessment costs and tap fees is somewhere around $7,000
based on a 100-foot lot. That doesn't include getting from the meter to the house. That's an extra $1,200-
9
1,400. Once the annexation study is done, the City Council will look at that and have public hearings and
determine, by cost I do believe, whether it is feasible to put the water and sewer in those areas. As we all
know, water and sewer costs when you annex an area 100%. 1 think it is probably about half and half if you
really come down to dollar per dollar. So there is a financial cost in running water and sewer in areas. So, as
far as doing our study, it is not a study for boundaries for growth. Our agreement that we have with Orange
Alamance Water System indicated we do a 20-year plan growth area several years ago with the City of
Graham. And in those areas, if water is needed, we would subsidize water based on growth areas. So that's
our agreement with Orange Alamance Water System. Orange Alamance Water System has helped us in the
past and given us water. We do work well with those folks, and hopefully anybody; and I think everybody in
this room would say, If we can service someone that needs water, we will try to do so to the best of our
ability." But it really comes down to dollar figures. The way the economy is, our reimbursements this year
from the State are going to be zero, next year is going to be zero,-so we need to look at other means of
raising monies.
E. OWASA— Ed Kerwin
This year is our 25th anniversary of operation. The utilities were separate systems owned by the
two towns and the University. The University and towns got out of the utility business 25 years ago when
OWASA was formed. We are governed by a nine-member appointed board of directors from Chapel Hill,
Carrboro, and Orange County. The OWASA board has the last say with respect to policy, rates, borrowing
money. Some of the slides you are going to see will show the high points of a 50-year comprehensive
master plan that was just completed. It didn't take us 50 years to get it completed, it took us three years. But
we've looked at 50 years into the future and started to project how much water and sewer will be expected of
us and what facility improvements we'll need to put in place to meet that. The real key assumptions in our
master plan is our service area boundaries will not change, that we're not going to be a wholesale provider of
water or sewer service, and that the growth trends we've seen in the past 20-25 years would continue in the
future. Here is our service area in red, essentially the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Our water supply
comes from three sources - Cane Creek Reservoir, University Lake Watershed, and a stone quarry, currently
being mined. Thirty years from now the mining will stop and during those times when University Lake and
Cane Creek are full and overflowing, some of that water will be diverted to the stone quarry reservoir for
storage and become part of the overall supply system.
The County and OWASA have been very proactive in protecting the watershed. In the current
system of University Lake, Cane Creek, and the small existing quarry reservoir, we've had a 30-year safe
yield of about 15 million gallons a day, and that should be adequate for the next 20-25 years. But we do have
a long-term interest in retaining our Jordan Lake allocation, and I'll talk a little bit more about that in a few
minutes. He distributed copies of the PowerPoint presentation. The green dots represent the raw water or
pumped, and you can see over time that we've been a very predictable utility or service area as far as growth
—2-3% growth of water for the last 25 years, if we went back to day one for OWASA. And then these lines
represent how we expect to grow. The center line is what's expected, and then we have a low growth/high
growth scenario. The lakes have a safe yield of 15mgd, but we have to improve the size of the pumps and
the pipes to get it all there when we make those improvements over the next five or six years. Here we are
with a safe yield of about 15 million gallons a day, and if you go over here and find a green line, how we
expect it to grow, that takes us to the year 2030. However, if we grow higher than what's expected or, when
the key assumptions change and now we're providing water to another entity or something like that, then this
all changes, of course. And this is the basis on which we believe we have justified hanging on to some of our
Jordan Lake allocations. Currently our allocation is 10 million gallons a day. We have asked it to be reduced
to five, and we've justified that based on this uncertainty in the future within the next 20-30 years of perhaps
having a deficit. We have talked to Durham and Chatham about collaboration in Jordan Lake. A likely
scenario for us to consider in the future is buying finished water from Durham, if we are in the situation makes
much more sense for us rather than building our own conveyance system from Jordan Lake. And then in the
future, you see this safe yield jumping up to about 20 million gallons a day, a little over 20 million gallons a
day, and that's when we think the quarry reservoir will be online. And so, if all goes well, we should have
enough supply in Orange County, given those assumptions, to meet our needs for the next 50 years with
some uncertainty here.
The dark blue line is our annual average daily demand. The other lighter colored line is the peak
day demand. And you can-see that the peak day demands have been increasing, and this is just depending
on the weather. If you look back here, this is 1999, and you can see we had a peak day of over 15 million
10
gallons a day where the annual average was a little over 8 million gallons a day, almost twice the annual
average. So this is something that is of particular interest to us because of course the water plant has to be
sized to meet that peak day demand. The water treatment plant has a current capacity of 15 million gallons a
day. Within one week, it will be 20 million gallons a day with the completion of two new filters and other
improvements that are planned. So, by the end of the month, our capacity will be up to 20 million gallons a
day. And you can see that's none too soon because the projected peak day demand, we are at that capacity
now. So with that improvement, the capacity of the water plant,again with the assumptions that we're
serving only within our service area, should be good for another 15 years.
A couple of words about conservation and demand management. We have implemented a new
rate structure. We went from a uniform rate, every thousand gallons they're charged with the same, to a rate
where from May through September each year, the commodity charge for water has increased a lot. And
then from October through the following April, the commodity charge goes down a lot. Seventy percent of our
residential customers under this rate structure, adding up 12 months of bills, will be little change. But for the
smaller percentage of the customers that use a lot more water in the summer than they do in the winter, they
are going to see a higher bill. And that's sending a price signal to those customers to conserve, hopefully.
The Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill have implemented and OWASA has sent to Orange County for their
approval a new Conservation Demand Management Ordinance. A law that doesn't have the authority to
require conservation, you have to get that authority through the towns. And we have approved now, in
March, for the two towns, a new ordinance. There are three triggers in the ordinance. If the total system's
supply gets to 125 days, we go to mandatory conservation. If the supply system gets down to 75 days of
storage, we go to a single day a week irrigation. And then below that, we're in a real emergency, and it would
be essential use only. We are going to pick up the pace with respect to our public information education
program to encourage and promote conservation.
On the water distribution side, the keys here are renewing and replacing the basic infrastructure.
And the last part about what's our biggest challenge, there are many, but keeping up with the capital
improvements that are needed is just going to be key. One of the things that we're doing now is, with a
consultant, we're developing a model looking at our water pipes. There are a lot of things that can affect how
long a water pipe will last in your system—how old is it, the soils, what is it made of, etc. We're developing a
model that will help guide and predict our replacement program for water lines in the future. And I think this is
good information that we look forward to sharing with our utility neighbors.
On the wastewater side of our business, the real key there is making sure the inflow infiltration
doesn't overwhelm the sewer system. If it hasn't rained for a year and a half, this hasn't been much of an
issue for any of the utilities, but when we do get the rain, then we're reminded of the importance of doing that.
Like most utilities, we're doing special studies, we're looking at the system and making sure we're repairing
what needs to be repaired. Easement maintenance of course is key to that as is an effective program to
keep grease out of the system. Thirty to 50% of sewer overflows are caused by grease, and this is a matter
of growing concern. The solid red line is the capacity of our Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant. It is
currently here at 12 million gallons a day. We are in a pre-design study right now for the next round of
improvements at the plan that will take it up to 14.5 million gallons a day. The real high blue dots here are
peak month flows at the wastewater plant, back in the days where we got a lot of rain—Hurricane Fran,
Dennis, Floyd, all those tropical storms. Last year's peak month flow was quite low. Here are our projections
in the future, and you can see we're needing to improve the capacity of the plant soon and that's why we're
under design. That next round of improvements should last us to 2013-2014. For our biosolids, we have a
very successful land application program. We have gone through a new process at the wastewater plant that
produces class A quality product. Reclaimed water is something that is not happening now in the OWASA
service area, but we are looking at our next door neighbor, the golf course, possibly using them for irrigation
there.
Current drought, Terry talked about the lake levels and it is exactly the story you're going to hear
from us. Right now we have a 220-day supply remaining. And certainly that's adequate, that's good. But
Cane Creek, our largest reservoir, is 6.5 feet down. In the 12 years of existence, this time of year, the
second lowest it's ever been is only a foot down. That's scary stuff. This is something of increasing concern
and we certainly appreciate the fact that we have a new conservation ordinance in place and we feel that our
timing on the seasonal rates has been good. If everybody washes their car tonight, maybe it will rain
tomorrow.
Emergency response, we do have emergency interconnections with Durham, Hillsborough,
Chatham County, and I just can't stress the importance of having these. And certainly we've been very
, 11
fortunate to have good neighbors that have helped us more than we've been able to help them in the past.
What we're doing now is part of mutual aid and sharing resources and information and that type of thing.
Barry mentioned the Shearon Harris facility. Another good example of what seems to be a lack of
information. And together, the more we can learn in knowing how to respond that's certainly going to be key.
Challenges and uncertainties, aggressive capital improvements. The leaders in the water and
sewer industry across the country say an aging infrastructure is the number one concern. A lot of our CIP is
in place to address just that. These aren't big numbers for Durham, I don't think, but for our utility these are
big numbers. In the next five years, we're expecting to spend $94 million, and over the next 15 years, $260
million. And a lot of that is replacing and renewing aging water and sewer pipes for our system. At the
wastewater treatment plant, we may have to remove nitrogen from the effluent infuser, so that's something
that is part of a special study right now and we're paying very close attention to. And then there are so many
things to monitor such as water consumption, the growth in the area, the assumptions we made in the master
plan and projections and keeping that up to date. With that, I'll stop and answer whatever questions you may
have.
Chair Jacobs: Could you talk a little about how your seasonal rates work and also about how you
came up with the methodology for charging based on square footage that didn't cost you revenue?
Ed Kerwin: The seasonal rate, we hired a consultant, and we're happy to share that report with
anyone. We looked at a number of different conservation rate structures, and what the OWASA board
selected was the seasonal rate. We are projecting that there will be three percent reduction in demand
because of this rate structure. On May 1St, our commodity charge went from $2.90 for a thousand gallons to
$4.08. It went up a lot and it's going to stay there through September. Then the commodity charge is going
down to $2.16, much lower than it had been at the uniform rate. And again, based on our study and looking
at assumption patterns, about 70% of our residential customers, when they add up 12 months of bills, the
annual bill will be the same and maybe even a little less. But for those customers that use a lot more in the
summer for irrigation or other purposes, they are going to be paying higher rates. The bill will look higher
from May through September and they'll be higher over the year because they won't make up those savings
in the off-peak because they consumed most water during the peak. So that's the principle of that seasonal
rate.
Question: Ed, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but the University uses a lot of water for
evaporative cooling, does this rate apply to them as well?
Ed Kerwin: We have the same rate for all of our customers, including and especially the
University. The University has 250 different accounts with us. And like dorms, they're going to be getting a
break because a lot of their water is used when it's cheaper. But the other customers such as cooling or
irrigation, those bills are going to be higher. When the University looked at it as a whole, they concluded that
it was fair and reasonable and necessary that OWASA do this. In fact, a representative of the University
spoke at the public hearing last year in support of making this change, even knowing that some of their
accounts are really going to see it and other accounts where there is actually some benefit. And for those
accounts that see that impact, they'll have added incentive hopefully to find ways to further reduce or reuse or
recycle or seek other methods.
Bill Strom: One of the early slides you put up, you showed your service area boundary. Given
that Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange County have an agreement in place that restricts annexations, my
impression is that this is a pretty firm service boundary for you that OWASA can't really anticipate that that
service boundary is going to change. Can you talk about if that is an opportunity or a challenge and how
that's affected all the long-range planning that you've done and just sort of share the experience of that reality
with everybody here.
Ed Kerwin: Well, with this red line setting and establishing our service area, it really removed a
lot of uncertainty from our plan because we didn't have to wonder how big of an area we might serve in the
future. It was clearly defined. And over the next 50 years, the projections are that there will essentially be a
doubling of the number of customers in our service area. I think the towns' and the County's plan went out 25
years. We try to stretch it out twice that long, making certain assumptions—working with the planning staff,
and the towns, and the County—because new water resources just don't happen overnight. They can take
20 years sometimes to put in place. But for the utility, it really simplified and removed a lot of uncertainty
about how big of an area we will have to meet in the future. And the towns and the County pretty strongly
agree with that defined area and with the new water and sewer boundary agreement that Barry mentioned, it
also talked about if there are failing systems or other health issues in the area surrounding the service area,
there is a collaborative process to go through of how to address that need.
12
Bill Strom: Has there been any unanticipated consequences on the financial side? Has that
affected your ability to borrow money or bonding, anything like that?
Ed Kerwin: Not at all. In fact, last fall we closed on a $35 million revenue bond and we enjoyed a
very favorable AA+ rating.
Barry had also asked about one of our fees. Our connection fee, something akin to a capacity
charge or connecting charge, for a single-family home our fee is based on square footage. And for a smaller
home, that can be quite large. What we did is we looked at homes built a certain year and then we looked at,
"OK, they've been customers of ours now for two or three years. Is there a relationship between how much
water people use and the size of the home?" And what we found is there is a fairly strong predictable
relationship that smaller homes use less water than larger homes. So we designed a connection fee, or an
availability fee where smaller homes pay less than larger homes. Now, fees aren't cheap, they are based on
what it actually costs us. For instance, a home that is 1,300 square feet or less, the water connection fee is
$700. If the home has 3,800 square feet, it takes $4,300 for that same connection. That's quite a spread.
Chair Jacobs: And it's revenue neutral for you.
Ed Kerwin: It is, it's based on cost of service. It wasn't subsidizing for a certain class of
customers. It's worked out well, and again, we're happy to share what we did with anyone if that's of interest.
Chair Jacobs: And just let me add that I particularly asked that question because we read about
the concerns about trying to provide service to those who are least able to pay, this is a defensible way to
help them hook on to the systems. And so we wanted to make sure that OWASA shared that information.
Thank you.
Robert Wilson: Barry, they didn't consider in any assessments other than just the cost of that
water line. You don't have a right for assessments do you?
Ed Kerwin: No, our board can assess. What I think I heard your policy is that the benefiting party
pays the full cost. For instance, if there's an unsewered neighborhood that wants public sewer, we can
assess them and make that improvement. Although the two towns do contribute, I think Chapel Hill, for
instance, will contribute up to $4,500 in an assessment project to help defer the cost to encourage people to
get off septic tanks and hook to the public system. The OWASA board is empowered to do the assessment.
In fact, our most recent one was putting in five hydrants in the ??wood subdivision on 54 west. That's a very
small project, and those folks have been assessed, and their savings in their homeowners insurance for
having fire hydrants will pay the $25 assessment back in one year.
Terry Roland: Do you have a fixed fee, availability fee or something that is right off the top before
you charge for per gallon of water?
Ed Kerwin: Yes, we have a monthly service fee and then the commodity charge. The monthly
service fee for sewer and a commodity charge. There wasn't any change in the sewer side, nor was there a
cap placed on sewer. It's just the commodity charge for water.
Terry Roland: Is that fee variable depending on the size of the meter?
Ed Kerwin: Yes.
Chair Jacobs: Since we are running a little ahead of schedule, I thought we might ask Chatham
County to take the opportunity to share its concerns and I'll recognize Commissioner Pollard. I know she has
some staff members here.
