Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-29-2000-3ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 29, 2000 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Wastewater Treatment Management Program Expansion Proposal - __ DEPARTMENT: Health PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): Executive Outline of Proposal Educational Plan Discussion Paper Appendix 1: Funding Scenarios INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosemary Summers, ext 2411 r TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968.4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 33fi-227-2031 PURPOSE: To provide a report to the Board on the educational plan and initial financing of the Wastewater Treatment Management Program (WIMP) expansion. BACKGROUND History of Current Program The current Wastewater Treatment Management Program (WIMP) was approved by the Board of Commissioners in 1995. The program inspects non-municipal discharging wastewater systems and municipal sludge sites. These are commonly called "alternative systems" and include !ow pressure pipe systems, pump conventional systems, large systems, discharging sand filters, and non-municipal package plants, in addition to sludge application sites. The impetus to explore the expansion. of the cun'ent WTMP was the result of a joint meeting of the Board of Commissioners and the OWASA Board in the spring of 1998, and a subsequent meeting of the Board of Health. All three boards recognized that existing failure rates of conventional septic systems are not likely to improve without action and that centralized wastewater disposal will not be a repair option in many areas of the county. History of_ExAansion Proposal The Board of Health formed a special. committee at its August 1998 meeting to consider whether citizens in the county would benefit from an expansion of the current wastewater treatment management program (WIMP) that would include conventional on-site wastewater systems (septic systems). The WTMP F~cpansion Committee, composed of representatives from the County Commissioners, OWASA, Hillsborough Town Engineer, the Board of Health, health department staff, Commission for the Environment, planning department staff, and county manager's office met several times in the fall of 1998 and into 1999. The Boarcl of Health approved the conceptual plan in November 1998, subject to Commissioner approval of resources needed to further refine the plan. The proposal was presented to a joint Board of Health, Board of Commissioners work session in March 1999. Potential funding options that were proposed at that time are attached, however the consensus at that time was that long-term funding would be worked out during the same year that the education plan was beginning implementation. The Commissioners expressed interest but desired to see a further refinement and expansion of the Educational Plan component of the gronosal. Staff oreoared a draft educational plan that was reviewed and refined by the Expansion Committee and submitted to the Board of Health for approval. The Board of Health approved the Educational Plan and the Executive Outline at its July meeting and directed staff to forward the plan to the Board of Commissioners for approval and funding. The Proposed Expansion of the Program The problem this program addresses takes into account two major factors; first that of the approximately 20,000 conventional septic~systems in Orange County, about 8 to 10 percent experience some degree of failure .and second that extension of sewer lines as a remedy in most situations in the county is impractical and/or undesireable. The, county is therefore faced with a situation where some 2,000 homes may be discharging waste that can affect groundwater and other surtace waters that are sources of public and private water supplies. The expansion of this program is designed to: • improve source water quality, • prevent disease transmission, • optimize septic system lives, • maintain and preserve septic system repair areas, • avoid or delay septic system repairs • minimize obstructions to transfers of property due to failing septic systems, especially those with limited or no viable repair options, and • reduce the expansion of collection systems through optimizing septic system lives. The proposal utilizes three basic approaches: education, homeowner incentives, and an inspection program. Phase One of the program would engender development of a public awareness campaign regarding importance of septic systems, development of educational modules and a training plan, establishment of a database of septic systems, and further development of the homeowner incentive and inspection program. In addition, grant funds will be sought during the first year to offset the costs of the program's initial development and to establish a revolving fund for homeowner incentives and potential repairs. Grant funding would specifically be sought to establish the database for future evaluation of bath the project itself as well. as to begin moni#oring water quality by geographical sector. Phase One is projected to take approximately two' years: Phase Two would continue the education program developed and initiated in Phase One and begin the homeowner incentive and inspection program as further developed in phase one. The grants sought in Phase One are intended to minimize the financial impact on homeowners that may need repairs identified during the inspections conducted during the second phase of the. program. Phase Two is projected to begin in year three, but will depend on progress in Phase One. - Request to Board of Cormissioners The Board of Health is requesting that the Board of Commissioners approve Phase One of the WIMP F-xpansion proposal, which includes the implementation of the Educational Plan, establishment of the database, seeking grant funding, and the, further development and refinement of the remainder of the proposal. Year One of Phase One of the proposal approved by the Board of Health calls for one permanent, full- time Health Educator to be hired to: • refine the educational plan in the attachment, • begin the public awareness campaign, and • begin materials development for further training. In addition, Year One also calls for homeowner incentives to be defined and for grant funding to be sought for re-inspection start-up funding and/or for the establishment of a revolving fund for repairs of failing systems. Year Twa of Phase One calls for • hiring a GIS database specialist at .5 FTE to begin database development as a long-term planning and evaluation tool, • further development of training. materials, • holding educational sessions for targeted groups and individuals, • random inspection sampling to assess the need for full program of re-inspections, and • finalize funding mechanisms for program continuation. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Assuming hiring a health educator beginning May 1, 2000, costs would include: • two months of salary and benefits (approximately $7,400), • one time start up costs (approximately $3,300) -includes office furniture, computer • minimal operating costs (approximately $300) to begin in this fiscal year. The total cost in the 1999-2000 fiscal year would be $11,OOD. In the 2000-2001 budget, the costs would be: • a full-year salary and benefits for health educator (appro~amately $44,429) • $15,000 for operating expenses for a subtotal of $59,429 for the education plan • salary and benefits for ahalf-time GIS specialist (approximately $24,358) • one-time start-up costs (appro~amately $13,000 - includes a GIS worksta#ion, printer, office furniture) • operating expenses ($3,000) for a subtotal of $40,358 for the addition of GIS. The total cost for the 2000-2001 fiscal year would be $99,787. Funds are available in the Miscellaneous Expenditure function, Manager's Miscellaneous account, to fund the current year costs. If the Board approves the program, projected funds for the following year will be included in the 2000-01 Manages Recommended Budget this spring. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the report. 4 MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE OUTLINE WIMP EXPANSION PROPOSAL July 14,1999 Board of Flealth Adopted July 22,1999 Components 1. Education (Draft plan attached) 2. Homeowner Incentives and Methods of Minimizing Financial Impact on Homeowners • -Possible low interest loans.or grants through, a revolving . fund for septic system repairs • Exemption or delays from some re-inspections based on proper checking and maintenance of individual systems • Free advanced training for community or homeowners' associations volunteers to be "ambassadors" in wastewater management and "first responder" duties • Possible free water sampling or other services provided at the time of the re-inspections 3. Re-inspections • The option given the most favorable response for re-. inspections is to begin in the water quality critical areas and expand outwards to the corresponding watersheds and eventually to the, whole county Ob'ectives 1. Improve source water quality through protection of both ground waters and surface waters 2. Prevent disease transmission 3. Optimize septic system lives 4. Maintain and preseirve septic system repair areas 5. Avoid or delay septic system repairs 6. Muumize obstructions to transfers of properly due to failing septic systems, especially those with limited or no viable repair options 7. Reduce expansion of collection systems through optimizing septic system lives. 