F. Chatham County—Commissioner Margaret Pollard
Yes I do, and I'm sure Ron Singleton our Public Works Director will carry forth for us. But there
are a couple of things, and I'm sure Commissioner Bob Atwater will have comments as well. I would like to
mention just a couple of things that are policy issues that concern the board and I think we've made some
progress toward and that is that right now we are in the middle of refining our land conservation and
development plan, and there is a plan to tie our water policy and our land use policy in some reasonable way.
The other thing, I think we really have paid close attention and will be paying even closer attention to the
protection of the watershed. That's been on our agenda for a number of years, and there was discussion last
year that this year we would have an Erosion Control Officer, because I think that really does determine to a
large extent, erosion control determines to a large extent the water quality. But since the budget situation is
such, I'm not sure that we'll be able to carry forth with this goal this year or not, but that's certainly in our
plans. But I think one of the most important things that Chatham County has done to bring ourselves inline
with meeting our water supply needs was the hiring of Ron Singleton who really has provided staff leadership
13
to our water board as well as the Commissioners in helping us to think through some of the issues of water
supply and distribution that I think that's got us to the point where we are now.
Commissioner Bob Atwater: I really can't improve on that much at all, other than to say that I
think we have an increasing awareness of protecting the watershed. In the first instance, it's the right thing to
do. But a number of other opportunities are presented in terms of some of these formula based approval
processes at the State level for water allocations that we're rewarded in that area by protecting the watershed
and it's always nice to be a good neighbor as well.
Commissioner Pollard: Ron, you might want to mention our water conservation policy as it
relates to pricing our water. I know we've done some thinking along those lines.
Ron Singleton, Chatham County Public Works Director: I'm not sure what Hillsborough's per
unit charge is, but the last time I looked, I think ours was the highest normal charge in the area. That stems
from the fact that, Orange Alamance was talking about how their system is strung out, we've got water
systems strung out all the way from Governor's Club in the northeast to the Bennett in the southwest. I have
about eight people that manage the whole system, and if people are working up in Governor's Club and we
have a line break in Bennett, it takes them about 45 minutes just to get down there. We have a 3 mgd
surface water plant drawing out of Lake Jordan. We share the Cary/Apex intake right now. We've had
problems in the past with being able to get as much water out of the Cary/Apex arrangement as we needed
to supply our plant. But we have an agreement in place now that allows us to, in the short term, for the next
five years, to draw up to our full 3 mgd capacity. And the agreement also spells out that we're to build our
own raw water pumping station that will use the Cary/Apex intake lines themselves, and that will give us
capacity immediately up to 10 million gallons a day with the option of expanding those facilities even further
than that. The Cary/Apex intake is sized pumping wise for 50 million gallons a day, but the intake lines that
actually go out into the lake are capable of handling about 88 million gallons a day. So we're going to take
advantage of that excess capacity and build our own raw water pump station and line to our plant. Our plant
was designed for relatively easy expansion to 6 million gallons a day, and right now our maximum day that
we've hit is around 1.4 million gallons a day, so we have a little bit of wiggle room, but we're already doing
some pre-planning and have some numbers in our capital improvement budget for expansion, with the first
expansion to the plan probably in the next five to seven years.
The majority of our customers that we serve are in the north Chatham system served off the water
treatment plant, but we also have two other separate systems in the County—one that's based in the
Moncure area where we buy bulk water from the City of Sanford. We also have water out in the southwest
part of the County where we buy bulk water from Goldston Gulf Sanitary District and also from Siler City. And
those of you on top of what's going on in the region realize that Siler City is having their own problems with
water supply, so one of our concerns right now is being able to get Jordan water into the other parts of the
County. Our top priority project on our capital improvement list is what we call our p-ridge connector line,
which would bring Jordan Lake water south through the Moncure community and hook up with that system,
and then head west with it and hook up to the southwest system, which would enable us to pump Jordan
Lake water throughout our system. It would also take some pressure off of Siler City until, they're under a
program now to expand their surface water reservoir, but it hasn't been approved yet, and even when it's
approved it's probably three or four years out being constructed. So we're looking at doing something to help
out in that regard. Like I said, our standard water rate for residential customers is $4.86 per thousand
gallons. That's a pretty significant rate from what I've seen. Pat Davis shared with us some preliminary
numbers on a study he's doing. As far as in-town rates go, I think that was the highest rate in the area.
When you compare with out of town rates, we're still up there in the top 20%. We also have an availability
fee that's based on meter size. Ed's basing theirs on building size, but we base ours on meter size with the
assumption that when the meter size goes up, the requirement to supply goes up. For our standard 5/8 %
inch connection, that's $1,750.
Ed Kerwin: Ours goes up based on meter size too. Our tiered approach is the single-family
home type service. Beyond that, it's like you, it's based on the size of the meter what the connection fee is.
Question: Ron, is your bulk rate for raw water or finished water? You said you were buying bulk
water from two sources.
Ron Singleton: Oh, we buy finished water from Sanford, Goldston Gulf, and Siler City. And we
buy bulk raw water from Cary/Apex. We pay a small charge to Cary/Apex for using their facility. And we are
interconnected with Durham and we have a water contract with them. We also have an interconnection in
place with OWASA on 15-501 with meters in place. John, I have the contract for that on my desk. When we
get our facilities in place to where we can pump water to other parts of the County, we will in effect be
14
connecting Siler City and Sanford to the group that's in this room. If you think about it, there's the possibility
of pumping water from Sanford or Siler City all the way to Zebulon and Wake County if you activate all the
agreements in between. We're all in this together, we're all getting interconnected and dependent on one
another. We're very interested in watershed protection and what's going on upstream, especially with the
efforts in OWASA and Durham, because the portions of those areas drain into the New Hope arm of the lake,
and that's where we draw our water from and that's where the major problems have been with algae growth
and taste and odor problems on a seasonal basis. I think I saw the figures at some point that 70-80% of the
storage of the lake is in the New Hope arm, but 70-80% of the flow comes down the Haw River arm, so that
leads to some slow water into upper reaches of the lake. And Cary/Apex just spent$60 million on a new
ozone treatment system to alleviate their problems, but Chatham County can't afford even a portion of that.
We're hoping that, through controls, being able to keep from having to spend a whole lot of money for
seasonal taste and odor problems.
Chair Jacobs: Ron, could you just update us a little bit on the conversations between OWASA,
Durham, and Chatham about the possibility of an additional intake?
Ron Singleton: We've had some discussions in the past, we haven't met recently about it, but
about a western intake'on the west side of the lake. When Cary/Apex was given the intake on the east side
of the lake, the State said at that point that they would only permit two intakes on the lake, one on the east
side and one on the west side. We've been in discussion with OWASA and the City of Durham about long-
term construction of a western intake and treatment plant.
Mr. Speaker: Before we can do much with that, we've got to get an allocation, at least from
Durham's perspective. But we're hopeful. We are recommended for 10, and that's what I included in my
presentation, but it's not a done deal yet.
Chair Jacobs: Thank you. And I should mention that Orange County has had and hopefully will
have a one million-gallon allocation from Jordan Lake. One of the justifications that we gave was the need
for and lack of adequate water supply in central Orange County. And we specifically mentioned Orange
Alamance and Hillsborough. So the interconnectedness, at least in our long-range planning, plays a role in
how we might access that water.
Question: Did I understand you to say Orange Alamance would participate in that?
Chair Jacobs: Well, we just identified the need. We didn't say that it was going to happen, but
we identified the need and the utility providers that were having difficulty meeting their water needs. And I
also took the liberty, since we're still running a little bit ahead of schedule, Reverend Umstead is here along
with the other People for Progress. And I asked him to just take a few minutes to show us on the map where
the neighborhood is that we're talking about. I used to serve on the OWASA board also, and so from time to
time, all water providers have a neighborhood come to you that needs service that wasn't really planned to
get service, or maybe wasn't planned to get service when they think they need the service. So it turns out
that this particular community doesn't fit in anybody's service area right now. Rev. Umstead, if you want to
just share with us a little bit the nature of the problem and the size of the community and just maybe show us
on a map, not everybody knows Orange County.
Rev. Umstead made a presentation and showed where they live and asked that they be
considered for water and sewer. (NOTE: He did not speak into a microphone so not all that Rev. Umstead
was recorded. ) In summary he said that they are not begging, but we're trying to make you aware of the
plight of our community. Our community sits right between 40 and 85 and 70 and Southern Railroad. One of
the areas where industry and commercial business would love to get their hands on. Orange County
supplies water up to a certain point and Mebane supplies water up to a certain point. Buckhorn Road seems
to be the barrier between the two. All we're asking is that you consider us and our community. We're not
asking for nothing, except what we need.
Chair Jacobs: Thank you Rev. Umstead. And for those of you who drive along 1-85, especially
on Sunday, you'll know the exit, the Buckhorn exit, because the traffic backs up on both exit ramps coming
and going. There's a huge flea market right at that intersection. In case you didn't know where Buckhorn
Road is, you do now.
Omega Wilson, president of the People for Progress spoke. He said that they received a small
grant to study the failure of septic tanks and are looking at three primary communities in the Mebane ETJ.
This study is being done to-take a look and address the problem with facts and figures because we have had
difficulty in getting this issue on the table with the City of Mebane. We know there is a major issue here and
15
we also know that this issue has not been officially addressed. We hope Alamance County and Orange
County will take a lead role to address these issues.
Chair Jacobs: Thank you, and we have had a similar conversation with Alamance County
Commissioners as we've had with all the other entities here and we hope to be working with them on that
issue along with the issue of our disputed boundary with Alamance County in the near future.
At this time, I'll ask Don Cox, who introduced himself and his dual roles in Orange County, to give
us a presentation on the groundwater perspective, and then we'll take our break. When we come back, Pat
Davis from Triangle J will give us a regional overview, and then Dr. Moreau will moderate our discussion.
3. ORANGE COUNTY GROUNDWATER PERSPECTIVE— Don Cox
With about 40% of our population depending on groundwater, the County Commissioners recognized
that our comprehensive land use plan should address the protection of groundwater. In the fall of 1991, the
County Engineer, Paul Thames, called me to ask me to participate and chair a new water resources
committee. At the moment I was on the phone with him, I was watching a well-drilling rig renovating an
improperly constructed well at my house. So I bought into this groundwater resources program pretty heavily
then. We submitted the committee's final report last year. The considerations of the recommendations of our
report for inclusion in the County land use plan are just now beginning. This study was a cooperative effort
with the U. S. Geological Survey. They cost shared 50% with us and there were three main topics—the
threats to groundwater, quantity of groundwater, and the quality of our groundwater resources. To determine
the present and future threats to groundwater, the majority of the existing wells in the County were located by
GPS systems, and all new wells that are being constructed are being located at that time, and we're updating
our database and records whenever that happens. That will let us know where the wells are in the County.
And all identified underground storage tanks, landfills, and any other identifiable threat locations are also in
that database and will be kept up to date. So if there is a spill of some kind, we'll know which location, we'll
know how many wells and what their proximity are to it, and hopefully that database will serve us well in the
future. We also emphasize and do continue to emphasize the importance of following the State guidelines
and sealing, or filling, abandoned or unused wells to avoid their becoming a conduit for groundwater
contamination. This needs to be an ongoing effort and some landowners may need financial assistance to
comply.
With regard to the quantity of groundwater, a study done by using stream gauge measurements to
determine stream base flows of groundwater to surface streams, soils maps, geologic structures, typography,
and land use, or estimates of groundwater yields and the recharge area requirements were made for all sub-
basins in the County. From this, the average groundwater yields and recharge areas needed can be
estimated. The groundwater quality study sampled numerous wells across the County. These wells were
located in all major hydro-geologic formations in every river basin. They were sampled for a wide range of
naturally occurring minerals, manmade chemicals, petroleum residues, and radon gas. As expected, a lot of
the wells showed high iron and manganese and radon in the known granite structures. We found very little
fertilizer, pesticides, and petro-chemical residues in the sample. So at this point in time, as of two or three
years ago, all of the sampling showed excellent water quality. But folks who have higher iron know they have
to deal with that.
A question: Why should the public water service suppliers be concerned about groundwater issues?
Sustainable groundwater resources maintain the base flows to surface streams, which support reservoir
levels and maintain stream water quality and ecology. Perhaps the biggest reason is to avoid the emergency
need to extend public water supplies to areas which have become non-sustaining in groundwater availability
or quality. What can you do to help Orange County and its groundwater sustainability efforts? Your support
for informing the public about the importance of lot sizes and restrictions which preserve the groundwater
resource. These may need to include well head protection, impervious surface limits, undisturbed recharge
area preservation, well replacement locations, septic system drain fields, and reserve drain field areas.
Those are some of the issues. It's not going to be a popular thing to discuss about raising minimum
lot sizes in certain sub-basins in the County. But when you consider the cost of a little bit of additional land
versus 10 or 15 years down the road of having no water at your house, that's an interesting tradeoff.
Chair Jacobs: One of Orange Alamance's practices is to dig large wells. Do we have any
understanding of the relationship between a utility digging a large well and the effect on neighboring smaller
wells that provide service for individual lots? _
16
Don Cox: I'm not technically able to answer that. Obviously wells close by would be impacted with
large draw downs. I understand that one of their high yielding wells is right on the banks of McGowan Creek
where their water treatment plant is. So that may be pulling surface water into it. Perhaps Dr. Moreau could
address that later in his comments.
4. DINNER
At this time, there was a break for dinner.
5. REGIONAL WATER RESOURCE OVERVIEW_Pat Davis=Triangle J Council of Governments
Pat Davis said that Region J is a seven county region that includes Orange, Durham, Chatham, Lee,
Johnston, Wake, and Moore Counties. According to the 2000 census, the population was just under 1.2
million people. Orange County's population was just under 120,000 or 10% of the region's population.
Based on a number of studies that have been done on the local, regional, and State level, the growth and
development decisions that have been made have had some impact on our water resource conditions, both
quality and quantity. And, of course we've had low flow conditions. This map shows in red and pink, before
Moore County joined TJCOG, water bodies that the State considers impaired. In other words, not meeting
any uses. So within the region there are about 90 stream miles that cannot support their designated uses.
And 202 miles are rated as only partially supporting their intended uses, meaning there are some signs of
decline and we need to look at how we might restore these waters to support the designated uses. The
result of our independent and collective decisions in the region have led to those ratings, and as a result
we've seen the State and others take action with respect to determining that steps are needed to protect or
restore water quality. An example is the Neuse River Basin and Water Quality Rules that were put in place
by the State Environmental Management Commission back in 1996. That was done in response to the fish
kills and declining water quality conditions. So the State imposed land use restrictions, point source
discharge controls, education outreach requirements on local jurisdictions and the agricultural community in
order to try and restore conditions. And in the Cape Fear Basin an emerging issue is Jordan Lake nutrient
loading. The southern half of Orange County is in the Jordan Lake watershed. The Jordan Lake watershed
has shown signs of elevated nutrients. And there is concern by the State and some others that if those
conditions continue to worsen then recreational use, aquatic habitat, and drinking water supply uses will be
impaired. Other issues include inter basin transfers. We see it on a small scale within Orange County.
Durham has had an inter basin transfer from the Neuse Basin and from the Cape Fear basin. And you've
probably heard recently about the issue of inter basin transfers for the Cary/Apex folks as they want to get
water out of Jordan. And certainly in recent events, the whole issue of emergency response and
preparedness is certainly at the forefront.