5 TIMELINE . Phase One lat year~~-Projected startup date; January 2000 1. Educational plan development, implementation of community awareness, and module development -See attached plan 2. ~ Define homeowner incentives - 3. Begin search and submit applications for startup monies from federal and state agencies for re-inspections and possible revolving fund monies for repairs of failing systems Staffing required: One full-time health educator 2"d year 1. Education plan continues -sessions for individuals and targeted groups . 2. Random inspection sampling to .assess need for full program of re-inspections -sampling to be drawn from ezisting system inspections completed in the normal course of applications received in the Environmental Health office 3. Complete final framework for re-inspections and frequency of re-inspections 4. Finalize funding mechanisms for program continuation 5. Continue funding search for repair of failing systems (if needed) Staffing required: Half-time GLS/database position Phase Two 3`~, 4~` and 5n years 1. Ongoing education to individuals Z. Complete first round of educational efforts to targeted groups 3. Begin re-inspections 4. Have revolving fund monies, if available, in place for grants or low interest loans to repair failing systems discovered during re-inspections Staffing required: 1 full-time Registered Sanitarian 6 Beyond five years 1. Re-educate/update~education of targeted groups 2. Continue individual and community educational efforts with upgrades as necessary 3. Continue re-inspections -complete cycle for all systems should occur in approximately 20 yearn Staffing required: 2-5 full-time additional Registered Sanitarians for re-inspections. Depends on scope determined in year two. Fundin O lions 1.. Federal or State grants -for start-up of specific portions of the program and~for reducing. costs to homeowners of potential repairs 2. General fund 3. Fee per inspection 4. Annual operations permit fee charged to the owners of inspected systems structured to recover actual cost of inspection in 5(?) years 5. Annual fee charged to all septic system owners structured to recover direct costs of service delivery on an annual basis 6. Hybrid or combination 7. Staff recommendation -combination of 1, 2, and 5 above Gros Represented in the Workgroup 1. OC Health Department staff 2. OC Board of Health 3. OC Planning Department staff 4. OC Manager's Office staff 5. OC Board of County Commissioners 6. OC Commission for the Environment 7. OWASA 8. Town of Hillsborough (invited) 9. Triangle J Council of Governments . l0.OC Water Resources Commission (presentation made only) 11. NCSU Cooperative Extension (sent copies of materials only) Educational PXan Orange County Health Department Wastewater Treatment Management Plan Expansion July 14,1999 Board of Health Adopted July Z2, 1999 Submitted by: Cornelia Ramsey, MSPH Health Education Supervisor July 14,1999 outline of Educational Plan Phase I Preparation and Public Awareness Phase II Planning and Development Phase III Evaluation and Tracking System and Staff Preparation Pbase IV Educational Implementation Phase V Evaluation Staff Requirements Timeline Page 3 5 7 S 11 11 12 July 14,1999 W'I'MP Educational Plan Introduction The WTMP educational plan consists of 5 phases: ^ Public Awareness ^ Planning and Development of Training Modules and Educational Materials ^ Evaluation and Tracking Implementation of Educational Activities ^ Evaluation and Measurement 9 These phases focus on the important stages of educating the community about wastewater treatment. The educational plan outlines the purpose and strategies of each phase. Staff needs are discussed on page 11 and the timeline is shown in the Gantt chart (page l2). Phase I: Public Awareness Phase I consists of a variety of strategies intended to budd community support for the WTMP. The strategies include use of media outlets, distribution of informational brochures, working with community organizations and an information day with the environmental health.staff. The public awareness campaign will serge to "kick-ofP' the educational phase of the WTMP program and lay the foundation for the implementation of educational activities. Phase I Purpose: • Introduce the important topic (WIMP) to the community; clarify purpose; benefits (see WIMP Plan); • "Frame the issue" -clarify the link between individual septic tank care and individual benefits (longer system life, lack of sewer availability, reduced obstacles to home sales, etc) safe drinking water (i.e: detail the benefits of WIMP including soil preservation, water protection, protection of land values, environmental stewardship etc.); • Solicit public input for the initiative; • Mobilize local organizations (e.g, neighborhood: associations) and~interpersonal networks of key opinion leaders to support the initiative. Strategies: 1. Focus groups or some similar method of getting public input. 2. Submit a two-part news article to local newspapers to present the data regarding the issues, clarify the initiative and recommended procedures (interview with Environmental Health Director) and outline the solutions and tips for homeowners. 3. Develop brochures to be placed in identified public outlets (e.g. pharmacies, hardware stores, libraries etc.). Brochure will include summary of data, alternatives and resources available. 4. Develop informational flyers for churches, businesses, and health clubs. 5. Develop information on county/environmental health web page. 6. Identify target communities (through GIS) and conduct a mass mailing (of brochure). 7. Identify civic organizations (e.g. Kiwaius, Lions, and Ro gr up ( g tary), and Other O 5 e. ., farm associadvn groups, neigborhood associations), and send mailings and/or send health staff to give presentations. July 14,1999 10 9. Develop a short S-question "teaser" to send through schools ar mail in utility bill. This will ask key questions about septic maintenance and include resources for more information. 10. Participate in local cable access television program. 11. Environmental health hosts an information day far the community. 12. Target all Orange County governing boards and all appropriate regulatory/advisory boards far presentations about WTMP and current wastewater technologies. 13. Conduct Community Forums. 14. Educate critics and other residents concerned with WTMP through community forums, focus groups and targeted presentations which include purpose, benefits etc.) Measures: Cixculation of brochures, flyers, short questionnaire. Number of organi~stions or boards contacted Number of "hits" on web page. Number of individuals in mass mailing(s). Number of participants in Tnfarmatian Day. Brochures will briefly provide: • Summary of WTMP (purpose, overview - sce WTMP Plan for detail) ~ Outline benefits (i.e, sail and water protection, environmental stewardship, protecting land values, informing homeowners to be `proactive in septic maintenance) • Highlight tips for maintenance (i.e. ,frequency of pumping etc.) + List of "Do's and Don'ts" + List on contacts and educational programs and materials available. . The .short questionnaire (to be sent through the schools or other countywide mailing) will ask key teaser questions far homeowners. EXAMPLES of questions that may be used: 1. Do you know the X % of Orange County homes have wells and septic tanks rather than depending an public systems? YOU MAYBE ONE OF THOSE HOMEOWNWERS. 2. What is the most important factor homeowners should know about wells and septic tanks? 3. How do you protect the water qualify for your family? 4. Did you know that, depending on where you live in Orange County, public sewer may never be available to your house, even if your septic system and those around you,fail? Jnly 14,1999 Phase II: Planning and Development 11 Phase II consists of first identifying other similar WIMP programs in the U.S. and reviewing the educational plans and materials used Depending on appropriateness of other materials, either adopt existing resources or develop educational modules for the target audiences in Orange County. Several modules are necessary because there are several different interested parties in the WIMP and each plays a separate but important role in the success of the WT1V1P, Phase II Purpose: The purpose of phase two is to establish mechanisms to reach all interested target audiences and clearly define their role in WIMP. The development of educational modules will: • Provide consistency across all educational sessions; • Increase knowledge about WIMP and. develop skills in maintenance; and • Establish a working network to support WIMP and system referrals among training session participants. 