Region J's population is projected to grow by about 38% by year 2020. Orange County's population
is projected.to grow by a similar percent to around 167,000 by the year 2020. So as that additional growth
and development occurs, there could be corresponding increases in threats to our water resources, quality or
quantity. How do those declining conditions affect you at the local government level? Well, first of all, your
local land use plans or planning strategies all have goals and objectives relating to resource protection,
sustainable wide use of our water resources, protection in the natural environment, etc. If we see impairment
within the region, that means we're not accomplishing those goals and objectives with respect to water
resources. We also may base State mandated regulatory actions such as total maximum daily load and
what's gone on in the Neuse Basin.
All of this certainly is going to affect the cost of doing business, whether it be utility service provision,
point source wastewater treatment methods, the cost incurred with reviewing and approving new
development activities, and increased costs of resource maintenance and upkeep of maintaining best
management practices that you are required to do as a result of the restoration and protection measures. We
do an analysis, a survey of water and sewer utility rates and fees within the region and we get 100%
response rate. We're compiling these results. What this graph shows, it's a benchmark on showing the
monthly combined water and sewer charges for a typical single-family residential customer using 6,000
gallons per month of water. Rates and fees are under increasing pressures for a number of reasons. So we
need to think, "How do we minimize the cost of business to our respective customers and residents within our
jurisdictions or utility service areas?"
I'll start to switch a little bit to some supply issues on a regional scale. One question that folks might
have is does the region have enough water to meet projected demands and for how long. In 1997, the
region's water supply systems that our local government owned had an average daily demand of 116 million
17
gallons per day. The manmade water supply reservoirs within our region had a combined safe yield of 167
million gallons per day. Now, keep in mind that in addition to the manmade reservoirs, our region uses a
number of river withdrawals. Based on local water supply plans, the region's water supply utilities are
projecting that the region's average daily water demand in the year 2020 will be around 220 million gallons
per day. We already know that another 62 million gallons per day exists in Jordan Lake, but it's not allocated
to anybody in the region yet. If you look at the year 2020 projections and the additional supply alternatives,
the expansion projects that are on the books, we could see existing and planned reservoir yields of 300
million gallons per day. In Orange County, on average, we get over 6,000 gallons per day through
precipitation. If you look at year 2020 projected populations that number drops to below 5,000 gallons per
day. We're relatively water rich.
He was showing a map at this point. This just shows the portion and amount of the demand by
system within the region and then the components of demand by system. What this points out is the region
has a.number of independent service providers. These arrows show interconnections as of 1997 and how
much water was being transferred as of 1997. Our challenge is how do we get it around where it's needed
when it's needed in the amount it's needed and at an affordable cost. At the same time, the challenge is how
to protect those resources in the long-term in the face of additional growth and development and associated
impacts.
This map just shows simply a skeleton network of the interconnections that exist in our region,from
the water supply system standpoint. Unfortunately, the capacity of those system interconnections isn't all that
great. In terms of long-term thinking, we need to look at the capacity of our interconnections and how the
region is able to respond to different emergency situations. The issue under consideration now, spearheaded
by Orange County and several other jurisdictions is Shearon Harris. Are we prepared in the event of some
unforeseen very low risk but high impact situation that could occur?
We are also working together in the area of watershed protection on a number of initiatives. And
Orange County and the jurisdictions of Orange County have been at the forefront in some of that thinking,
and Durham has as well. There have been good partnerships in the region. Are we at the level where we
know we're going to have long-term protection of all of our resources? No. We certainly have room for
improvement, but we're headed in the right direction, and believe me, we're quite a ways ahead of a lot of
other places around the country, so we're fortunate.
Essentially what this graphic shows is all the different water quality planning efforts and initiatives—
watershed protection plans that are underway from water quality modeling efforts that are underway. There's
a lot going on, a lot of positive and proactive thinking and involving a lot of interiocal collaboration and a lot of
local funding as well. I would add that some of these projects aren't just involving Region J's partners. Some
of these partnerships span across regions. We know that has to be the case if we're going to achieve
protection in the long term.
Some things to consider are that our demands are increasing, many of our facilities are getting older,
our costs are increasing, and our conflicts are increasing. Case in point; stone quarry reservoir. Prior case in
point in Orange County- Cane Creek Reservoir. Our projects take much longer than they used to. Our
expectations of our customers are increasing, and we also need to be more proactive. Maybe we need to get
more proactive instead of spending millions of dollars on restoration and getting out there and focusing on
protection. And as part of our local land use planning processes, our site design processes, we are actually
doing things that are more sustainable for the long term and more proactive. So in order to do that, we need
to have more comprehensive assessment tools.
There are a number of cooperative approaches within the region —system interconnection. Some of
you may have been following what's going on with Raleigh in terms of actually merging their operations with
Garner and other jurisdictions. They're moving ahead with what you might consider more centralized larger
system approaches. That may not be feasible here. It's been looked at in previous studies. Orange
County's Water Resource Task Force report of 1981, Long Range Water Management Task Force report of
1987, Orange County Water Supply study in 1987. Orange County has been there in looking at these things.
Hopefully through discussions like this, we can consider different ways of doing things so that, not only do we
meet the needs of our utility customers, but we also protect the natural environment, and we make better
decisions from a local land use planning and growth management standpoint so that we truly can achieve
sustainable resources management and also hopefully reduce costs to customers and increase reliability.
Bill Strom: Pat, in your role with Triangle J, is there a formal committee or role that you play there
that could start to bring this group together on a regular basis?
18
Pat Davis: There are a couple of things that are ongoing. One is there is Smart Growth Committee
that is looking at land use planning, growth management strategies, and how we grow and develop in order
to achieve more of our goals and objectives and do that in a sustainable way. The Smart Growth Committee
is an important point. Anyone who is interested in that committee certainly can come let me know and I'll be
sure that you get added to that distribution list if you're not already. Another committee is the Water
Resources Advisory Committee. Those committees are open to suggestions or requests from member
governments around the region as to potential topics to discuss and consider. There's a long list of actual
projects that have been undertaken through those community efforts. As information, there will be a joint
meeting of the Smart Growth Committee and the Water Resources Advisory Committee on May 23`d at the
Raleigh Durham Airport. This will be the first joint meeting of those two committees. Then there's also the
board of directors, an executive committee in which the jurisdictions that are members of Triangle J appoint
delegates to use that forum.
Barry Katz: You showed a slide of the streams in the Triangle J area. Just looking at that slide, it
seems to me that the greatest area of impaired streams was in the Raleigh area right in Wake County, which
also has the highest level of growth and development. Is it inevitable that poor water quality in streams goes
along with higher densities or not?
Pat Davis: I would say under traditional land use site development practices, and then also what we
do once we develop land that there is that inevitability. At the same time, I'm optimistic that we can rethink
the approach to help us avoid that same result.
Barry Katz: There is an element of residences that you can perhaps work with. All those people that
are residents in those areas are also consumers and travelers, etc. Can you actually manage the impact of
people when you also consider the fact that they must buy food, they must drive, you know, the amount of
impervious surface simply by having a high concentration of people seems to be almost impossible to
overcome.
Pat Davis: There is definitely a relation between the amount of impervious surface and population.
6. DISCUSSION —Dr. David Moreau
Chair Jacobs_We've heard several references to Dr. Moreau. Now we actually get a chance to
meet him. You can see that not only is he one of the foremost experts on water matters in the State, but Dr.
Moreau is also Chair of the Environmental Management Commission.
Dr. David Moreau: Well, I was asked to come and lead a moderated discussion of issues. I think
many of those issues have been laid out. Dave Stancil has listed some questions that are on your program,
and they're basically questions that have been raised here and are directly to the point. The question is, Are
existing interlocal agreements sufficient to regionally protect scarce water resources? The follow up to that
is, are we prepared for drought conditions? If not, what else should we do? I think you could add to that list,
Are we prepared to deal with a major accident involving one of our systems? The scenario I worked with a
student on was, What happens if a truck barreling down Interstate 85 careens off the Neuse River bridge, is
carrying hazardous material, and ends up in the Raleigh water supply? We talk about terrorist actions, we
talk about nuclear accidents. We had an incident here about 15 years ago on one December night about five
days before Christmas. It was raining heavily and there was a cattle farm over near Wake Forest. It became
evident to the farmer that the water was going to run over the dyke in his pond, in his manure holding pond.
He went out to try to relieve it by twisting the valve and the valve stem broke. Eventually, the dyke failed and
wiped out 20 miles of the Neuse River, right below the Neuse River dam. If that facility had been three miles
west of there, it would have come right down on top of the Raleigh water intake. We can imagine these
terrorist actions and other things, but there are a lot of things. I think when we started on the Cane Creek
reservoir, we identified 18 dairies within that watershed. And there were some that had major concerns. The
question we ask is this discussion about the interconnections. But if I go to you and ask you, 'What are you
going to do in the case of this scenario or that scenario?" Are we prepared sufficiently to respond to that?
What would we do? Beyond that is, if we're not prepared, then what should we do to get prepared? Because
with the increasing development around here, the scenario we play out is not so rare, in fact there was a
truck that ran off the Neuse River bridge. Fortunately it was carrying television sets, it was not carrying
hazardous material. When they were paving over there on this side of the bridge and where they had the van
where the Butner kids were killed, there was a whole string of accidents that occurred right there. Situations
that were created with no design, but just created the circumstance where that could happen.
19
I think another issue that is before us is, Are we doing enough to protect the watershed around Jordan
Lake? In the inter basin transfer decision, one of the conditions that was tied to that was that Cary and Apex
adopt a protection program similar to those that were adopted for the entire Neuse basin. Should similar
conditions be tied to the allocation of the water off of Jordan Lake? Should that be added as a condition on
the allocation? What we hear here is a lot of very active local governments dealing with their water problems.
We hear Durham and Raleigh are going to look at Kerr Lake. I understand that's a tough subject to discuss
publicly. But in that process, are all of our interests being represented? If not all of our interests, then how
do we shape the process to make sure that all of our interests are represented in that? Having been a
veteran of the Virginia Beach wars, you see what happens when one local government takes the lead and
others are playing games in the process about withholding supplies. If we're going that direction, and it
clearly is not too early to get started on that, I think there's a question about how do we promote the reuse of
these resources. Those are some of the questions I would throw out for discussion. And you may have other
questions that you want to raise as well.
Let's come back to the question of preparedness. How prepared are we?
Ed Kerwin: Not very prepared, sir. The idea of an emergency certainly, I think is really different in
people's minds than it was prior to September 11th, and there really isn't anything that is unimaginable
anymore with respect to our services. So, from that point of view we're not as prepared as we need to be.
We have in our capital project things to improve the capacity of the interconnections with the City of Durham,
also with Chatham and Hillsborough. But, if we lost Cane Creek, I don't have a good plan that is validated by
our neighbors that they'll be there to meet the needs. And certainly the spirit of good neighbors, I know that if
somebody can help, they will. But we just don't have things thought through and in place where we know
exactly how we would respond. And spending more time talking about that would be very useful. I know that
was a subject on May 2nd quite a bit regarding one facility. But there are many situations like that that we
certainly could be better prepared than we are.
Dr. Moreau: And if I ask you for a protection plan, do you have a document you can hand me?
Ed Kerwin: We have emergency management plans, we have drills, particularly with the towns and
the counties. I feel like we're reasonable well prepared. But again, for what? I feel like we're reasonable
well prepared for a hurricane better than we were for Hurricane Fran. Are we prepared if we lose 75% of our
water supply? No. I feel like we've done a lot and we've improved a lot at a staff level with all of our
neighboring utilities. We interact fairly regularly and talk about these things. But, have we talked about it
enough? No. Is there more we should do? Absolutely.
Dr. Moreau: I'm not trying to suggest that we've been derelict in that because I'm aware it's been a
topic for a long time. I still worry about what happens if we had a major failure. What would we do?
Terry Roland: I can speak about that a little bit from Durham's perspective. And it's the same
problem OWASA has, I think, but just a little bit bigger. And that is that none of our interconnections are big
enough to meet the total need. Our interconnection with OWASA is good for about 3-3.5 million gallons a
day. Our interconnection with Cary is good for about five. Our interconnection with Chatham is probably
good for two or three, but their treatment capacity is three, and they're using one and a half of that or so.
Reality can't count much more on a million and a half there presently.
Dr. Moreau: I remember the days when the Durham/OWASA interconnection was made and it was
done in a really expedited fashion.
Terry Roland: Certainly the line connections can be expanded pretty quickly. The problem is in the
treatment and supply side. We're working on an agreement and a plan for interconnecting with Raleigh that
would also give us some additional supply capability, but in all of the cases I think we're limited to whatever
our neighbors can afford to give up in terms of supply. You can build a waterline pretty quick, but you can't
build additional treatment capacity quickly, and you can't build additional raw water supply quickly. So that
becomes the limiting element. Right now the limiting element is our interconnection. But if we build bigger
interconnections; if we lost our whole system, we're running about 30 million gallons a day, and even if we
had a big line interconnection with Raleigh, I doubt seriously they have that much excess capacity that they
could meet that need. We would have to go to rationing which means 30 gallons a person per day which
would be about six million gallons a day. So we could take our demand down from 30 million to six if we had
to. It wouldn't be fun and it wouldn't be pretty, but we could do it. Then you could do some of the things with
the interconnections we have. It would take a disaster of great magnitude to get to that.
Ms. Speaker: I had a meeting about a month ago with the folks at Duke University, and their concern
from their board was what kind of redundancy did we have in case there was this catastrophe. One of the
advantages we have is that we do have two reservoirs, two water plants. So we have a redundancy that for
20
us is helpful. Again, are we prepared for the ultimate? Well, who is at this point? But we're probably in a
little better shape than a lot of utilities because of the redundancy that we have. Yes, we really need that
interconnection with Raleigh because they're the only ones with the capacity to help us out. Certainly we can
improve our interconnections with everybody else as well.
Terry Roland: Raleigh is interested in the interconnection as we are because they have the same
problem and worse in that they only have one water plant. If they lose their one water plant, they would be in
a lot worse shape than we would be. They are very interested in the interconnection as well.
Dr. Moreau: They abandoned that Johnson plant, didn't they?
Terry Roland: Their long-range plan is to build a new facility, I think, to develop those supplies that
they used to rely on, they're going to redevelop those and redevelop another plant. So they will get some
redundancy in the not too distant future as I understand it. But they don't have it right now. We actually got
to test our redundancy during Hurricane Fran. I'll just mention that. Duke Power provides our power service,
and 90% of the Duke Power grid system went down. We lost a lot of things, and we lost one of our water
plants, but our largest plant stayed online by the sake of one power line between it and the main source of
power. But we did stay up and running for that whole time, we never lost our water system during Hurricane
Fran. We lost one waste treatment plant for about eight hours, though. North Durham went completely
under water, well it took us eight hours to get it back online.
Dr. Moreau: Let me ask if there are questions that you want to pursue. There were questions that
were raised.
Bill Strom: We are talking about hundreds of millions, maybe billions of dollars to build in
redundancy, capacity, etc. One tool that we have that legislative and not necessarily taking that type of
investment is land use planning. The notion of are we doing enough to protect Jordan Lake and our other
upland watersheds is something that some of us as elected officials could deal with, but I'm sure curious to
hear folks talk about that issue some more and address the nitrification concerns that Pat Davis talked about
and see how we can certainly address those issues on a regional basis. Chapel Hill is doing some things,
Orange County is doing some things, but it would be very interesting to see what folk's attitude is towards
making a bigger investment through land use planning and protecting those watersheds. .