'The training modules will contain core educational pieces but will be adapted to fit the audience (e.g. homeowners, installers etc.) needs. Training modules are needed for the following audiences: • Business (real estate, banks etc,); • Homeowners (volume 1 and volume 2); • Septic Tank Installers; ~1~~ • Community Wastewater System Operators; .and • Governing and Regulatory/Advisory Boards, Modules should include (in varying detail): i. Introduction (purpose, goals of WIMP, learning objectives) ii. Overviewof county policies and WIMP fees, incentives iii. Explanation of alternative systems conventional systems iv. Generally recommended schedule of checks .and pumping v. Referral list of resources (including `~rufeaed" list) vi. Sample farms vii. Sample homeowner tip sheet (e.g. maintenance, "do's and don'ts' viii. Expected outcomes ix. Measures of evaluation Jaly 14,1999 12 Tt is suggested that representatives firam each of the target audiences participate in the development of the module. Also, it would be very valuable to recruit volunteers from each target audience group to train others and act as liaisons for information. These volunteers can be trained by the health educator to teach the educational modules. These individuals will be health department staff, community volunteers and representatives from the target audiences. The program materials necessary to complete the educational plan (developed ar adapted from other source) (see examples): 1. Homeowner guide (volume 1-basic and volume 2 -certification) 2. Tip sheet (to be posted in garage/shed) 3. Brochure far community distribution 4. Flyers for Information Day 5. Outline far presentations to Civic groups/organizations 6. Fallow up survey for homeowners (after training) 7. Five (S~question teaser for schooUutility mailing 8. Newspaper articles 9. Sample forms 10. Brochure to recruit participants for training The specific septic tank materials to be developed or adapted: 1. Technical/mechanical guide (for homeowners) 2. Check ar Pumping Schedule 3. Reference List 4. List of `referred pumpers" 5. Troubleshooting -signs of failing system and.what to do 6. Most common repairs (how and who to asks for help) 7. Videos on home maintenance duly 14,1999 13 Phase III: Evaluation and Tracking System and Staff Preparation Phase III has two distinct but related components: computer database management and staff development. The computer database is important to track the progress of the WTMP program, The staff development component is important for orienting county staff to the new program, the educational materials and the new county policies regazding wastewater treatment For evaluation purposes it is important to track the level ofparticipation in the WTMp educational plan. Fortunately, the OCHD has a GIS workstation for environmental health. With this system, environmental health staff can target water quality critical areas and identify the most urgent (defined as containing failing systems)' neighborhoods needing intervention. Also, staff can track participants in the educational sessions and then compaze improvements to those azeas receiving the education and follow up. Phase III Purpose: The purpose of phase three is to: • Establish an efficient system of tracking and record in • Utilize available technolo ~ g~ gy (GIS system) to support public health initiatives; Establish a system with ongoing monitoring of initiatives activities (businesses, homeowners); and Track changes in practices of installers and pumpers. The GIS system will be used to graphically display baseline data and periodic updates on the fallowing: a. Location of septic tanks in Orange County; b. Identity of priority neighborhoods (based on number of failing systems in the critical areas selected); c. Tracking of education and training; d. ~ Tracking of pumping/septic tank checks (before training and after training); e. Tracking of failed systems. The second component in phase three is the staff orientation. The staff education and orientation consists of an overview of the WTMP plan and the educational plan. It includes clarification of changes in policies and procedures, the GIS tracking and the evaluation procedures. July 14,1999 Phase IV: Educational Implementation 14 The largest component of the WTMP educational plan is the implementation phase. This phase involves the environmental health staff, community volunteers, and the environmental health educator in conducting the educational programs for homeowners, governing and regulatory/advisory boazds, installers, pumpers, other businesses and wastewater system operators. Phase ][V Goal: To promote and protect public health, preserve water resources, assure proper septic system functionality, extend the average life of septic systems in Orange County reduce or delay repair costs and minimize'loss of sale" possibilities for homes oa the market. Phase 1V Purpose: The purpose of the implementation phase is to: +- Increase knowledge about wastewater treatment; • Change behavior to ensure optimal functioning of individual septic systems in Orange County • Protect the health of Orange County residents through better protection of water supplies. Objective 1: To educate homeowners about the caze and maintenance of septic systems and train homeowners to be knowledgeable in basic and advanced septic system maintenance. Year 2 Train 5% of homeowners (in priority neighborhoods) in basic (volume 1). . Train S% of new homeowners in Orange County (bought home within last 3 yeazs). Viet 10% of homeowner associations. Train 5% of homeowners in advanced (volume 2) for certification. Yeaz 3 Same as above. Send follow up survey to trained homeowners. Measures Number of homeowners trained. Number of homeowners certified. Number of associations visited. of associations actively participating in educational program (recnuting). Length of time between system installation, pumping schedule and needed repairs. July 14,1999 iS Objective 2: To educate lending institutions personnel, developers, builders, realtors and attorneys regarding proper maintenance of septic systems, indications of system failures and homeowner resources for education, technical, and possible financial assistance for septic system operation and repairs, Year 2 Reach 10% of developers, builders with education and training in septic systems. Reach 5% of lending institution personnel, realtors and attorneys with education and training, Year 3 Reach an additiona110% of developers and 5% of lenders. Follow up with those trained in year 1 to identify any problems or gaps in training. Measures: trained (developers, lenders etc.). %hameowners receiving informational packet. developers/lenders including discussion of septic systems in their transactions. Objective 3: To educate septic system installers about WTMP program and educational resources available. Year 2 Educate 5% of installers. Establish voluntary `referred list" for those completing training, Ensure 100% complete training evaluatian. Year 3 Conduct random inspection ofX% to ensure compliance. Others activities same as above Measures: Number trained. Number completing evaluation. Number on preferred list. Compliance rate with installation standards. Percentage of installers sharing educational materials with homeowners. July 14,1999 Objective 4: 16 To educate septic system pumpers regarding measurement of biosolids and indicated pumping. Yeaz 2 Educate S% of pumpers. Establish voluntary `referred list" for those completing training. Ensure 100% complete training evaluation. Conduct survey with at least 50% of pumpers to establish baseline data regazding the frequency of checking vs. pumping. Survey 20% of homeowners to identify frequency of pumping. Use OWASA dumping slips to track pumping. Year 3 Same as above. Follow-up with pumpers to assess utilization of forms and check changes in pumping7checking behavior. ~ . Measures• Number trained. Number on preferred list. Participation in pumpers survey/ frequency of pumping. Participation in homeowner survey regazding pumping frequency. Objective S: To educate the wastewater system operators and, management entities to accept septage and support only appropriate transactiions. Year 2 Send informational packet to 100% of operators. Meet with 100% of operators to ensure policies are understood. Establish a method (wanking with the operators) of tracking transactions in frequency and appropriateness (e.g. form for record keeping, sign-in information etc.). Year 3 Follow up with operators to identify system changes. Identify other training needs. Measures• Number trained (% of operator systems employees trained). Use of record keeping system by pumpers and operators. July 14,1999 17 Phase V: Evaluation and Measurement An evaluation is essential to ensure the activities implemented aze appropriate to address the public health issues, that the activities reach the tazget audiences and that the educational plan meets the goals and objectives (of increasing knowledge and changing attitudes) to improve the environmental health of Orange County residents. The evaluation plan must have an ongoing component of "continuous quality improvement" to allow feedback into the. system (e.g.~ evaluations after each training session) as well as overall annual ar bi-annual component. The annual or biannual evaluation consists of process and outcome standard indicators of success. Process indicators include the number trained, number of groups visited by staff etc. Outcome indicators include improved services, frequency of pumping, changes in homeowner maintenance. Overall Educational Prn ram cators: Improved services of installers, pumpers, environmental health staff Reduced premature septic tank failures Reduced. frequency of pumping Increased frequency of septic tank checks Increased homeowner maintenance activities (homeowner logs) Number of approved septic systems (identified by Envr. 5taffj Number of individuals trained from each target audience (homeowners, pumpers etc.) Number of organizations visited (Civic groups etc.) Changes in practices of pumpers etc. Percentage of professionals receiving education (e.g. realtors, lenders, installers etc.) {Improved water quality (?)} The evaluation plan has been woven throughout the educational plan including activities at each phase. It is suggested that an annual evaluation is conducted and report submitted by environmental health staff to measure program effectiveness. Staff Requirements: Dedicated health education staff is necessary, to complete this educational outline with detailed content information, Plan, implement and evaluate the WTMP educational plan. Knowledge and skills in media facilitation, community organization, public speaking, teaching, materials development, survey design and evaluation are necessary to ensure program success. A master's prepared health educator is recommended for this position. 18 0 a ~" a 3 ti ~ •~ o ~ v ~ o ~ ~ ~, ao ,~ ~ x~x ~c ~x ~~ ~ x~~ ~ ~c .~ ~c~cx ~ ~c~~~~ ~ ~~~ a, ~ ti ~C ~C ~C ~C DC ~ ~C ~C ~ °~ r, a d °o ~~ Qa ~X~x ~ w 0 0 ~ ~ ~ X ~C ~XDC~ ~C .~ ~"' ti ~ ~ ~ _~ ~ ~' ~ ~ a o ,o ~3 4 ~ O 4. ~ ^' '~ CS . b0 ~ -a ~ rah ~. ~• ... ~p o~ ~A. u~~~A E-~... .~~ pup o~ 3q ~- ~ q ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ "'. °~3 ~ a ~ ''~ °~1 en •~ ,,,, is A •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~,~ wo...~ ~a~ ~~r~~, ~oayo~, ~ooo~,~ ..~'~~WU~E-gyp ~~~v~f~!~~pgOE-~~ oxmSC7u~y °w~UE-~ .L I ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ a x~ Orange Couaty Health Department Wastewater Treatment Management Program Expansion Discussion Paper and Proposal Orange Couaty Board of Health Adopted November 19,1998 20 WTMP Expansion Proposal Board of Health Decision Summary November 19,1998 BACKGROUND The discussion paper that follows was presented to the. Board of Health at its regular ' meeting on November 19, 1998. After deliberation, the Board decided that it would forward the fallowing options for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners for its goal setting retreat in December 1998. The Board directed the staff to place emphasis on why the expansion is needed in Orange County. EXPANSION NEEDED TO 1. Protect and promote public health and preserve natural resources by; • Protecting watersheds and all other surface waters. + Protecting groundwater. • Lessening the chance of disease transmission from failing septic systems. 2. To lessees the financial impact of rep97ri*~g individual septic systems by: • Extending the average septic system life countywide. • Preserve all available repair strategies on individual sites. 3. Public sewer extensions into certain areas of the County will nit be a viable option in most instances in the future. Septic systems must then be viewed as a Perpetual utility; not a stopgap until sewer arrives. BOARD OF HEALTH DECISIONS FROM DISCUSSION PAPER 1. Entry into the Program: The Board chase ,option 3 (Water Quality Critical Areas) as the preferred starting point. The following reasons were cited: • This approach best effects the actions necessary to meet .the goals of protection, and promotion of public health for all citizens of the County and to preserve the natural resources by tackling older neighborhoods with higher rates of failures and also by starting with the water quality critical areas of the designated watersheds and expanding to coverage outward from the impoundments. Both rural and town dwellers benefit immediately from this approach and may realize cost savings over the long haul from. increased, average septic system life ar relatively lower water treatment costs. + The latest drag of the Water and Sewer Boundary Task Force agreement allows for sewer extension only in dire circumstances in many areas of the County. This approach maybe the best method for discovery of situations that are degrading but are still fixable so that public sewer extensions are not indicated. It also 'sets the stage for those systems going in, either new or replacement, to realize a maximum life span and provides better assurance that all repair strategies are kept intact. - • New and repaired system owner, while not set for re-inspection before 5-10 years form the date of installation approval, would still receive tailored educational materials at the time they begin to use their system. 21 2. Education Plan: The Board supported the full education plan as presented with elements intended for general and tazget specific audiences. Emphasis was placed an the need for this comprehensive plan. 3. Re-inspection Frequency: The Board agreed with the committee that the $ve-year frequency with the homeowner incentive to extend it to ten years with proper maintenance was the preferred option. 4. Funding: The Board chose the hybrid approach of partially paying for the expansion with general funds and making up the rest of the costs with annual operations permit fees for submission to the Board of Commissioners, The Board did not stipulate what the percentage breakdown should be but felt that this would be the most equitable method of distn"buting the costs of the program to all those who will benefit from its implementation. zz ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT . ENVIItONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION WTMP EXPANSION CONIlVIITTEE MEETINGS September 30;1998 • October 21,1998 November 3,1998 "In our zeal to promote onsite and cluster systems as a more. cost e, fJective method of wastewater management in small communities, we have focused too much on technologies. • Our interest in technologies is performance and cost, while .the potential user's interest is in service. To gain the attention of potential users, we have often denigrated central sewerage in favor of decentralized treatment systems. This is a mistaken approach. because onsite and cluster systems are not perceived by the public as providing equal service.... What is good about central sewerage---central inanagemer~is ,what is bad about onsite systems... , When we are able to show that onsite systems can be designed and operated over extended planning periods to meet water quality and public health objectives, onsite technologies will gain stature equal to conventional sewerage. This will be achieved only through centralized management While decentralization of treatment is the outcome, centralization of management must be the approach. " • Richard J. Otis, P.E. Y.P., Ayres Associates, Madison , WI 1998 ASAE Onsite Conference SUMhLARY On September 30, 1998, the ad hoc WTMP Expansion Committee met at the Southern Human Services Building in its first session to forge details for the proposal. In attendance were Brenda Crowder-Gaines and Rick Mazinshaw of the Orange County Board of Health, Margaret Brown of the Orange County Board of Conunissioners, Pat Davis and Barry Jacobs of the OWASA Board, John Link and Paul Thames of the Orange County Manager's office, Gene Bell of the Orange County Planning'Department, Ed Kerwin of the OWASA staff and Rosie Summers, Ran Holdway, Tom Konsler and Cornelia Ramsey of the Orange County Health Department. A work group also met on October 21 to further discuss details of the expansion. A final meeting of the full cammittee met on November 3 and finalized some of the details for the proposal. 23 This group was formed under a directive from the Orange County Board of Health to provide input to the three main components of the expansion to include gravity flaw septic systems in the WTMP framework. The components are education, homeowner incentives and re-inspections, Outlines of the history of the current WTMP initiatives and the expansion were presented to the committee for consideration and guidance. Rosie Summers and Ran Holdway facilitated the discussions. The impetus to explore the expansion came from a joint meeting of the Board of Commissioners and the OWASA Board and an ensuing meeting of the Board of Health. All three boards recognize that existing failures rates (8-10%) are not likely to improve without action and that centralized wastewater disposal will not be a repair option in many areas of the county in the foreseeable future. Failures are caused by a variety of factors, most notably-poor soils conditions, wetter seasons and individual household water habits. To prevent prema#ure failures, long term management must be implemented to extend the usable lives of systems and presence repair strategies. Since there are no programs in place in North Carolina which include management for all on-site systems, staff looked at examples from several other localities nationwide with a full management approach in place or under consideration. These localities included Georgetown Divide in California, Ten Tawas jurisdiction in New Jersey, Cuyahoga County in Ohio and Jamestown, Rhode Island. EPA recommendations were also reviewed for reference and applicability as well as information from state level agencies in North Carolina, Michigan, and Hawaii. After discussion by the committee, the propo~ will be presented to the Board of Health far action pursuant to NCGS §130A-39. If approved, the proposal will then go to the BOCC for finding consideration, . Sta$ would like for the BOCC to have the proposal for this consideration at their December retreat,. In. the meantime, staff will explore the passibility ofpreparing maps of recent septic system repairs both by township and in the OWASA service area. EDUCATION Current Efforts; The educational efforts in use in the WTMp area today are by individual contact, lmnted material given at the time of occupancy of new homes, other brochures for existing homes, and the Internet site. Mass mailings are also used, but are not routine. The emphases of the educational efforts are to promote and protect public health, preserve