Dr. Moreau: I think we've taken some very good steps on the upland reservoirs and protecting those
areas, but what we see now is Cary and Apex moving westward and expanding into that direct drainage area
into Jordan Lake. And with the Durham expansion in that direction, with South Pointe and all the other things
that are going along with South Pointe that are going to follow, that whole area is really experiencing a very
high level of development. I'm not sure that we have taken adequate steps to protect that area. We did
minimally on the eastside of the lake with the conditions attached to the inter basin transfer. I don't think any
conditions have been attached to any allocations, though. How would you react to that?
Terry Roland: I'd like to speak to that because I guess I've been here too long. Because Jordan
Lake and Falls Lake, watershed protection goes back to 1983 when those lakes were first being planned to
be impounded. Pat Davis has been around that long and can talk about it. Triangle J played an important
role in that process and we have, I think in North Carolina, as a result of that effort at Triangle J and the
efforts of the region for watershed protection, one of the best watershed protection rules in North Carolina
that covers the whole state now that exists in the whole country. We've been a leader in that in the whole
country. As far as the City of Durham, we attempted to do a lot in that effort to protect not only Falls and
Jordan Lake, but we kept the emphasis up for protecting our own upland supplies and the concern started out
more with Falls and Jordan and we wanted to make sure that our upland supplies were protected and
couldn't expect those other folks to protect our lakes if we weren't willing to protect theirs. So that's always
the way we've looked at it. I think in the case of the City and County of Durham we probably provide more
levels of protection for Falls and Jordan Lake than most of our neighbors with the exception of maybe Orange
County. I think they've done just about as much or maybe more than we have. But I think Durham has really
done a lot in that regard. Our buffer areas are as big or bigger than anybody's as far as what we call our
protected area for Falls and Jordan Lake. They are bigger than the state minimum requirements. We have
urban growth boundary limitations and lot size limitations that provide protection of that. In the long range
perspective, we were always looking at Jordan Lake especially as a potential future water supply. So we
have a keen interest in making sure that that's protected. As a result of some of that, we also, in expanding
our two plants, we have two wastewater treatment plants, water reclamation facilities we call them; that we
expanded in the 90's, and both of those were expanded with treatment capabilities well beyond permitted
requirements at the time they were built. They're both capable of doing total nutrient removal, nitrogen and
21
phosphorus, biologically. They both have extra filters, ultraviolet disinfectant, they're state of the art water
treatment plants, and we built those before they were mandated by any State regulations. So when the
Neuse Basin rules came into effect, we were already able to meet those. I think with the Jordan Lake
nitrogen requirements coming down the pipe, we're going to be able to meet those as well with our South
Durham facility. The County is working on upgrading their plan and it doesn't have that capability yet. But
they're working on a planned expansion for that to meet those nitrogen requirements. As far as the city is
concerned, we've tried to look ahead and provide that level of protection for Jordan Lake particularly and
Falls Lake as well. In the case of Jordan, hoping that we would someday be drinking that same water we
discharge to. We have a particular interest in protecting that water I think that no one else probably will have.
Because I don't believe anybody else will be in the unique situation of discharging into and drinking out of the
same reservoir.
Dr. Moreau: Would you send me a copy of that protection program for Jordan? I have not seen it
recently. I'd be interested in that. One point I do want to make is that Ed Holland, you were Triangle J when
that started. Ed was sort of a key staff person in that. I think there's some really good things that came out of
that process for the region as well as for North Carolina. A lot of people have put a lot of effort into that. And
I don't think sometimes some of the newer folks coming in know that history and don't realize where we've
come from. We've come a long way. That's not to say we don't still need to do more. But we've done a lot.
We just need to recognize that we've done that. It would be a lot worse if we hadn't done that too.
Dan Okun: We need to prepare and learn what to do by looking at what they are doing in the
western part of the United States. Growth is making the demands increase which we will have to pay for.
We need to consider what is happening around the country. We could manage or reclaim our water for other
uses. Water reclamation requires early planning. Make reclamation very economical. It can be done for
small and large communities alike. We have state regulations for non-portable uses.
Dr. Moreau: One of the questions is how do we initiate that process of water reuse. We've had a
couple of aborted efforts, Motorola, I guess, was negotiating with Durham. Wasn't there a study on
Meadowmont?
Dan Okun: The best example is what Cary has done with a golf course using reclaimed water. It can
be done if there is some initiative on the part of the communities and the engineers. We need to examine our
options and get it in the early planning stages.
Don Cox: One of the big problems is that there is no demand for reclaimed water. One way to
create the demand is through the local subdivision ordinances. It would require local communities to say this
is what you have to do to develop this subdivision.
Dan Okun: Whenever there is a water shortage, people will use reclaimed water to water their
shrubs and lawns. This is beginning to be done just because people must conserve water.
Bill Strom: I wasn't on the Council in Chapel Hill when.it was discussed at Meadowmont, but it's not
going to happen by the private sector necessarily. There's a legislative approach that's going to have to be
taken in the communities by elected officials that think this is important. For example, Dr Moreau you
mentioned Meadowmont, and a dual system was proposed and it was negotiated away because the
developer took it away as other requests were made and the approval was negotiated out. It really does
require some legislative will to change the paradigm.
Chair Jacobs: As I recall, even the University was approached about it's golf course and decided to
just suck water out of Morgan Creek rather than be part of doing something a little more creative. My
question had to do with inter basin transfer. Could you just outline why we don't like inter basin transfer? My
.understanding is the State sets a threshold of two million gallons per day where you raise the flag of concern.
If it's something that we discourage, why talk about such a large amount? If it's less we shouldn't worry
about it, or it's not worth regulating? How do we get to that?
Dr. Moreau: Well, you have to agree on some sort of diminimus level. You're not going to regulate
every little garden hose that crosses a ridgeline. And frankly, I don't know why two million gallons a day. It
may have been just looking at what already existed in making that judgement. The real argument against
inter basin transfer is one of water rights. There may have been others, but I remember Senator Roby Nash.
When you start talking about running that water from Siler City to Zebulon, there was this proposal in 1957 to
run water from the Yadkin River to Burlington—the so-called seven cities proposal. Senator Nash spent his
lifetime in the legislature making darn sure that was not going to happen. The legislation that was written in
some of the very cumbersome stuff that OWASA had to deal with in getting the permit for Cane Creek came
out of that legislation that was very restricted on who could do that. The case on Jordan Lake was very
political dealing with Senator Rand and the perception that the Cape Fear River in Fayetteville was going to
22
be dried up by this transfer. Eight million gallons a day was transferred against a minimum low flow in
Fayetteville of 575 million gallons a day. The whole issue on Virginia Beach was a water rights, not only a
water rights,but a perception that somebody is going to get something that's mine. There is an
environmental argument that the mixing of these waters may have an adverse effect on the ecology. That's a
more recent argument, I think that the real prevailing argument is one of, "You're taking something that
belongs to me."
Dan Okun: We made the law and shackled ourselves.
Dr. Moreau: That's true, Dan, but it took a decision of the United States Supreme Court to give New
York water out of the Delaware River. Your point is obvious but it still does not get around the fact that these
are hard fought battles. The Virginia Beach case went on for 18 years. We have a problem in this state. I
don't know exactly what the situation is on Person County, but there are laws on the books in this state that
say you can't take water from one county, and I think these are county specific. That you can't take water
from this county and build a reservoir in this county to use in some other county.
Mr. Speaker: Actually, it doesn't deal with the water so much as it does the condemnation of land.
That's the issue. One local government can't condemn land in another jurisdiction without that jurisdiction's
approval. Which, in effect, says you can't build a water supply.
Don Cox: You have to look at the impact of moving water from one basin to another. Does it make
sense when you look at the impact of inter basin transfers?
Dr. Moreau: That act was passed in '93. Prior to that, there was nothing. But that took a major effort
to get that law changed in '93 to where there is a process for considering it now.
Terry Roland: Actually, there was a law prior to '93, and the irony of it is that inter basin transfers
were prohibited in North Carolina until the new law was passed, unless the river basins were solely within the
State of North Carolina. And the only two that that condition exists on is the Cape Fear and the Neuse.
According to Milton Heath, the reason that law was written the way it was written was so that Research
Triangle Park could become a reality. It was served by Durham from Neuse Basin water, and it was
discharging to the Cape Fear basin. If they hadn't made that change in the law, inter basin transfers would
have been prohibited completely in North Carolina. It was prohibited except where the river basins were
solely within the State of North Carolina. It wasn't until '93 that we changed it so that inter basin transfers
could be done in other places besides between the Cape Fear and the Neuse. Prior to that I think that was
the only place you could do it.
Dr. Moreau: It had to do with the authority, if you were acting jointly, and that's where OWASA and
everybody else, there were multiple jurisdictions involved in it and that's what triggered it. And that's what
triggered the Randleman stuff. That law was written to stop the Southern Cities Project, the '57 law. And the
power companies are the ones that did that because the only basins on which you can generate power in
North Carolina are interstate basins. They wrote the law very cleverly that you can make the inter basin
transfer so long as the basins were solely within the State of North Carolina. And the Neuse and the Cape
Fear were the two basins, and you could not generate electricity on either one of them. That's the story I got.
7. NEXT STEPS
Chair Jacobs: At the break I heard a lot of people saying they thought this was a good discussion
and they got valuable information. But to just have a meeting and then walk away, although it's always good
to be educated and to get to know people better. Just speaking as an Orange County Commissioner, I would
like to see how we can get water with our sewer system. I'd like to make sure that our citizens have
adequate water supplies so that when we do our comprehensive land use plan update that we can
incorporate the plans of jurisdictions within our jurisdiction and that we can make sure, to the best of our
ability that water and sewer provision follows the land use plan. I'll just put that out, I'd like to see how we
can work toward those kinds of things. That's our self-interest. And we said at the beginning we wanted
people to purpose their self-interest. That is what brings us together even though we're all altruists and care
about water and our neighbors. I'm just real interested in how we can keep this conversation going.
Margaret Pollard: I'd like to see us address, at some point, how do we prepare citizens for safe
water conservation during a crisis? I think that just to have people conserve water without thinking about the
public health implications with that might not be meeting our total responsibility.
Dan Okun: Orange County has a Commission for the Environment and there is a committee on
water resources. If anyone has water related activities or needs, they need to send it to this commission
which will look at it. _
23
Dr. Moreau: Barry, are you suggesting some sort of countywide, not just county boundary, but region
that encompasses Orange and its immediate neighbors? I'm not talking about necessarily the Research
Triangle region, but are you suggesting development of some plan for water and sewer services within this
smaller region?
Chair Jacobs: Well, after going and sitting down and having lunch with representatives from all of
these different entities, it is clear that we all have issues. With all due respect to our own Commission, other
governments may not want to come to our Commission. We need to create some place where we can —
even if it's just to empower our staffs to brainstorm—to bring the plans, to bring the maps, to look at where
we overlap, where we conflict, where we might be able to cooperate. I don't pretend to know or to dare tell
someone else how they should do their business. It's clear that we're all just going in our own directions. So
we need some agreement to keep working together, whatever that venue is. And it's always easy for an
elected official to say, "I'm going to empower the staff to go do more meetings, and when they develop
something we'll come back and talk some more." That's the vision I have.
Terry Roland: Pat's already talked about the Water Resources Committee of Triangle J, and I realize
there's some folks that aren't in Triangle J, but we could probably expand that invitation list to make sure that
everybody that's interested participate in that process. That is the committee that worked on the watershed
issue in the 80's, and that's probably the best existing mechanism we have for continuing with discussion,
and it's a good place for it, I think. So we could use that committee to continue that discussion.
Dr. Moreau: Well, clearly a lot of the information and considerations that go on there would be
relevant here. It might take a subcommittee with expansion to include Orange Alamance. Burlington has lots
of water over there. They have a lot of excess supply. And that hasn't been brought into this discussion.
John Link: I think the idea of pursuing the TJCOG structure is good. I am interested in some kind of
congruence. I want to look at it from a practical perspective of providing water and at the same time
addressing the land use issues which have been brought forward.
Ed Harrison: I got a lot of my post-graduate education in water resources at that committee, starting
with seminars. I also met some of the first local government managers that I'd ever met that 1 didn't work for,
and all of you are improvements over them. I think it's a place that managers could fit into. The committee
has been sometimes in the past a little bit too much inside baseball. I think the more pragmatic questions
that John is talking about really need to be talked about there. I think that because this involves local
government decision-makers so much on so many levels, it really has to be a little less not technical. I thrive
on the technical stuff, but I don't think that the local governments necessarily need to have all that. This set
of presentations today has been nicely balanced in that regard. It's a committee that because the COG has
been so busy with very important focus work, hasn't met quite as often lately. But I think we're seeing a
reason to do it again. It could split off in geographic subsets if it had to. Also, I want to echo, as someone
who has spent a decade on the Durham Environmental Affairs Board, there is very good thinking that can
happen on citizen boards like that if you bother to ask them the right questions or let them think of the right
questions themselves.
Joe Phelps: It has been a good meeting. I agree that I think that we could meet again maybe in
smaller groups and get more accomplished that way. I would like to say something. I did read the resolution
sent by the Board of Commissioners, and you had something in here and I'll read it quickly for those who
don't have it. It says, about three quarters of the way down, "Whereas, the environmental impact and
financial cost associated with the development and construction of new reservoirs renders the development
of new reservoirs and water supplies within Orange County unlikely." I don't want to restrict what we may
decide today for someone 30 or 50 years from now of not ever building a reservoir in Orange County. That
particular statement concerns me a little bit. I don't know what the intent of it was. I don't think Hillsborough
is going to grow tremendously over the next 50 years, but I don't think at this point in 30 years we'll have
enough water. So I don't want to proceed along those lines if that was meant to be that way. I'd be open to
suggestions, but I don't think we should ever close the door on some future generation. Like John said, I kind
of agreed with him. Everybody has a need for water here, and then Pat says that we have plenty of water
and someone mentioned Burlington. I'm not sure about Burlington. They would probably sell water as long
as they could, but they'll probably grow too and at some point quit selling water I don't want to restrict any
furture governing body from doing what is necessary to provide water to our citizens.
Chair Jacobs: I have a question for the folks from Mebane. Do you feel comfortable being part of
this committee of Triangle 3 to work on some issues together even though you're not part of that COG?
24
Robert Wilson: Yes. I think that we all have the same interests here of water connections
throughout. Contrary to what you've heard tonight, Mebane didn't deny anybody water. We're just like any
other city, we have jurisdictions that we have to stay within. We try our best to work within those jurisdictions
and serve people outside of our jurisdiction. But water, as we've all explained here, comes at a cost. And
someone has to pay for that cost—you, Durham, Hillsborough, Mebane. There's an end where you can
afford to extend your lines. We've met with the County of Orange. We've met with Alamance to service the
folks of West End, Buckhorn Road area—outside of our ETJ, Buckhorn Road, Perry Hills. But the West End
area, we're working with those folks to get water and sewer to areas in the counties or outside of our ETJs,
water and sewer without getting mud on our face every time we go to meetings. I'd be more than happy to
attend another meeting to try to come up with some reasonable concern of connections.
Chair Jacobs: It soulds like we're at a good stopping point. We thank you for coming.
Commissioner Halkiotis is not here, but in his stead, Commissioner Carey has kindly volunteered to make
some closing remarks.