water resources, and extend the average life of septic systems in Orange County. One of the main facts that must be continually emphasized in this effort is that the systems must be viewed by all parties-homeowners, government and private sector contractors-as a perpetual utility which must function for the life of the house, not just as a stopgap until public sewer arrives, .. .. _ _ 24 Individual contact with the system owner is the most effective means of education, but it is alsa the most labor intensive and sometimes difficult to coordinate. It is the surest -way to familiarize homeowners with the location and functional aspects of their septic system to where they become mare competent in its continued optimal operational performance. In many instances, this type of interaction reduces both the perception of intrusion and the feelings of animosity while providing something more than a technical report in the mail to learn from. .The dissemination of printed material, both for new septic systems and existing situations, is in place, but several aspects of its use need retooling. A primary problem is that, in many situations, the ultimate owners of the property are asst known when the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the home and therefore they do not get the initial packet of information for their septic system. This same problem also holds taste when a property is sold or otherwise transferred from one parry to another. Part of the solution to this dilemma will be targeting special groups far education as mentioned below in the future efforts section. Another way to approach this problem is the periodic use of mass mailings stressing the benefits of understanding and properly maintaining septic systems. The mailings can be individually sent or incorporated into the tax bill mailings. Regardless of the future of the WTMP expansion, reviews and reworks of both the printed materials and the Inteznet site are. underway and should be complete by the end of the year. Future Efforts General - It is the opinion of the committee that several options should be explored to better "market" the educational materials. These included.: • Videos on septic systems, especially maintenance • Education level oriented materials • Promoting a "conservation lifestyle"' • Yellow Pages ads for repair advice and contact numbers • Promotion of septic systems as a safe and ecologically sound method of wastewater disposal • Promotion of onsite wastewater technologies as an integral part of the county's infrastructure Better Repans -Future post inspection reports should be geared toward enhancing long-terns performance of the system and education of the owner, not just providing advice for discovered non compliance and failures. This effort will be made regardless of the WTMP expansion. Target Grou,~s -Several specialized groups targeted, for specific educational efforts will help eliminate some of the current problems and prevent future problems in the expansion. Because of the health department unique role in the 2S involvement in all aspects of wastewater ~~ it will become the local educational resource for technicians, homeowners, Pumpers and other groups with connections to permitting and management issues. .l. Lending Institutions, Developers, Builders, Realtors and A#arneys: These groups are targeted for education because they are crucial in passing an information about septic systems during property transactions, home sales, closings ar even listings of property. The Srst step of the education could be accomplished by the Environmental Health staff asking far an appearance before executive committees or full session meetings of local affiliate groups on a periodic basis. Update meetings and regular mailings of specific printed literature will be needed to keep all members current. The committee wanted somehow to include Realtors and, lending institutions in the chain of disclosure of system type and management requirements, but there was no firm agreement on how this could be accomplished. Yn the wank group session, a focus group with representatives from this array of professions was suggested by Margaret Brown to elicit ideas on educational efforts. 2. Homeowners Associations: All of these associations would be targeted for education and all will be encouraged to view ongoing septic system maintenance as a community effort and a community benefit. The group also wanted to explore whether, in new developments, requirements for system operation can be incorporated into subdivision covenants. A listing maybe available from the "Community watch" program, 3. Septic System Installers: These contractors are now subjected to a simple registration process before they can install septic systems in Orange County. There is no current requirement for licensors or certification either here or elsewhere in North Carolina. Tf the expansion goes forward, routine continuing educational sessions sponsored by the Health Deparhneat could be considered either as a condition of the registration process or tv be put on a `~neferred list" of contractors and his information would be provided to permit applicants. Some method of sanction and removal of renegade or incompetent contractors must also be implemented so that frequent violators of installation standards can be effectively managed. 4. Septic System Pumpers: When a citizen calls a septic pumper today for routine maintenance of a system, the pumper, in most cases, empties the tank without regard for the actual level of the biosolids. Tn same instances, the removal of biosolids before they reach a detrimental depth is unnecessary and may adversely affect the biology of the tank. The pumpers would be encouraged thmugh education to check the biosolids and. empty them only when necessary. An upside of this process is that the pumper could charge a lesser fee when the frank is not cleaned because they save the costs of disposal at the accepting wastewater treatment plant plus the travel there to dump the load. The homeowner saves by paying a lesser amount for the pumper's service and the expected increase of the volume of septage aeeding~disposal is minimized. The startup and equipment costs for the pumpers to implement this practice are ~~• Tbe group went further to say that more information is needed from each pumper vn the origins of the septage and on those systems which are 26 frequently pumped. Staff could prepare ,and provide to the pumpers a simple, self carbon, standardized, report farm to use and. submit as they check and empty septic tanks. This information might give clues to where the septic system "trouble spots" are in the county. Pumpers are the logical choice to provide this information as part of the. dump report to the accepting utility. As . the, information from these reports is compiled, homeowners with frequent pumps would be sent educational mailers on how to deal with problem ~~• 5. ,Wastewater System Operators and Management Entities: These groups are mentioned becatXse of their wide range of activities and impacts in multiple areas. All area municipal wastewater treatment plants will be encouraged to accept septage, ,principally because, if the expansion is implemented, the volume of this material will increase manifold. There may also be some grant monies available for construction upgrades for municipal plants in the near future which might be available for a septage receiving station. Other operators and management entities are included for periodic education because of the ever .changing technologies in the wastewater disposal field. A preferred list of these fume could also be produced in conjunction with a quality assurance program crafted by staff. HQMEOWNER 1NCENTXVES Types of Incentives: Many incentives were discussed and the following were put forth as options for consideration. These incentive examples generally assume that fees will be the sole or partial base of funding the expansion. Extension of the Re-inspection Freguencv -Homeowners who check and pump their systems according to recommended guidelines would be eligible for an extension of the minimum review period for inspection by the Health Department. . For example, if the review frequency is set at 5 years, any septic system checked and pumped as necessary would not be inspected by the Health Department for 10 years provided the owner supplies proper documentation to our office. The extension would be granted only once during each re-inspection cycle, meaning the Health Department would inspect the system at least every 10 years. Similarly, owners who opt to become certified in. system operation, manage their systems and report findings to the Health Department could be granted extensions, but not exclusions. This certification generally requires attendance to a school far 4 days and passing a exam on the presented material. Checking the system would involve measuring the solids ,depths in'the septic tank and pumping if necessary, assessing the condition of the filter and cleaning ar replacing as needed and reporting this information either directly or indirectly to the Health Department. Community Benefits - Another type of benefit discussed was reduction of septage dumping casts for citizens located in designated watersheds. This benefit is a consideration because the individual watersheds will be further protected with the 27 implementation of the WTMP expansion. The granting of this benefit would be strictly at the discretion of the owner of the particular impoundment, either OWASA, the Town ofI3illsborough or the City of Durham. Each governing board would be approached and asked about its willingness to entertain such a move before any details are worked out. It is probably not feasible to consider this approach in the case of Jordan Lake because of the multi jurisdictional watersheds and water allocations. Volunteers for En into the Pro - It was suggested that one incentive to draw existing systems into the program could be the waiving of fees for the first consultation and inspection for volunteering owners. Slidin Fee Scale -This incentive was mentioned not only in the context of having differing fees for various sizeJtypes of systems, but also when the ability to pay is a factor. At this time, Environmental Health does have varying fee charges in permitting of systems based on the design-wastewater flow of the structure and this procedure can. easily. be extended to re-inspections. Generally, all systems sized at 600 gallons per day and under are assessed like fees and those shave that figure are based on the total gallonage, The issue of developing sliding fee scales based en ability to pay presents a different challenge however, as there is no staff ability in place for qualifying applicants. Even if some method of initial qualification evolves, the ability and mechanics for re-certification for each round of inspections is onerous and problematic. MANAGEMENT RE-INSPECTIONS Entry into the Program -- - There seemed to be consensus on new and repaired systems being automatically entered into the porgram and that taking on all systems in the county immediately or in a short period of time is not practical. Volunteers will always be accepted as staffing allows, even without the expansion being approved Requiring entrance for properties having just been transferred was also discussed, but there was no agreement on this option because the housing turnover raze for rural Orange county was not known by any member of the committee and therefore the impact of this requirement is not lmown. Staff will try to extract some figures from the overall county turnover rate and then estimate the yearly number of homes this requirement would affect. The mechanics.for this requirement are still discussed below. ~ - New Systems -Tin the current WTMP rules, all newly installed alternative and PAP systems are automatically entered into the re-inspections cycle as part of the permitting process. The main classes of systems which now require entry are low pressure pipe systems (LPPs), pump conventional systems and large residential T1 _ ~ _ / A ~ A 28 and non-residential systems. The frequency of the re-inspection cycle can vazy from every six months to once per five yeazs. This proposal would add all new gravity flaw systems and the review frequency time would start at the time the operation permit .(final approval) is issued for the system. In the Past few years, the average number of new gravity flow systems has been approximately S00 per year. Renau;~d Systems - As with the new, systems, all repaired systems cau be included in the programs during the permitting and implementation of the repair strategy. In the past few years, the average number of repaired systems has been approximately 90 per yeaz. . Volunteers - As stated above, there will be nothing to prohibit volunteers from entering into the program, and, in practice, it will be encouraged. There will need to be same type of perpetual legal authorization given by the owner for the right of entry to avoid misunderstandings during there-inspections in the future. A yearly "cap" on volunteers may be needed so that resources can be adequately maintained, Post Sale--The cause for the requirement of an inspection at or after title transfer for homes with septic systems is touted by EPA in theix on-site wastewater recommendations far State and local gov~rmmeats' consideration. According to EPA, many states are considering this mandate and all states. or localities should "develop: a program for regular inspection" of on site systems. It must be decided whether the post sale inspection, if adopted, should happen immediately or within a given time window after the transfer (e.g., six maths) or if the home should enter into the program and have its fast inspection at the first review frequency. If an inspection is to be required immediately, the cost could be integrated iuato the closing fee. The work group also suggested that the type and age of the systems might determine whether the inspection is immediate or delayed. The advantage of making the requirement at transfer or post sale is that the Health Department will not be a party to the transaction negotiations between the buyer~and seller and consequently not be subjected to the artificial pressures of closings and other financial transactions. There are now adequate private sector inspectors available far the pre-sale~functianality assessments and systems needing repairs should be flagged during that process. lions _ At the last meeting, the committee .decided the following three options should be consideared for implementation. New and repaired systems (option 1) should be a part of either of the other two options, if selected. 1. Only New and Repaired Systems -This option offers the easiest transition into management of gravity flow systems. and is similaz to the way alternative systems are entered into management now. But it does not address the issue of immediate watershed protection nor is there any consideration for 29 targeting neighborhoods with older systems or those with poor soils. All of the funding options would be feasible far this option. 2. Systems at the Time of Sale of the Home -This option was explored by the group with the funding method being the assessment of an inspection fee at closing and afterwards, the funding for future ~pe~~ could come from the variety listed below With the housing turnover in the State estimated at just over seven years, and the County's likely higher, most homes should be included by the end of the second turnover period or approximately 1 S years. . At the end of this 15 year period, all non-pariicipatzng homes would be entered into the program. 3. Systems Radiating from the Designated watersheds - In this option, the systems in the water quality critical areas of all designated watersheds would fall under inspection in the first 5 years. In the next 5 years, the systems in the rest of the designated watersheds would be bmught in and in the next 5 years, the rest of the systems in the County would be inspected. This approach is mast effective far watershed quality management. Subdivisions with older~homes and poorer sails could also be defined and prioritized for inclusion, also. The group discussed that this method might be best funded with an annual operations permit fee charged to all those affected households. Eventually, all homes in the County with oxrsite systems would be assessed this annual fee. Frequency -- Perhaps the mast difficult aspect of this proposal to define is how often the gravity flow systems should be inspected, There are varying opinions an the recommended frequency of pumping, usually based on tank size and population served, but most sources recommend checking an average septic tank every 3-5 . .years and pumping if necessary. Additionally, a new State General Statute, effective 1-1-99; requires that each new or repaired septic system installed in North Carolina be equipped with an effluent filter on the outlet end of the septic tank These filters are to "Be designed and const<ucted so as not to require maintenance mare frequently than ante in any three-year period under normally anticipated. use." (House Bill 1462): These conditions lend considerable argument to establishing the re-inspections frequency at three years. The committee debated extensively whether to set the review frequency at 3 years or 5 years during the meeting. It was finally decided that 5 years would be the more reasonable approach if the standards for effiuent filters met certain design and maintenance standards beyond the minimum required in the State rules. The agreement on the best way to approach the visit was to set the re-inspection frequency ~ S years with a notice going to each homeowner in the initial maintenance packet and also in the second year of operation. These documents would state the necessity of checking/pumping the septic tank and the allowance of a 5 year extension if the tank is checked If the homeowner provides evidence of ~o checking/pumping~efore the fifth year of operation, the inspection would be postponed until the end of the. tenth year and a new cycle starts from. that inspection. The extension would be granted. only once during each inspection cycle, so the longest period of time a system would go without departmental inspection is 10 years. Tt may also be prudent to not grant exemptions to systems over a certain age (e.g., 15-20 years) because aging systems present more problems and are more susceptible to failure. If no response is received by the Health Department, the fifth year visit from the health department would proceed on schedule. Once the expansion began, a sampling of systems could be inspected in 2-3 years to determine if the filters will be problematic before the fifth year inspections are due. Tf the sampling indicates high numbers of problems with the filters, then the review frequency could be revised as appropriate by the Board of