8. CLOSING REMARKS
Well, there's no way in the world that I can be Steve Halkiotis tonight. But it occurs to me that we
came here tonight and started out with self-interests in mind, and that's good, that's ok. But I think we've
learned here tonight that all of our self-interests are intertwined with the interests of each other, and it
behooves us to work together to try to meet the needs of all of our constituents. I think this has been a good
meeting and I want to thank Barry and all of the staff and all of the other people who put this together
because it's been very informative and I'm sure that something good will happen from this. But it depends on
the willingness of all of you to work together to make that happen. So, on behalf of the Board of
Commissioners, I want to thank you for coming tonight and encourage everyone to continue to work together
regardless of the next forum that it's in. And I'm sure that Barry and Steve and others in the leadership
positions, as they've been meeting with each of you, can decide on how best to proceed from this point
forward. Thank you for coming.
9. ADJOURNMENT
With no further items to discuss, the summit was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Barry Jacobs, Chair
Beverly A. Blythe, CIVIC
Fiscal Year 2001 -02 Financial Update
June 2001 — BOCC adopted fiscal year 2001-02 budget that included $3. 1 million in anticipated
reimbursements from the State
February 5, 2002 - Due to the State's fiscal crisis, Governor Easley declares "Fiscal State of Emergency"
*He announced plans to withhold a portion of local government reimbursements, totaling $209 million, in
fiscal year 2001-02
*The anticipated loss for Orange County was projected at $712,000
February 18, 2002 — Preliminary year-end estimates estimated a County budget shortfall of between
$712,000 and $862,000 at the end of fiscal year 2001-02
*Staff indicated that the County could absorb the potential deficit through the use of fund balance
June 30, 2002 — As indicated earlier, the shortfall was absorbed through the use of fund balance
•Preliminary calculations projected year end fund balance to be about 9.6 percent of 2002-03 budgeted
expenditures
-Presentation of year end audit for fiscal year 2001-02 is scheduled for November 19, 2002 Board of
Commissioners meeting
S
10/21/02
Fiscal Year 2002-03 Financial Update
Spring 2002 — Manager's Recommended budget for fiscal year 2002-03 anticipated revenues totaling $3. 1
million from State reimbursements that was due to the County.
June 2002 — BOCC anticipated that the General Assembly would balance the 2002-03 State budget by
withholding reimbursements due to local governments.
•The Board adjusted the Manager's Recommended budget downward by $3.6 million to reflect the anticipated
loss of state reimbursements and adjust the recommended tax rate from 4.5 cents to 2.5 cents.z7
September 2002 — The General Assembly approved the 2002-03 State budget. The approved budget:
*Withheld reimbursements from local governments.
•Reduced funding for certain State departments resulting in a "'trickle down" reduction to County departments —
particularly human service related departments.
•Authorized the Governor to make other, yet to be determined, funding reductions totaling $25 million to
balance the State's budget.
*October 2002 — General Assembly approved Senate Bill 1292 authorizing counties to levy a Third One-Half
Cent Local Government Sales Use Tax effective no earlier than December 1, 2002.
•Orange County BOCC approved the Resolution authorizing the new sales tax at its October 15, 2002 meeting.
*According to estimates by the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, anticipated additional
revenue for Orange County for the current fiscal year are in the neighborhood of $1 .8 million.
25�
tf'
71,
ORANGE COUNTY
INSPECTIONS
Memo
To: Assembly of Governments
From: Orange County Planning Staff
Date: October 24,2002
Re: Shaping Orange County's Future(SOCF)Report
Following a unanimous vote of governing boards at the May 7, 2002, Assembly of Governments
meeting, Orange County Planning staff was instructed to:
Pursue a graphics specialist firm/company to:
a. Prepare an abridged version of the report for a newspaper insert: and
b. Do necessary style and format changes to the full 96-page report and publish it.
Item "b"was accomplished by a college intern with Planning staff oversight this past summer
and can be printed and distributed for review. Since it is an extensive color copy document, we
will not produce it en masse until it is determined to be acceptable in this upgraded version. A
few copies will be available at the October 30 Assembly of Governments meeting.
Because of the widespread coverage it will receive as a newspaper insert, Item "a" will likely
need professional treatment. Planning staff is making preliminary abridgements to the
document, but it will be necessary to find suitable individuals/firms to handle this task (editing,
layout, and graphics). Before proceeding further, we feel that a meeting to discuss the primary
focus of the insert, distribution, number of copies, strategies, and desired outcomes is advisable.
We would recommend a second meeting to bring in any input from the Mayors and Chairs, as
well as Ellen Ironside and Jay Bryan from the Shaping Orange County's Future Task Force to
get their input.
A cost for preparation and publication of the report is unknown at this time. Questions related to
number of pages(we have discussed eight in-house),color or black-and-white,ultimate distribution,
and newspapers to be utilized need to be addressed. We have made calls to the three papers in Orange
County concerning their distribution and determined the following: Chapel Hill Herald-25,000,
Chapel Hill News-25,000, and the News of Orange County- 7,900.
11 1
A YYiQ !,b
V-�
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL
306 NORTH COLUMBIA STREET
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27516
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
(919)968-2714
FAX 919-969-2063
August 28, 2002
Mr.Barry Jacobs,Chairman
Orange County Board of Commissioners
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough,NC 27278
Dear Chairn o s: ,.� /
At its regular business meeting on August 26,the Chapel Hill Town Council adopted the
attached petition to initiate conversations with the Orange County Board of
Commissioners and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education about prospects for
locating a third high school in the southern part of Chapel Hill.
A third high school is needed in the district,as projected growth in the number of
students will exceed existing capacity. It has been suggested that a logical location for
this school would be the southern part of Chapel Hill, since our two existing high schools
are on the northern edge of Chapel Hill.
We believe that it would be productive for representatives of the Chapel Hill Town
Council, School Board, and Board of County Commissioners to come together and
discuss this issue. As a first step in the process, I will invite you to join me in exploring
how such conversations might proceed. A member of our staff will arrange a telephone
conference for this purpose. I look forward to talking with you soon.
T i' ly,
n C. Foy
Mayor-
KCF/wms
Attachments
AGENDA 017a(2)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Council Member Flicks Bateman
SUBJECT: Discussions About Location for Third High School
DATE: August 26,2002
I ask the Council to consider starting conversations with the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of
Education and the Orange County Board of Commissioners about prospects for locating a third
high school in the southern part of Chapel Hill.
BACKGROUND
Our school district needs a third high school. We have received reports showing historical and
projected growth in the number of high school students in our community, and we know that the
capacities of Chapel Hill High School and East Chapel Hill High School are about to be
exceeded. School officials are looking for a site for this needed school.
It has been suggested that a logical location for this school would be the southern part of Chapel
Hill, since our two existing high schools are both on the northern edge of Chapel Hill. Several
sites have been under consideration by the School Board,but no decisions have been made.
Although I did not support(and still do not support) a citizens group proposal to negotiate a land
swap of Town owned park land for a school site, I believe that we can do more to assist in the
process of locating a suitable school site in the southern area of our community.
PROPOSAL
I believe that it would be productive to bring the Chapel Hill Town Council, the School Board,
and the Orange County Board of Commissioners (or representatives of these three bodies)
together to discuss the possibilities. I suggest that the Mayor communicate with the chairs of the
other two Boards to initiate this conversation.
/
ORANGE PERSON CHATHAM AREA PROGRAM
INFORMATION REPORT ON MENTAL HEALTH REFORM
PROGRESS
Attached are three documents to illustrate progress made by the OPC
Mental Health Reform Steering Committee in response to the statewide
mandate for system reform. The Steering Committee is comprised of
elected official representatives from the three counties, county
management, consumer advocates, and OPC staff.
1. Breakout Group Feedback from the Public Forum Held by the
Orange County BOCC on October 8
2. Draft Strategic Planning Document being developed by the OPC
Mental Health Reform Steering Committee on the tri-county
response to a phased implementation of system reform. (A final
document will be presented for BOCC approval by the first week
in December; all plans are due to the state by January 1.)
3. Copy of the resolution adopted by the BOCC on October 1St
establishing its intent to maintain the tri-county partnership and
create a strong governance structure for the new local
management entity responsible for mental health oversight.
Person and Chatham county boards adopted a similar resolution.
Gwen Harvey-Orange County Forum Feedback.doc Page 1
Orange County Public Forum October 8, 2002
Breakout Group Feedback
I. Child and Family Services (Priorities shown by#of votes in parentheses)
• Get rid of some of the funding requirements that drive services. (2)
• Funding for substance abuse should be tied to Child and Family services. (1)
=::> Substance abuse services should be a part of Child and Family Services.
• Have a seamless integration of mental health and substance abuse case. (4)
Within court system —family, domestic violence,juvenile.
=> Reduce strict funding and categorization.
• Do things that are preventive or pro-active. (2)
• Agency access to mental health services; DSS, Police Dept.
• Ensure that staff perform; better use of time—especially with scheduling i.e. courts.
• Need better cross agency communication —public education, juvenile system.
• Hard to move individuals into programs. (2)
=> Transitions such as 17 year olds to Adult Services
(Seamless System)Adolescence to Adults
0-5 years to Adolescent System
• Need mental health intervention in child care—to continue and/or expand. (3)
• Preventive and pro-active programs are difficult to fund. (1)
=> Need to be easier to fund.
• Not enough to simply deal with the child. Support and services needed for family members.
(1)
• Gaps with treating mother and child together—have some programs—not enough. (1)
• Current system not family friendly.
• Orange and Chatham has effective diversion program for youth (children with minor drug
offenses)—do not need to replicate.
• More coordination of service system
=> Systems need to be coordinated —same families —multi-agencies.
• Relax confidentiality(look at how we can confer on children and families that are involved
j with more than one system in a way that is effective and confidentiality not a barrier).
• Team approach to services —"One-Stop Shop" model i.e. Child Planning Conference. (1)
• Cross reference services
• Outcome should determine who provides the services. Example—Smart Start. (1)
• Need —must have funds to support collaboration —another level of prevention —can local
monies be used for this. (1)
• Current resources need to be fully utilized.
• Commitment to outcomes—programs collaboration —outcome need not be seen as a
threat.
• Periodical reviews of services—qualitative and quantative outcomes.
• Eliminate or reduce barriers around age and access to services. (2)
How do you deal with State and Federal restrictions
Gwen Harvey-Orange County Forum Feedback.doc Page 2
r
II. DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY SERVICES (Priorities shown by#of votes in
parentheses)
The Ideal Developmental Disability Service System
• Work , Live, Play, Retire in our community (5)
• Increased Respite Services (4)
• Increased spectrum of housing (group homes, co-housing, apartments) (6)
• Greater communication with OPC and schools (1)
• Flexible money and authority of person with DD over the money; services not tied to funding
source (3)
• Independent and not be hungry at end of the month (1)
• Language user friendly—what is target pop? (3)
• No waiting lists (2)
• More professional ized staff—less reliance on for-profit providers (1)
• Well qualified advocacy and CM so consumers and families know what is available (1)
• More meaningful day treatment programs (2)
• Not to be excluded by diagnosis or lack there of (3)
• Transportation—Easy rider is overwhelmed (5)
• Examine Medicaid eligibility requirements - if move from facility lose benefits (1)
• Case management flexibility (2)
• Support brokerage available (1)
• Self determination (4)
• Who is advising on high importance items–county commissioners (1)
• LME needs to be a key advisor ( (1)
• Active consumer and family advisory Committee (1)
• Plan to serve aging consumers with DD (1)
• Continue to have input from the public and interested individuals (2)
• More Medicaid providers (1)
• Funding for socialization training programs (2)
• Support for families dealing with consumers with DD (2)
• Day services–need an array of options (2)
• Accountability for following through on what works–utilize the methods that work and use
outcomes–clarify/define accountability–recognize the experts (1){rEACCH)
• For low incidence disabilities draw from other counties/resources for support/service/training
and people (1)
• Voc Rehab–doesn't work-fix it. VR won't open case without identified long term SE
funding (1)
• Long term support for folks who want to work (2)
• Crisis Services for folks with DD (3)
• Education of hospital regarding crisis service for individual with DD–Autism (2)
• Good system of medical providers trained to work with DD consumers (3)
• Deinstitutionalization (1)
• Self-advocacy (1)
• Coordination/education with legal system and law enforcement (1)
• Don't take money out of system, keep in system with deinstitutionalization (2)
2
Gwen Harvey-b ran,.g..e County Forum Feedback.doc Page 3
III. Mental Health Services (Priorities shown by#of votes in parentheses)
• More consumer monitoring of services.
• Move hands on treatment and less paperwork.
• Billing problems need to be fixed so providers are paid.
• Better community education with residents and employers.
Advocacy on ongoing basis for adequate funding. (1)
• Need list of agencies and resources that are available. (1)
• Hub drop-in center—non-profit—for clients—staffed by consumers separate from OPC. (6)
• Provide evidence based treatment. Example-family education and support.
• Canada —several businesses staffed all by mental health clients—progressive skill levels.
(1)
• Expand case management to keep people from falling through cracks.
• Mechanisms for client feedback and concerns. (1)
• Continuation of program —like Club Nova—good meal, safe place to stay during the day—
opportunity for work. (9)
• Continue to support Clubhouse—work, community support. (2)
• Get people out of rest homes, etc. (1)
• Offer more Section VIII housing —closed list—waiting list for long time. (1)
• Expand ACT Teams. (4)
• Quicker and easier access to psychiatric care. (2)
• Outreach to people who need services.
• Need follow-up of psychiatric care.
• Need less regulations, need simplicity.
• Policy and procedures —notebook—very large and complicated —too much paperwork.
• Access to affordable medications. (1)
• Keep in place maintenance and recovery programs.
• Partial hospitalization program.
• Peer support program. (1)
• House in community—for crisis—instead of hospital. (4)
• Affordable, decent housing. (8)
• Better transportation. (2)
• Expansion of services—housing, transportation —for more traditional case management—
basic needs. (3)
• Respite for families—who keep at risk person in home—maybe be able to have a vacant
space in group home for weekend. (2)
IV. Substance Abuse Services (Priorities shown by stars"and underlined items)
• Cuts clients out of service loop.
• If not already in system . . . too bad . . . no hope.
• Substance abusers cost most crime in community !!!
• Clients need to be treated; cuts down on crime rate.
• Will see increase in sexually transmitted disease rate
3
Gwen Harvey-Orange County Forum Feedback.doc Page 4
• Total cost ultimately will increase.
• Aftercare cost to increase.
■ ** Cost a lot more to incarcerate.
■ 50% mentally ill have substance abuse problems.
■ Revolving door.
• Lower risk clients will rise to top.
■ Communities need money for programs.
■ Develop less expensive services (i.e., Oxford House, Freedom House, supporting entities
such as this.) **
• Don't forget need medical services support.
• No services available for criminal justice system now either.
• No services should to be eliminated.
• Need more residential services and wrap around services **
Expansion service considerations for wrap around services—faith based organizations.
Need systems in place to include family support services.
■ Biggest missing link is Prevention Services **
Prevention Services in school do not work, not research-based.
Desperate need for housing.
Courts beginning to give more attention to substance abusers.
■ Client Rights threatened anonymous counseling, privacy rights? By client from private
sector.
• Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (comprehensive approach)—need more of these
type services—clients are referred through court.
• Accessibility to out patient treatment.