Health. It is important to keep in consideration that this expansion will require a commitment to significant resources, especially personnel, in the coming years, if re-inspections. are part of the framework There will also be some start up personnel costs involved which may not be subsidized if fees are the payment basis. Some models detailing resource needs will be put together by staff far review on the entry mechanism is established.. Other Issues Water and Sewer Boundary Task Farce Document -This agreement will allow waxer and sewer extensions to many areas bf the county only to alleviate declared adverse public health conditions. In some areas, extensions may not be a possibility under any circumstances. Therefore an site sewage systems must be cansidared the primary and perpetual method of wastewater treatment and disposal in any unsewered area. With the finali~ation~of this document supposedly imminent, it is imperative that all aspects of on-site sewage disposal, from permitting to installation to long-term management, be given proper consideration to assure System life is maximi~E~ repair areas mainmined and users educated as_ to their responsibilities in helping achieve these goals. Accordingly, the "toalkit" which matches repair/response options for failing systems to all designated areas of the county must be put into place concurrently with the WSBTF document and understood by all governmentaVutility agencies with jurisdictional authority in those areas. Space for Housing Personnel - If approved and implemented, this expansion will require additional personnel. Presently, the space to house additional employees, in the Environmental Health o$7ice is severely limited. Additional office space will be needed for this expansion. 31 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Costs ~ . When the existing WIMP proposal was preseIIt~, ~ the late 1980's; David M. Griffith and Associates conducted the study to establish tlie fee level and other related financial considerations. The fees approved for the implementation of the program were approximately one-half of the DMG recommendation and one FTE was fimded to start the work At present, the direct fees account for approximately one fourth of the FTE salary costs and the percentage of fee reimbursement gradually increases each year. Because the DMG methodology was based Primarily on direct costs, staff doe§n't believe it to be the best way to approach the estimation of costs fvr the expansion. The Institute of Government is conducting a study of the costs for environmental health services ~in several counties across North Carolina'which is based on a more comprehensive cost allocation model. The first draft of this study is due out soon and should offer a more accurate way to look at the actual costs of providing education and inspections. When finalized and if fees are part of the funding mechanism, staff will prepare a fee schedule for the committee's review based on the IOG methodology and findings. CIP needs such as computers, technical equipment and vehicles will also be figured. into the fee base. The direct costs for each inspector will be salary and. fringes, vehicle, computer equipment, field equipment, and office finniture. Funding - There are several options for paying for this program expansion. It is staff's recommendation that the option selected also be used to fund the existing W'I'MP activities. General Fund -The general fiord is the first option for covering the expenses of this program, The principal argument against using the general fund is that municipal citizens would be paying for inspection of county resident's septic systems.- However, it must be considered that the watersheds for the three main impoundments (and a proposal, fourth) serving the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough are mostly comprised of county lands served by on-site septic systems. This expansion will be a benefit in the protection of those reservoirs. The general fund approach would also eliminate take the "ability to pay" and non- payment issues and be much easier to administer from the Health pave. Department's S ecial Fund -- Although a special fund, even an enterprise fund, could be considered, there was not much support for its use with the committee. This method would allow for the charging of a monthly fee to each enrolled owner for ._ _-- ~z the management oversight of their system. One of the localities studied in California use this method and the monthly fee was $12.50 in 1992. Service District -The county engineer proposed a "sewer tax district" far consideration. Although there are limitations for its use, it would help address the inequities and ability to pay issue's. This tax district would be developed as a service district as prescribed in GS 153A-300 and applies only to certain parts of the County. If the district extends into municipalities, it must be approved by those affected towns or cities. The formation of these districts is a BOCC responsibility and there is a limit on the amount of tax that can be levied in their use. Fees - WTMP was originally approved to be afee-sponsored program with the Srst years augmented by the general fiord until the numbers of inspections reached a sustaining level. If the expansion is to be financed by fees, an accurate cost . allocation model, developed with help from the Institute of Government study, should be used. Advantages to using fees are: they can be structured, differentially so that larger or more complex systems pay more; they are easily adjusted to meet operational expenses; and have little or no impact on'the County's tax rate. Disadvantages to using fees are the cost and methods of their collection, delinquent and non-payment remedies, and that benefits are realized by citizens who don't participate in the fee payment. There were two basic models of fees discussed by the group. The first was a `der inspection fee which is billed after the inspection service is rendered. The second was' an annual "operations permit" fee which would be part of the annual tax bill and spreads the cost ofthe re-inspection over the length of the 5 years review frequency. . Hvbrid -During the first meeting, the committee seemed to support a combination of fees and general fiord monies to finance the program. The advantage to this approach is that all citizens, as beneficiaries, help support the costs of the work but. the individual system owner bears the majority afthe costs. The disadvantages of fee administration, payment collections and non payment/delinquencies remain with this system. It must be also be assured that the proportions and mechanisms of funding are well understood by everyone involved and that the commitment to using general fund monies for this purpose is strong. At the final meeting, however, the group was leaning more towards the annual ' "operations permit" fee with the caveat of providing same relief ar options to those with limited ability to pay. Fee Collection Methods Current Method - Fees are now assessed, billed and collected through .the Environmental Health office. There are some type inspections which are not being 33 billed an advice from the county attorney. Na remedies for delinquencies and non- payments are being used, also based on the attorney's advice. Man er's Method -The manager has suggested the use of the annual tax mailings as a vehicle far billing and collecting the fees. According to him, this is similar to billings from other county agencies an the tax bill, While all the remedies for collection of delinquent taxes would not apply if the fees ga unpaid in this setup, the collection rate would probably be much higher than it now is and current remedies far non-payment would not be lost. This method would be applied to both the `der inspection" and the annual "operations permit" options. 1F~inanciaY Security 'The final aspect of the expansion proposal discussed by the committee was the financial security far repair of septic systems when they fail. The types of security requirements discussed were bonding,~revolving funds, escrow accounts, up front replacement money, initial dual drainfield installation, and slow interest/no interest capital reserve fund coining Pram fee augmentation, The committee reached no agreement on whether a security plan was necessary for all systems, which method would be better or how any plan, would be implemented. There was general agreement that larger and higher risk systems should be under some sort of security plan for eventual repairs and that lower income citizens should have access to grants or low interest loans for system replacement. The county attorney will also provide guidance on this matter before the plans are finalized. ~...~.. ~ n _ r ~ ., 34 Apperidax On.c System and Inspection Estimates Funding Scenarios . Information Presented at roint BOCCBOH Meeting, March 1999 F O 0 W h F W O ~U NW ~~ _ H A H O U W as O '' M N ~ ~ ~.+ ~~ o ~. a U ~ H 0 w ~ ~~ a a H a ~~.~ ~~.~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~W O H U O O U W G~ ~ ~. ca ~ ~ ri w r.+ W ~~ v~ " ~'' a+ ~~ ~ ~ ' W a ~ U a °o A .. "" w H~ ~ao.~ 00 ~~~s ~~~ ~~~ EW-, •~ a~i ~ O ~ ~ a ~W~W 0 N~ .. . a~ ~ ~ N .