■ How is system going to look?
V. Services to the Hispanic, Deaf& Hard of Hearing Community
• How Hispanic community will be affected? Will it be harder to get services?
• How to inform Hispanic community about services? How to get them to trust providers
enough to take advantage of services?
• Communication problems for Spanish speaking people. Need more interpreters of the
same sex to talk about sensitive issues.
• How to break down barriers in institutions? Example: Have same contact person for client
at each visit.
• Spanish speaking foster parents and respite care.
• Need for community based service workers with sign fluency for children and adults.
• Funding needs to be available for multiple care providers and interpreters if needed at same
time.
• Reimbursement rates should match fees of interpreters.
• Funding for TTY or hearing aids regardless of income.
• Funding for interpreters for Spanish and sign language.
• More permanent bilingual onsite staff.
• Education for doctors and health care providers.
• Training in Spanish or signing for service providers.
• Cultural training.
• Spanish and deaf/hard of hearing should have same level of services as everyone else.
• Spanish and/or deaf should have equal access to best health care practitioners without
4
Gwen Harvey-Orange County Forum Feedback.doc Page 5
interpretation being a limiting factor.
■ Create networks to accomplish goals.
Deaf Adults
■ Sign-fluent direct services.
■ Need more home visits, mobile, develop trust.
■ Ability to address multiple disabilities.
■ Addressing basic needs first (independent living skills), then therapy.
Deaf Children
■ 90% of deaf kids have hearing parents. Many parents are learning to sign at same rate as
child.
■ Sign-fluent respite parents or any out of home care.
VI. Qualified Provider Network (Priorities shown by underlined items)
• Who establishes the provider network?
• What qualifications?
• Reimbursement levels?
• There should be standards required for providers.
• Movement of Funds—timely movement of funds from institutions to area programs service
providers**
• Barrier to providing services:
--Small versus large providers
--Audits /Cost
I
• Rules and regulations make it prohibitive for the small provider to succeed:
--What incentives are there to become a provider?
-- Increasing cost of insurance.
-- Economy—credit more difficult to obtain.
• How to market services to LME (OPC) **
• Provider relations.
• More education/publicity to public about services and what's available
• Control too restrictive—not LME; it's the State of North Carolina (reimbursement
procedure).
• How to develop a strong LME.
■ How can providers or potential providers be more involved in process and have input? '*
VII. COMMUNITY AGENCIES & DEPARTMENTS
5
Gwen Harvey-Orange County Forum Feedback.doc Page 6
Can Local agencies provide services?
• Who will local agencies make referral to?
• Can local agencies provide services?
• LME should avoid gate keeper role—additional block to vulnerable populations
Accessibility?
• Will services be more accessible?
• Provide services where people are congregated (where they are receiving services)
• Transportation
• Jail population must be served
• Schools are seeing increased need for mental health services–early intervention
Building bridges and collaboration
• Build bridges non-profits------------agencies
• Require collaborative efforts by agencies
Del nstitutionalization -more homelessness
• Homeless persons and associated problems -depression, substance abuse
Empowerment of vulnerable population in an ongoing fashion
• Empowerment of vulnerable populations ongoing
i
i
6
Gwen Harvey- I. Planning - Rev Oct.doc Page 1
I. Planning
I.I. The Local Business Plan demonstrates congruence with the
Mission and Principles of the State Plan.
Orange Person Chatham Area Program is a proven leader in the development of state of
the art services and best practices to support citizens with disabilities. Our primary
mission is to work in partnership with individuals with disabilities so that they may live
i
full and productive lives within the community. It is the intention of the current
administration and the Commissioners of Orange,Person and Chatham Counties to
continue this important work under the Local Management Entity Model.
The OPC Board of Directors has been a primary partner in our work to fulfill this
mission. We have been fortunate to include in our Board Membership, individuals who
are nationally recognized in the fields of public policy and disability rights. In May,2000,
the Area Board adopted and the LME hereby adopts the following Mission Statement:
Our Mission is to work in partnership with consumers and their families
so they can lead satisfying lives and become integral, valued and
contributing members of the community.
We will:
♦ Support individuals to make meaningful choices and to achieve their
personal and family goals.
♦ Respect the dignity and diversity of those we serve.
♦ Ensure human and civil rights
♦ Serve individuals most in need.
♦ Make services readily available and as timely as possible.
♦ Assist individuals to secure and keep a home and a job.
♦ Recognize the importance and complex interaction offamilies
♦ Use natural supports such as family,friends, neighbors and
community organizations.
♦ Use appropriate resources wisely by using no more or no less than
what is needed.
The OPC Mission Statement is both congruent with and reflective of the DHHS Mission,
Vision and Guiding Principles. As an LME,we intend to be a responsible agent of the
taxpayers by deploying public resources as efficiently as possible while supporting
citizens with severe disabilities in their efforts to live as fully contributing members of the
community. This Business Plan will describe an LME that will be both person centered
and outcome focused. We will continue to work collaboratively with consumers,family
members and community systems in order to maximize natural supports and minimize
institutional dependence.
Gwen Harvey- I. Planning - Rev Oct.doc Page 2
i
As we move from an Area Program to a Local Management Entity Model,the way we
serve the community will change significantly. Feedback from Community Stakeholders
indicates that there are many people in target populations in need of additional services. It
does not appear that a significant amount of our efforts are currently being misdirected
toward serving those who do not really need our help. In a time where funds allocated to
serve our neediest citizens will be depreciating considerably,it will be an ongoing
challenge for the LME to prioritize and make the best use of these limited resources.
Despite these challenges,we intend to move forward in implementing a vision that we
feel will allow us to most effectively and efficiently serve those in need.
A continuous planning process is a necessary step in order to implement our vision. We
have an active Steering Committee that meets on a monthly basis. Members include a
County Commissioner from Orange,Person and Chatham County,three county
managers,the OPC Area Director,the OPC Board Chair and the chair of the Consumer
and Family Advisory Committee.This group has provided important leadership in the
planning process. They have facilitated the review of stakeholder input and have worked
to prepare the community and Area Program for the impending system transformations
and improvements.
Once the LME is initiated,three groups will assume the primary planning role. The OPC
Local Management Entity Board,County Government and the Consumer and Family
Advisory Committee will continuously monitor the system and recommend changes.This
will ensure that the goals described in both our mission statement and business plan are
constantly being evaluated by the citizens we serve.
We view the State Plan and its system reforms as an important opportunity to improve
how we provide services to the people most in need.Although we anticipate challenges
along the way,we look forward to promoting a fully person-centered,efficient and
responsive system that the community will be proud to support.
i
I.2 LBP planning process meets state plan requirements
L2.a There is a strength/weakness analysis including methodology for building on
strengths and addressing and or ameliorating weaknesses.
To accurately evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the existing Area
Program,management initiated an extensive evaluation.The first step in this analysis was
to ensure that all stakeholders were given the opportunity to provide input into what they
liked about OPC Area Program and where the system could be improved. Consumers,
their families,local advocacy groups,staff,private service providers,public officials,
local citizens,public agencies such as Department(s)of Social Services,public school
systems,and Department(s)of Juvenile Justice,and hospitals have all been included in
this process and their input make up findings of this evaluation.
Gwen Harvey- I. Planning - Rev Oct.doc Page 3
i
i
An independent consultant created a written survey and conducted interviews. Staff
stratified active OPC clients by age and disability group.The consultant prepared survey
instruments specific to each age and disability group. Approximately 960 clients received
the survey instruments.The consultant also conducted personal interviews with clients to
allow for a more in depth exploration of relevant issues. Copies of the surveys and the
consultant's full report are attached.
In addition to the work of this consultant,management gathered data from other sources.
Staff conducted numerous interviews and made presentations of the state plan to a variety
of groups. Written surveys were sent to staff,community organizations and other
stakeholders. Survey findings are attached. The local Consumer and Family Advisory
Committee has met regularly since February of 2002 and has provided extremely valuable
feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the existing Area Program. Each
participating county held public forums and County Commissioners held public hearings
on this proposed business plan.
Findings identify strengths that we plan to integrate into the new system as well as
weaknesses that will require significant program modifications. For example,
stakeholders generally identified case management as a program strength,but described
problems related to service access, including crisis services. Our response is to create a
system that will dramatically simplify program access,facilitate crisis response and build
upon our strong case management services. This seamless system will not only help
people to easily access services,it will also provide the crucial ongoing support required
to prevent hospitalization. System details can be found in the Strategic Plan as well as
Chapter IV(Service Management)and Chapter V(Triage,Assessment and Crisis).
Stakeholders also identified several services they would like to see more of in the
community.Respite Services,ACT Teams,and Supported Living programs were all
identified as areas requiring resource development. Through the use of outcome driven
utilization management and performance based contracting,we intend to create a
provider network system that will encourage and reward the development of high quality
services. Again,details can be found in the Strategic Plan as well as Chapters IIII
(Qualified Provider Network Development)and Chapter N(Service Management).
L2.b There is a policy establishing the local Consumer/Family Advisory Committee
(CFAC) and assuring opportunity for meaningful involvement of consumers and
families by requiring:
Recognition of the contribution of consumers through their unique
perspectives and abilities
Establishment of a non judgmental environment
Timely advance notification of actions proposed
Establishment of Consumer and Family Advisory Committee Policy attached
L2.c There is a statement attached attesting to consumer/stakeholder involvement
consistent with the State Plan, which is representative of the broader population of the
Gwen Harvey I. Planning - Rev Oct.doc Page 4
i
i
i
locality with the confirmation by the CFAC.
See attached statement
L2.d There is a resolution of the governing body accepting/approving the LBP as
submitted.
See attached resolution
LZe There is a separate report submitted by the local CFA C.
See attached report
I.3 The LBP incorporates a 3 year strategic plan for the initial
implementation that:
❖ Identifies a V,2"d, and 3'1 year implementation strategy
❖ Contains goals,objectives and activities
❖ Identifies timeframes and responsible party(individual or entity)for each
goal and objective
❖ Provides evidence of ongoing planning effort
i
❖ Attaches a policy requiring long-range planning methodology that meets
State Plan requirements
(Tactical&Strategic Planning Policy is attached)
❖ Addresses steps necessary to transition individuals now in services who
do not meet target population criteria to other community resources
as necessary
ORANGE PERSON CHATHAM
LOCAL MANAGEMENT ENTITY
STRATEGIC PLAN
L INTRODUCTION: THE STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONS OF THE LOCAL
MANAGEMENT ENTITY
We propose a strong LME model that will act as a local governmental unit,organized
under the statutory authority granted the counties, and covering Orange,Person,and
Chatham counties. We envision a public process that includes both the local government
and citizens in the allocation of care and in the evaluation of its results. We intend to
minimize the portion of public dollars that is spent on administration to ensure that
maximum resources are available for consumer services. We will use these resources to
target services to the consumers who are most in need and then build upon our track
record in providing best practices to ensure the best possible result.
The LME Service Delivery System will directly provide Triage,Assessment and Crisis
Services,Crisis Services, Case Management Services(for complex cases only)and
Psychiatry(for the purpose of short term assessment and crisis intervention only). It has
been suggested that LMEs could also act as a service provider for early intervention
Gwen Harvey-I. Planning - Rev Oct.doc Page 5
services. OPC is currently evaluating the feasibility and benefits of including this service
as a core service component. All remaining services will be contracted out to our network
of private providers. These systems will work very closely with a Collaboration and
Advocacy Unit whose primary function will be to foster positive working relationships
with other community agencies and organizations.
The LME Administrative System will be structured to maximize the efficient use of
resources. It will house the Qualified Provider Network Unit,Core Service Management,
Service Authorization Unit,Finance and Information Systems,Quality Improvement and
Human Resources.
II. THE LME SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM
The Triage,Assessment and Crisis Unit(TAC)
All individuals,regardless of problem or disability group,will enter our service system
the same way. Five Triage,Assessment and Crisis Units will be opened in convenient
locations where citizens can receive assessment,referral and crisis related services.
These same services can be accessed through a toll free 24 hour phone service.
Additionally,people can access LME services through hospitals,key public agencies and
qualified providers will receive training and information regarding how to help people
access LME services.
In addition to providing access and referral services,the TAC Unit will also provide crisis
related services. Immediate crisis intervention counseling and brief crisis intervention
follow-up will be available as well as the mobilization of emergent resources as
appropriate. These may include:
• Psychiatric assessment and medication evaluation;
• Community-based crisis stabilization,which may include brief residential
placement or in-home supports to preserve community living;
• Determination of need for hospitalization when the level of need is more intensive
than community alternatives can appropriately offer;and facilitation of such
hospitalization;
• Diversion from state hospitalization for persons with mental retardation;
• Mobile crisis response,providing crisis assessment,intervention and supportive
services in-home or elsewhere in the community.
• respite care(in and out of home);
If services are needed on a long term basis the TAC Unit will refer consumers to
appropriate service providers.
The Case Management Unit
The essence of LME operations will be to expend resources by means of the person-
centered service plan and to evaluate the results of these expenditures. This makes case
management a critical part of local LME operations,as it forms the basis of the
I
I
Gwen Harvey- I. Planning - Rev Oct.doc Page 6
relationship between the individual with a disability and the public system. When a
person is in need of complex and/or long term services,the principal relationship between
the individual and the system is negotiated through the case manager. We feel this role is
best played by the LME.
A decision tool will be developed or adopted in order to determine who needs case
management at the LME level. Only cases that are deemed long term and complex will
receive LME Case Management.All other cases will be referred to an array of qualified
providers.
The LME case manager will act as an advocate,negotiator of the service plan,service
broker and service monitor. Outcomes and client satisfaction will to be monitored
through a direct partnership with a consumer through the documented,written service
plan.
The Collaboration and Advocacy Unit
This unit will continually work to improve, develop and enhance relationships between
the LME and community organizations. Additionally,this unit will work to maximize
consumer and family participation in collaborative efforts and will participate in needs
assessment and program evaluation studies. Finally,the LME is involved in a number of
special projects that are described in detail below.The Collaboration and Advocacy Unit
will be charged with administering and overseeing these efforts.
III. THE LME ADMINSTRATIVE SYSTEM
We are designing an administrative infrastructure that will be efficient in both its use of
resources and how it manages the service system. Finance,Information Systems,Quality
Improvement and Human Resources will continue to provide the support and training
necessary to keep the service system running. Additionally,a Core Service Manager will
be responsible for overseeing the Triage,Assessment and Crisis,Case Management and
Collaboration Units. The Qualified Provider Network Unit will be charged with
managing the Private Provider system for the LME. Finally,a Service Authorization Unit
will be designed to monitor service provider outcomes and to manage the utilization
review process.
IV.PILOT PROGRAMS
The Area Program has a long history of involvement in pilot projects that demonstrate the
principles of best practice. These include projects in supported housing,ACT Teams,the
Transitional Employment Demonstration Project and the Mental Illness/Substance Abuse
Pilot Project. We feel this history prepares us to take a leadership position as we enter
this new era of service provision. We are requesting permission to pilot three changes to
the State's plan for the LME system.
I
First,we propose a system that allows the LME to independently manage at-risk capitated
funds. This authority will give the LME the necessary flexibility to meet the unique
Gwen Harvey- I. Planning - Rev Oct.doc Page 7
needs of our community. We are willing to assume the risk associated with these
decision making capabilities because we feel a strong LME is best suited to serve its
citizens.
i
Second,we propose that the LME assume responsibility for utilization management for
the region. The LME will maintain control of how provider contracts are managed and
will authorize all expenditures of public resources. The LME will develop a competitive
range of services available to the choice of the client. When services cannot be
practically mounted without an exclusive contract,the LME assures a fair,competitive
process for the selection of a vendor.
Finally,our intention is to implement a system of performance based contracting that will
tie financial rewards to favorable outcomes. This will be accomplished initially through
the selection of critical indicators and the specification of financial incentives for the
attainment of critical outcomes.This activity will not replace the use of any DMH
developed outcome instruments nor the ongoing development of our local system of
Utilization Management.This system will gather extensive data related to client outcome
measures and resource costs. Profiles of individual and team providers will be developed
in order to compare providers to their peers on a local,regional and(when available)
national level. This proactive,broad-based approach will allow the LME to create a
learning environment within the network which will shape more effective service
strategies.The LME will devote its time and energy toward examining trends with the
larger client population while clinicians and providers are empowered to work with
people on an individual level.A more comprehensive system of performance contracting
using more sophisticated outcomes instruments and standards will be developed over
time and will replace the initial few indicators used in performance contracting.
V. THE ROLE OF CONSUMER&FAMIL Y AD VISOR Y COMMITTEE(CFAQ
As an Area Program,we have a twenty-year history of consumer involvement in an
advisory and decision making capacity that goes far beyond state mandated requirements.
Consumers have consistently played an active role in a variety of areas including
membership on the Client Rights Committee and the Area Board. In keeping with this
long standing practice,we look forward to a productive working relationship with our
Consumer Family Advisory Committee. The Committee's duties and responsibilities
shall be consistent with the principles of the State Plan. These include,but are not limited
to:
• advising and commenting on the LME's local business plan and planning effort
• reviewing and submitting a separate report to the Division on the LME's local business
plan and planning effort
• providing recommendations on areas of service eligibility and service array,including
identifying gaps in services
• assisting in the identification of under-served populations
• providing advice and consultation regarding the development of additional services and
new models of service
Gwen Harvey- I. Planning - Rev Ocf.doc Page 8
• monitoring service development and delivery
• reviewing and commenting on state and local service budgets
• observing and reporting on the implementation of state and local business plans
• participating in all quality improvement activities,including tracking and reporting on
outcome measures and performance indicators
• ensuring consumer and family participation in all quality improvement projects at both
the provider and LME levels
In addition,CFAC will have representation on various LME committees.This will allow
for the participation in policy development,consumer survey development and outcome
system design and analysis. CFAC will also help gather and provide ongoing needs
assessment service evaluation data. Finally,they will be responsible for assisting in the
identification of training needs and for providing relevant training to LME staff.
VI SPECIAL PROJECTS
The Area Program is involved in a variety of special projects that we intend to continue
as a Local Management Entity. It is our feeling that these ventures represent important
collaborative efforts that will ultimately promote positive outcomes and best practices.
These programs will be administered through the Collaboration and Advocacy Unit of the
LME. Examples of some of these projects are described below:
Clinical Trials Network
The Area Program has been a participant since the Fall of 2000 in the North Carolina
node of the National Institute on Drug Abuse(NIDA)Clinical Trials Network. The
Network was established by the National Institute on Drug Abuse to test and disseminate
innovative approaches to treating substance abuse in the community. The Regional
Research and Training Center for the Network is the Duke Clinical Research Institute.
OPC is one of four Area Programs participating.
The LME is committed to continuing this participation,enabling clinical trials to be
implemented within its service system and provider network,thereby enhancing the
quality of its substance abuse treatment practices and furthering the development of
treatment nationwide.
Project Odyssey
The Developmental Disabilities Department of OPC Area Program is in the third year of
participation in the NC Self-Determination Demonstration Project. OPC was selected to
receive one of the four grants in North Carolina to implement the principles and practices
of Self-Determination for persons with developmental disabilities.These principles
require that individuals with developmental disabilities be given control over how public
funds for DD services and supports are spent. The pilot projects have worked to change
the service system to put people with disabilities and their families in charge of their own
lives. Our goal has been to provide the person with a disability the responsibility of
deciding what services are needed and direct their own service purchases using public
Gwen Harvey- I. Planning - Rev Oct.doc Page 9
i
monies. The project has made funds available to hire "support brokers"who are
accountable to the participant with developmental disabilities. The support broker assists
in planning and coordinating the needed services as identified in the person-centered plan
and individual budget.
System of Care Grant
In 1999,OPC received a federal System of Care Grant to develop community-based
services for children with serious emotional disturbance and their families. Child and
Family Teams and interagency collaboration are core components of the system of care
approach.The existing Orange and Chatham Community Collaborative and a Person
Community Collaborative serve as the local management structure for the System of Care
project. Involved with OPC in this Collaborative are parents of children with serious
emotional disturbance,Family Advocates,Department of Social Service staff,Juvenile
Justice,local schools,Guardian ad Litem,community agencies(including. Chatham
Together and the Mental Health Association)and interested community members.
The Collaborative has many responsibilities including budget oversight for the grant,
identifying and coordinating services and resources across child serving agencies,
identifying training needs and exploring resource development opportunities. In 2001,the
System of Care project for OPC initiated a resource project involving community
partners, families and private foundations to explore the pooling of public funds and
acquisition of private funds in order to expand the continuum of services for children
with serious emotional disturbance.
Deaf Services
In FY 2000 the OPC Area Program was approached by the State Division of
MH/DD/SAS,Adult Mental Health Section,with a request to consider taking on the
coordination and delivery of services to the deaf and hard of hearing for part of the North
Central Region. The Area Program agreed to this request and at the end of that fiscal year
hired two coordinators, one for Adult Services and one for Child and Youth Services.
These positions serve the OPC catchment area with direct therapy and case management
services. They also provide consultative services and limited direct service to Durham,
Alamance,Caswell,Vance,Granville, Franklin,Warren,Rockingham and Randolph
counties.
In addition to individual client services,the Coordinators work collaboratively with the
area programs and other service and community providers to access resource/service
needs and develop therapeutic,vocational,recreational,and social services for the deaf
and hard of hearing throughout the area. They also serve as advocates and educators in
obtaining and enhancing access to services and improving the quality of a range of
services. They do outreach case finding,coordinate specialized services, including
interpreter services and provide linkage to the State Coordinator for Deaf Services. A
consequence of the establishment of these coordinator positions has been a dramatic
increase in the accessing of these specialized services,as consumers needing them have
Gwen Harvey- I. Planning - Rev Oct.doc Page 10
been identified. From an initial 5,the caseload has grown to nearly 50.
Continuation of these functions will be assured by the Regional Coordinator positions,as
employees of the LME. Due to the special access needs of deaf and hard of hearing
consumers,the Regional Coordinators will work closely with the Triage,Assessment and
Crisis unit and Case Management unit of the LME.The coordinators will provide access,
crisis,case management and special therapy functions where possible and will assist the
unit staff when they are providing service directly to consumers. The LME will also
establish contracts with other LME's in the region. This will ensure Medicaid
reimbursement for services provided by the Regional Coordinators to consumers who
reside in other catchment areas.
VII.DIVESTITURE AND TRANSITIONISSUES
A transition plan and checklist will be developed to help LME staff to identify current
consumers who do not meet the target population eligibility requirements. Appropriate
community resources will be identified and LME staff will provide individuals with the
necessary information and referrals. LME staff will work to ensure individuals are
transitioned in a thoughtful and appropriate manner.
Community resource information will be compiled into a list that will be available to all
staff and will also be made available on the LME website. This list will be updated on a
regular basis and will include contact information for accessing: health services, financial
support,self-help and advocacy services,faith-based services,homeless support services,
Alcoholics Anonymous support,and all other appropriate resources.
The LME will divest from its current role as service provider gradually over the course of
the next three years. Programs that spin off from the OPC system will be supported as
much as possible during this transition. We are currently examining specific ways of
helping these new agencies create the necessary infrastructure they will need to succeed,
while ensuring the integrity of free access to a diverse qualified provider network. We
will be exploring additional divesting options that may include contracting out current
services,transferring current functions to existing agencies or assisting in the creation of
new entities. A detailed divesture plan is being written and will be completed during the
first quarter of fiscal year 2004.
Gwen Harvey- I. Planning -'Rev Oct.doc Page 11
LOCAL MANAGEMENT ENTITY
THREE YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Goal One— The Service Delivery System: The LME will work to maximize
client choice and accessibility while maintaining service integrity during the
j building and implementation of the Core Service System and the Qualified
i
Provider Network
�bect ,e A�tiitte lroecec�3 Re�flrllble
\ % Ciaplr+ n Pa
Core Services: • Finalize core service First Quarter Management
Analysis of the current structure and FY 2004 Team
service structure is content
complete and the • Continue to analyze
design and initial service delivery
implementation of the data.
new core service units • Finalize Target
population
is underway. Eligibility system.
• Develop
implementation
plan with process
and dates
Core Services: • Ensure TAC,Case First Quarter Management
The implementation of Management and FY 2005 Team
the first phase of core Collaboration and
services is complete Advocacy Unit are
and all essential fully functional
functions are in place
• Begin to gather
relevant baseline
data.
• Modify new system s
needed.
Gwen Harvey- I. Planning - Rev Oct.doc Page 12
Qualified Provider • Finish review of First Quarter Management
Network: stakeholder and FY 2004 Team
The analysis of current SWOT data
provider network is • Evaluate needs
complete. assessment data
and make
recommendations
regarding any
service gaps
• Finalize decisions
regarding which
services to spin off
and add to QPN.
Qualified Provider • Ongoing meetings w tH'hird Quarter QPN Unit
Network: potential QPN FY 2004
The initial Qualified members are
Provider Network is in underway
place. • Publish RFPs for unmet
service needs.
• Continue to build
comprehensive
service network.
Qualified Provider • Outcome and other Third Quarter QPN Unit,QI
Network: performance based FY 2004 Unit,UM Unit
QPN related data is contracting data is
being gathered, being gathered.
analyzed and shared • Client's Rights,
with providers in a incident review and
meaningful way. other Q1
information is
integrated into the
new QPN system
• Feedbackloops
between the LME
and the QPN are
developed and
modified as
needed.
Goal Two— The Administrative System: Develop an accountable, flexible
and efficient organization designed to provide all the necessary supports
required by the service system.
i
Gwen Harvey- I. Planning - Rev Oct.doc Page 13
bcl s Atvit>es, 'ro�ecte spdriie.
ate .,.
The LME Governing • Compile necessary First Quarter County
Board the LME qualifications and FY 2004 Commissioners,
Advisory Board is in conduct member Management
place. search if necessary. Team
Implementation of by- • Research various First Quarter Management
laws and permanent options. FY 2004 Team,
committee structure of • Create by-laws CFAC Chair
CFAC is established. • Finalize committee LME Staff
structure Liaison
Continue to identify • Consolidation optionsFirst Quarter Management
contract options for are considered and FY 2004 Team
cost sharing. negotiated.
• Consortiums are
developed
Merger or • Complete any First Quarter Management
Consolidations necessary FY 2005 Team
decisions are finalized. negotiations make
final decisions.
Information • Install Profiler syste First Quarter Management
technology • Implement decision FY 2005 Team,
infrastructure has been support tools. Information
developed and • Continue report Systems Unit
implemented development
process
An LME Financial • Continue to monit First Quarter Finance Unit,
Management Plan is in and evaluate FY 2004 Management
place. internal controls Team
and audit trails.
• Ensure compliance
with all state and
federal
requirements.
Goal Three—Pilot and Special Projects: Use the LME model to build upon
the Area Program's long history as a proven leader in the development and
implementation of pilot programs that demonstrate principles of best
practice.
Gwen Harvey- I. Planning - Rev Oct.doc Page 14
F_
I
e ct��V e Pr�� eted,, Respo�n ibt�
my
n -
Conpltion, Pe .
c' Tate 3
Pilot a Service • Gain authorization Third Quarter Utilization
Authorization System from the Division FY 2004 Management
that will measure to implement pilot Unit
client outcomes and program.
reward providers who • Gather and finalize
demonstrate positive baseline data
• Determine outcome
results. indicators to be
measured.
• Work with QPN Uni ,
MIS,QI and
Contract Providers
to ensure system
runs smoothly.
• Create and modify
reports as
necessary.
The Implementation of • Gain authorization First Quarter Management
performance based from the Division FY 2005 Team,Utilization
contracting pilot will to implement pilot Management
begin program. Unit,QPN Unit
• Negotiate and finaliz
performance
criteria with QPN
• Negotiate and finaliz
reward criteria and
feedback loops
with QPN
• See service
authorization
activities above
At-risk capitation • Gain authorization First Quarter Management
management pilot from the Division FY 2005 Team
program is fully to implement pilot
implemented. program.
• Design reports or an
additional
requirements the
Division deems
necessary to
accurately monitor
pilot program.
Gwen Harvey- I. Planning - Rev Oct.doc Page 15
I
Goal Four — Transition and Divestiture Issues: Ensure that all clients are
supported in a thoughtful manner during this time of significant change and
that important programs are transitioned in a manner that maximizes their
chance for success in the private sector.
®b� ve Act"iiv it�es Pr �eC>kes� 2espcusathle
�c�ng eh I"artates
., dal e ,.,,
A detailed Divestiture • Develop criteria that First Quarter Management
Plan is completed. will determine FY 2004 Team
which programs to
divest
• Determine specific
timetable for
divestiture.
• Create support system
to maximize
opportunity for
divested program
success.
A detailed transition • Develop First Quarter Management
plan is complete. comprehensive FY 2004 Team
transition checklist.
• Complete list of
appropriate
community
resources.
• Train staff in
appropriate
identification and
transition of
individuals who do
not meet target
population criteria.
• Ensure a thoughtful
transition process
that will match all
non-target clients
with community
programs of their
choice.
Internal to external • Continue First Quarter Management
service provision ratio Implementation of FY 2005 Team
will be 40%:60% Divestiture Plan
Gwen Harvey- I. Planning - Rev Oct.doc Page 16
Internal to external • Continue First Quarter Management
service provision ratio implementation of FY 2006 Team
will be 20%:80% Divestiture Plan
There is 100% • Complete First Quarter Management
divestiture of services implementation of FY 2007 Team
Divestiture Plan
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF
ORANGE COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA
WHEREAS,N.C.G.S. §122C-115(a) requires each county in North Carolina to provide mental health,developmental
disability and substance abuse services either through an area authority or a county program established pursuant to N.C.G.S.
§122C-115.1;and
WHEREAS, N.C.G.S. §122C-115.1 authorizes counties to enter into multi-county programs created through inter-
local agreements pursuant to N.C.G.S. §160A-460,et seq.;and
WHEREAS, N.C.G.S. §122C-115.2 allows the Board of County Commissioners or two or more Boards of County
Commissioners jointly to establish an area authority with approval of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services;and
WHEREAS, the Boards of Commissioners of Orange County, Person County and Chatham County intend to form a
three county public entity to serve as the local management entity("LME")for Orange,Person and Chatham counties;and
WHEREAS, by January,2003, Orange County,Person County and Chatham County,through a mutually agreed upon
entity, either an area authority or county program, will provide as a joint effort of the three counties, for the development,
review and approval of a business plan for the management and delivery of mental health, developmental disabilities and
substance abuse services with detailed information on how the area authority or county program will meet State standards,laws
and rules ensuring quality mental health, development disability and substance abuse services, including outcome measures for
evaluating program effectiveness.