~ ~ ~ a ~ W a 0 O •~ U ~ a O w rn o ~ ~°o~ W c "''~ ~ N O rail o ~~W 0 H F d A • O w QU ~ A~ ~~ a ~~ ~ ~~~~ AA ~~ o c oa~ a.w~w ~ ~~ ~' a 0 W UU~U vz~~~ o~~~°~ v~oo~o 36 POPULATION: Total County Population Municipal Population Non-municipal Population AREA: Total County Non-municipal* Municipal DENSITY: Overall County Density Non-municipal* Municipal 107,24D 63,340 43,90D 399.5 Mil 374:3 Mil 25.5 Mil 268.2 Persons/Miz (107,240/399.8) 117.3 Persons/Mi2 (43,900/374.3) 2,483.9 Persons/Mi2 (63,340/25.5) PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD ' Chapel Hill 2.17 (From OSP) Carrboro 2.04 (From OSP) Hillsborough 2.50 (From OSP) Overall Orange County 2.24 (From OCEDC) ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF SEPTIC SYSTEMS IN ORANGE COUNTY 15,000-20,000 (19,000 used in watershed estimate calculations) * -Includes ETJs and JPAs 3 ~ ~ W ,,,~ W Z _Q N ¢ 2 O ~ ~ ^ W ~ ~OWWgZ= ~ ~ ~ ~ ?¢m0~~ ~ -- W Q W a N ~~°~° ~ ~ ~ °W~W ~ C' CA = Z~Q V) W © V Z ~ O ~. ¢ Z N ~ ~ W C LJ (,~ Z } ua ~~WN ?m~^~ LL o ~ o ~- ~ LL ~, =~ ~"' ~ Z ~ r. ~ Q ~ m ~ ~ I-'C~^ ~2 a y ~z¢~W m = a ~ ~ ~~ z W I Z O Z Z~ z ~ a ~ o o z~o~¢ S a U o ~ ~, W _ ~ V v Q ' }, ~ W Q ~ J W ~ . W ~ ~ ~ ~ w t!a W ¢w ~~ a ~ ~~ W z ~Q O~ W J ?a ~I I I I I~ NI I I ~ N c~] r r 0 o a o ao r• ~~~ f~ N ~ N ~ CD ~ N c1 th CO ~ Ne~~~ M ch Q o 0 o ao ao hl ~ 1~ O ODD QED ~~a~D ~ ~ u? ti N ~ N N N A • C D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~, ~ O ~ ~ ti ~~~ et W M O ~ Cp J Fa- E ~ O C O ~ r r ~ ~ ~ r ~ r N C~] N N U U ~ V U ~ U U ~ ° ~ ° ~ ° ° ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ff-- ~ H ~ ~ ~ ~ J 0 N W m ~ ~ ~' 38 METHOD 1 Number of systems in a given area (WQCA or watershed) =Percentage of square miles of non- municipal county land in that azea times the estimated total number of systems in Orange County (19,000) EXA1VfPLE: For Cane Creek Water Quality Critical Area # SYSTEMS = 2.004% * 19,000 or 381 METHOD 2 - Number of systems in a given azea (WQCA or watershed) =Overall number of persons per square mile.in non-municipal Orange County (117.4) times the number of square miles in that given area divided by the average number of persons per household in Orange County EXAMPLE: For Cane Creek Watershed # SYSTEMS = 117.4 * 29.2 _ 2.24 or 1530 3c ~~ m r ~ N N ~ p LL7 C ~ N y. N N w ~ oo N p~ a O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r ~r}} j N N Lll N } ~ ~' C 1~ ~ e- m ~ ~pj Cry ~ ~j ~ d N N ' r O Obi ~ m ~ ~ O ~ W~W N ~ ~ ~ p N r pp r y N p~ mp ~ l'~7 tD O IA ~ ~p `-' ~ N H N W QI~ ~ ~O d co fO .~ ~ r r r . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W o •W l r ~ ~Yi ~ C ~r~ N ^ ° m a `~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~Q a Y a ~ r i C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: .~ W ~r ~ ~ ~ ~ ap 9 ~ ~ N (7 'C ~~ ~ p r ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ Q m ~p ~ ti ~ ~ ° ~ N Q ~ N ~ g ` ~ ~ ~ ~~ Iq h N M ~ ~ N ~, H W O ~ • Q ~ N ~ ~ ''S' m {~ 4 ~ N ? N N W N N w ~ Q ~ 'a ]- fV ~ N ~ ~ ~ N o ~ O u~ ~ $ N H d ~ J o ~ ~ ~ 'r N m ~ ~ O 0 ^ [~ o 4a N m ~ fV v ~ y , LO In ~ 3 ~ a; 0 3 c .~ wp ~ ~ o 3 w N Q ~~_ ~ `~ ~ m o ' ~- ~ J ~ ~ ~ O * - ~ c~ C9 ¢ ~.,~ W 4 U v ? ? z~ n 40 SCENARIO NOTES These scenarios represent three different methods for funding the WTMP expansion. Since the existing WTMP activities are proposed to be folded into a comprehensive approach with the expansion, their numbers aze included in these figures, The mechanism for entry into the program is to include all newly installed systems, repaired systems, alternative systems and those gravity flow conventional systems which are re-inspected each yeaz. The gravity flow system re-inspections would begin in the Water Qualify Critical Areas in the County, expand into the corresponding watersheds and eventually into other watershed areas not serving as water supplies for Orange County citizens. The projection is that entry of all systems in the County would take 15-20 years. Because the Boazd of Health recommended splitting the cost of the program between the system owners and the general fund, each of the three, scenarios has .been broken down, into 60/40 and 80/20 percentage splits. These splits were arbitrarily chosen by staff. The first alternative of an annual operations permit fee originated in the WTMP Expansion workgroup and was the one endorsed by the Board of Health. This fee would be charged to systems owners after their system is installed, repaired or re-inspected: The fee would subsidize the cost of the next re- inspection in five years. If new system owners took advantage ofthe incentive and voluntarily serviced their system before the fifth year, the fee could be waived for yeazs 5-10 since no re-inspection would be necessary before year 11. The second alternative would continue fee collections according to the current setup of billing each existing system owner after their systems are re-inspected. The current WTMP fee is $60 and does not approach full recovery of the service cost. The last alternative is one offered by the County Manager which spreads the pro-rated cost to system owners of the program to all homes/businesses in the County served by on-site wastewater systems. It has the advantage of nllnimi7ing the financial impact of the program to individuals while eventually providing for the re-inspection of all existing systems. Please note that all three paradigms assume 100% collection rates and include only direct personnel and operating costs and that revenue collection could lag behind the implementation of the program. Furthermore, if extensive failures aze discovered, there may be more staff requirements for repair permitting and installation inspection, All system figures are generally based on projected growth rates and estimates from system installations in the 1990's. Finally, the educational and database positions are included in the cost estimates but they are not part of the staff requirements listed on the system estimates spreadsheet. 4: SCENARIO I-A Annual Fees/General Fund for New, Repaired and Re-inspected Systems 60/40 YEAR ONE OPERATING COST - $225,000 • Annual Fee Share - $135,000 • General Fund Share - $90,000 NUMBERS OF SYSTEMS SUB7ECT TO ANNUAL FEE • .1,675 . • Includes all new systems, repaired systems, inspected existiing gravity flow systems, and inspected existing alternative systems. • Annual fees would begin to be assessed after installation, repair, or inspection to cover the cost of the re-inspection in the sixth year of operation after installation or last inspection. ANNUAL FEE ASSESSMENT -Approximately $S1 total or $17 per year for the five year minimum inspection interval. These are direct personnel and operating costs only. SCENARIO I-B Annual Fees/General Fund for New, Repaired and Re-inspected Systems 80/20 YEAR ONE OPERATING COST - $225,000 • Annual Fee Share - $180,000 • General Fund Share - $45,000 NUMBERS OF SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO ANNUAL, FEE • 1,675 • Includes all new systems, repaired systems, inspected existing gravity flow systems, and inspected existing alternative systems. • Annual fees would begin to be assessed after installation, repair, or inspection to cover the cost of the re-innspectian in the sixth yeaz of operation after installation or last inspection. ANNUAL FEE ASSESSMENT _ Approximately $108 total or $22 per year for the five year minunum inspection interval. These are direct personnel and operating costs only. az SCENARIO II-A Fee Per Inspection/General Fund' for Re-inspected Systems . - G0/40 YEAR ONE OPERATING COST - $225,000 • Inspection Fee Share - $135,000 • General Fund Share - $90,000 NUMBERS OF SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO INSPECTION FEE • 97S • Includes inspected existing gravity flow systems and inspected existing alternative systems. • Inspection fees would be billed for personnel and operating cost recovery after inspections are completed. No indirect costs aze included. FEE PER INSPECTION - $140 scENARIo Iz-s Fee Per Inspection/General Fund for Re-inspected Systems so/Zo YEAR ONE OPERATING COST - $225,000 Inspection Fee Share - $1$0,000 + General Fund Share - $45,000 NUMBERS OF SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO INSPECTION FEE + 975 • Includes inspected existing gravity flow systems and inspected existing alternative systems. • .Inspection fees would be billed for personnel and operating cast recovery. after inspections aze completed. No indirect costs are included. FEE PER INSPECTION - $185 X43 SCENARIO IlI-A Annual Assessment/General Fund for A11 Systems in Orange County 60/40 YEAR ONE OPERATING COST - $225,000 • Annual Assessment Share - $135,000 • General Fund Share - $90,000 NUMBERS OF SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO ANNUAL ASSESSMENT • Approximately 19,000 • Includes all on-site wastewater systems in Orange County. • Annual fees would be assessed at the inception of the expansion to cover the cost of inspections. It is estimated that all existing systems in the County would be inspected in 15-20 years. ANNUAL FEE ASSESSMENT -Approximately $S per year. These are direct personnel and operating costs only. scENARIO III-B Annual AssessmentJGeneral Fund for All Systems in Orange County SO/20 YEAR ONE OPER.ATIlVG COST - $225,000 • Annual Assessment Share - $1$0,000 • General Fund Share - $45,000 NUMBERS OF SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO ANNUAL ASSESSMENT • Approximately 19,000 • Includes all on-site wastewater systems in Orange County. • Annual fees would be assessed at the inception of the expansion to cover the cost of inspections, It is estimated that all existing systems in the County would be inspected in 15-20 years. ANNUAL FEE ASSESSMENT -Approximately $10 per year. These are direct personnel and operating costs only.