NOW, THEREFORE,the Board of Commissioners of Orange County by adopting this resolution establish its intent to
form a three-county public entity to serve as the local management entity for the provision of mental health, developmental
disability and substance abuse services in Orange, Person and Chatham Counties and, upon the formation of the three-county
public entity,the three-county public entity will submit a local business plan in January,2003 as a joint effort of Orange,Person
and Chatham Counties.
This resolution having submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was duly adopted by Orange County this
day of ,2002.
Ayes 7 /Y ou/•�- l 9 � 0 ��lO h� !
Noes
A
.0
� � i^`yyyyyy1
4 jl iJ
Triangle J Executive Committee
Agenda — October 23, 2002
Agenda Item: Special Presentation
Early Action Compacts A Presentation from the N C Division of Air Quality: Sheila Holman
Background: At the Board of Delegates regular meeting of September 25, 2002 the
board received information regarding the possibility that "Early Action Compacts" may become
a strategy employed by the State of North Carolina in addressing air quality attainment standards
related to transportation. In essence, the state is considering whether or not North Carolina
should pursue the same strategy as being utilized in Texaag in order to effect more time and
flexibility regarding attainment.
Sheila Holman of the Division of Air Quality, and John Tippett of the Western Piedmont
Council of Governments, presented reports on this topic to the Joint Region Forum at its October
meeting. Attached to these agenda comments, for your information, are copies of the power
point bullets from these presentations that include, among other items, particulars on the issue of
compacts as of early October.
As of the date of the preparation of these agenda comments, the state had not yet decided �-
upon the use of early action compacts in North Carolina. Owing to the potential importance of
such an action, and the short time line within which to act, this time on the agenda has been
reserved to hear directly from Ms. Holman on the this topic and the state's current plans
regarding compacts.
Recommendations): It is recommended that the Executive Committee receive Ms.
Holman for purposes of hearing a report on "Early Action Compacts." It is further
recommended that the Executive Committee be prepared to consider any actions deemed
appropriate in follow up to this report. It is understood that any action on compacts must be
accomplished on or before the end of the calendar year.
Staff Responsible for Technical Support: Anne Tazewell.
t
Protocol for Early Action Compacts
Designed to Achieve and Maintain the 8-Hour Ozone Standard
Purpose of the Compact
Early voluntary 8-hour air quality plans can be developed through a Compact between
Local, State and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials for areas that are
in attainment (including no monitored violations) of the 1-hour ozone standard but
approach or monitor exceedances of the 8-hour standard. These early action plans will
include all necessary elements of a comprehensive air quality plan, but will be tailored to
local needs and driven by local decisions. The Early Action Compact is designed to
develop and implement control strategies, account for growth, and achieve and maintain
the 8-bour ozone standard. This approach will offer a more expeditious time line for
achieving emission reductions than the EPA's expected 8- hour implementation
rulemaking, while providing "fail-safe" provisions for the area to revert to the traditional
State Implementation Plan (SIP) process if specific milestones are not met.
The principles of the tri-party Early Action Compact to be executed by Local, State and
the EPA officials are:
• Early planning, implementation, and emission reductions leading to expeditious and
early attainment and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard;
• Local control of the measures to be employed, with broad based public input;
• State support to ensure technical integrity of the early action plan;
• Formal incorporation of the early action plan into the SIP;
• Deferral of the effective date of nonattainment designation and related requirements
so long as all Compact terms and milestones are met; and
• Safeguards to return areas to traditional SIP requirements should Compact terms
and/or milestones be unfulfilled, with appropriate credit given for emission reduction
measures implemented.
Compact Requirements
The Compact will address the following components:
A. Milestones and Rewrting
o In order to facilitate self-evaluation and communication with the EPA, the State and
stakeholders, the Early Action Compact must include clearly measurable milestones
for the development and implementation of the plan. Local areas will assess and
report their progress against milestones in a regular, public process, at least every
six months. Milestones will include, at a minimum:
- Completion of emissions inventories and modeling;
- Adoption of control strategies that demonstrate attainment;
- Completion and adoption of the early action SIP revision;
- Attainment not later than December 31, 2007;
- Post-attainment demonstration and plan updates as outlined in Section E;
o In the absence of achieving milestones, including attaining the 8-hour ozone
standard on or before December 31, 2007, the area will be deemed in violation of the
Compact and will be subject to the full planning requirements under applicable Clean
Air Act (CAA) standard SIP processes including requirements defined as part of the
EPA's 8-hour implementation rulemaking. Such an area will be subject to the same
requirements and deadlines which would have been effective under the CAA and the
EPA's 8-hour designation rulemaking had it not participated in this program, with no
preferential delays or exemptions from the EPA. However,the area will receive
appropriate credit in the standard SIP process for all emission reductions from
measures implemented in this program.
o if the area has had a nonattainment designation deferred and the area does not
reach attainment of the standard by December 31, 2007, then the nonattainment
designation will be effective immediately. If the EPA's implementation schedule also
requires SIP's from areas on or before December 31, 2007,then a SIP revision
demonstrating attainment by the new attainment date will be due for the
nonattainment area no later than December 31,2008.The EPA will offer areas no
extensions or delays of the applicable attainment date.
B. Emissions Inventory
o Modeling emissions inventories using the most current tools available will be
completed for four recent episodes in order to support the early action plan. Emission
inventories must include:
- Recent episode reflective of a typical ozone season exceedance that meets the
EPA episode selection guidance to ensure that representative meteorological
regimes are considered;
- MOBiILE6 data with link based Travel Demand Model (TDM) mobile data in
urban areas;
- NONROAD model data adjusted for local equipment populations and usage rates
where information is readily available;
Area source database when possible on local survey data.
o A current inventory of 2000 or 2001 will also be developed over time to proceed with
the development of the attainment test as described in EPA's draft guidance
document.
o Emission inventories will be compared and analyzed for trends in emission sources
over time.This will improve an area's understanding of the trends in emissions in
their community and will aid in verification of the accuracy of the inventories.
C. Modeling
o Emission inventories will be used to develop SIP quality modeling episodes that
perform within the EPA's accepted margin of accuracy, including a base case and
future case on or before December 31, 2007.Therefore, inventories must sufficiently
account for projected future growth in ozone precursor emissions, particularly from
stationary, non-road, and on-road mobile sources.
o The State must carefully document modeling approach, and work will be supported
and reviewed by the local area and concurrently reviewed by the EPA.
o Quantifiable emission reduction measures will be integrated into the future case to
produce one or more control cases. These control cases will be used to indicate the
relative effectiveness of different measures and aid in selecting appropriate
measures.
• Prior to plan implementation the control strategies should be determined based on
model results from a control case episode that shows achievement of the 8-hour
ozone standard on or before December 31, 2007 through implementation of the
control strategies.
• The State will continue to develop other episodes as necessary to fully represent the
variety of situations that typically contribute to ozone production in the area and to
support the plan with the most current information and tools. Other episodes may
also indicate necessary revisions to ensure that sufficient emission reduction
measures are selected and implemented to continue to achieve target ozone
concentration levels.
D. Control Strategies
• After all adopted Federal and State controls that have been or will be implemented
by the attainment date of December 31, 2007, are accounted for in the modeling, the
local area will identify additional local controls, as necessary, to demonstrate
attainment of the 8-hour standard on or before December 31, 2007. These local
controls will be specific, quantified, permanent and enforceable control strategies. All
controls will include specific implementation dates, as well as detailed documentation
and reporting processes.
• Controls will be implemented as soon as practicable, but not later than December 31,
2005.
• Controls will be designed and implemented by the community with full stakeholder
participation.
• All control measures will be incorporated by the state into the State Implementation
Plan and submitted to the EPA for review and approval. In the event that areas wish
to add or substitute measures after SIP submittal, plan modifications will be treated
as SIP revisions and facilitated by the state.
E. Maintenance for Growth
• The plan must include a component to address emissions growth at least 5 years
beyond December 31, 2007, ensuring that the area will remain in attainment of the 8-
hour standard during that period. This future attainment maintenance analysis may
employ one or more of the following or any other appropriate techniques necessary
to make such a demonstration:
- Modeling analysis showing ozone levels below the 8-hour standard in 2012;
- An annual review of growth (especially mobile and stationary source) to ensure
control measures and growth assumptions are adequate;
- Identification and quantification of federal, state, and/or local measures indicating
sufficient reductions to offset growth estimates.
• The plan must also detail a continuing planning process that includes modeling
updates and modeling assumption verification (particularly growth assumptions).
Modeling updates and planning processes must consider and evaluate:
- all relevant actual new point sources;
- impacts from potential new source growth; and
- future transportation patterns and their impact on air quality in a manner that is
consistent with the most current adopted Long Term Transportation Plan and
most current trend and projections of local motor vehicle emissions.
• If the review of growth demonstrates that adopted control measures are inadequate
to address growth in emissions, additional measures will be added to the plan. Local
planning processes should prepare for this possibility.
F. Public Involvement
• Public involvement will be conducted in all stages of the planning and
implementation process.
• Public education programs will be used to raise awareness regarding issues,
opportunities for involvement in the planning process, implementation of control
strategies, and any other issues important to the area.
1
o Interested stakeholders will be involved in the planning process as early as possible.
Planning meetings will be open to the public, with posted meeting times and
locations. Plan drafts will be publicly available, and the drafting process will have
sufficient opportunities for comment from all interested stakeholders.
• Public comment on the proposed final plan will follow the normal SIP revision
process as implemented by the State.
• Semi-annual reports detailing, at a minimum, progress toward milestones, will be
publicly presented and publicly available.
Early Action Compact Requirements Local, State and the EPA Commitments
Local Areas
Local areas hold primary responsibility for the development and implementation of the
local control measures, as well as for maintaining communication with all parties,
including:
• Participate with State in drawing up the Compact, which embodies the requirements
described in Sections A-F, including a time line for milestones.
• Completing and signing by all parties of the Early Action Compact no later than
December 31, 2002.
• Completing and adopting the local measures of the early action plan so that these can
be included as part of the SIP no later than December 31, 2004.
• Notifying parties as soon as possible of issues and developments, which may impact
performance and progress toward milestones.
• _ Notifying parties as soon as possible if Compact milestones will be missed or have
been missed.
• Notifying parties as soon as possible if Compact modification/termination is to be
requested.
State
The state will assist in the drafting of the Early Action Compact and will provide support
to areas throughout the planning and implementation process, including:
• Development of emission inventories, modeling process, trend analysis and
quantification and comparison of control measures;
• Necessary information on all Federal and State adopted emission reduction measures
which affect the area;
• Technical and strategic assistance, as appropriate, in the selection and implementation
of control strategies;
• Technical and planning assistance in developing and implementing processes to
address the impact of emissions growth beyond the attainment date;
• Maintenance of monitors and reporting and analysis of monitoring data;
• Support for public education efforts;
• Coordinate communication between local areas and the EPA to facilitate continuing
the EPA review of local work;
• Expeditious review of the locally developed plan, and if deemed adequate, propose
modification of the SIP to adopt the early action plan;
• Adoption of control measures into the SIP as expeditiously as possible. The final
complete SIP revision must be completed, adopted, and submitted by the state to the
EPA by 2004.
EPA
The EPA will recognize the local area's and State's commitment to voluntarily adopt an
early, substantive, enforceable and scientifically-based attainment plan with early
implementation of control measures by becoming a party to the Early Action Compact
developed in conformance with this protocol.
The EPA will provide technical assistance to the state and local area in the-
development of the early action plan.
• The EPA will move quickly to review and.approve completed plans by no later than
nine months after submission of the SIP revision by the state.
When the EPA's 8-hour implementation guidelines call for designations, the EPA will
defer the effective date of nonattainment designation and related requirements for
participating areas that fail to meet the 8-hour ozone standard as long as all terms and
milestones of the compact are being met,including submission of the early action SIP
revision by 2004.
• Provided that the monitors in the area reflect attainment by December 31,2007, the
EPA will move expeditiously to designate the area as attainment and impose no
additional requirements.
• If at any time the area does not meet all the terms of this Compact, including meeting
agreed-upon milestones,then it will forfeit its participation and be designated (or re-
designated if necessary)according to the EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation
guidelines.The EPA will offer such an area no delays,exemptions or other favorable
treatment because of its previous participation in this program.
• If the area violates the standard as of December 31, 2007, and the area has had a
nonattainment designation deferred,the area will be designated nonattainment.The
state will then subunit a revised attainment demonstration SIP revision according to
the CAA and the EPA's 8-hour implementation rule,unless the 8-bour
implementation schedule requires SIP's from 8-hour nonattainment areas before
December 31,2008.In that event, a revised attainment demonstration SIP revision for
the participating area will be due as soon as possible but no later than December 31,
2008.In no event will the EPA extend the attainment date for the area beyond that
required by the CAA and/or the EPA's 8-hour implementation rule.
• No area will be allowed to renew their Early Action Compact after December 31,
2007,or initiate a new compact if it has previously forfeited its participation.
Early Action Compact Process
Oct-Nov 2002 Conduct Initial Meetings with Local
Agencies and the Public
Nov-Dec 2002 Work With Local Agencies and EPA on
MOA, Commitments, Schedule
Dec 31, 2002 Submit Signed MOA's
June 30,2003 Progress Report Due
Jan-Aug, 2003 Identify Measures,Conduct Modeling to
Assess Benefits of Measures
Sept 2003 Select Measures,Begin Rule Adoption
Process at Local and State Levels
Dec 31,2003 Progress Report Due
June 30,2004 Progress Report Due
Dec 31, 2004 State Submits State Implementation Plan'to
EPA for Approval
Dec 31, 2004 Progress Report Due
June 30,2005 Progress Report Due
Dec 31,2005 Progress Report Due
Dec 31,2005 All Measures Implemented Before Start of
2005 Ozone Season
June 30,2006 Progress Report Due
Dec 31,2006 Progress Report Due
June 30,2007 Progress Report Due
Dec 31,2007 Progress Report Due
Dec 31, 2007 Evaluation of Whether Area Has Met 8-
Hour Ozone Standard
Dec 31,2007 Designation Effective if Area Fails to Attain
Early Action Compact Process
Oct-Nov 2002 Conduct Initial Meetings with Local
Agencies and the Public
Nov-Dec 2002 Work With Local Agencies and EPA on
MOA,Commitments, Schedule
Dec 31, 2002 Submit Signed MOA's
June 30,2003 Progress Report Due
Jan-Aug,2003 Identify Measures,Conduct Modeling to
Assess Benefits of Measures
Sept 2003 Select Measures,Begin Rule Adoption
Process at Local and State Levels
Dec 31,2003 Progress Report Due
June 30,2004 Progress Report Due
Dec 31,2004 State Submits State Implementation Plan'to
EPA for Approval
Dec 31,2004 Progress Report Due
June 30,2005 Progress Report Due
Dec 31,2005 Progress Report Due
Dec 31,2005 All Measures Implemented Before Start of
2005 Ozone Season
June 30,2006 Progress Report Due
Dec 31, 2006 Progress Report Due
June 30,2007 Progress Report Due
Dec 31,2007 Progress Report Due
Dec 31,2007 Evaluation of Whether Area Has Met 8-
Hour Ozone Standard
Dec 31,2007 Designation Effective if Area Fails to Attain