Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-03-1999 - 9d,, . ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 3, 1999 Action Agenda Item No.y y/y SUBJECT: Action Plan for Extension of Water Lines to Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood DEPARTMENT: County Commissioners/County .PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No Manager ATTACHMENT(S): Resolution 6/99 Report from Landfill Community Benefits Sub-committee 10/25/99 County Engineer Memo 1/6/99 County Engineer Memo INFORMATION CONTACT: Commissioners Halkiotis or Jacobs, ext. 2125 Rod Visser or Paul Thames, ext 2300 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501. Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To consider adopting a resolution that would set in motion the process for constructing extensions to existing water lines to provide service to designated properties in the historic Rogers Road neighborhood. BACKGROUND: Governing boards from all member governments of the Landfill Owners' Group (LOG) approved a series of benefits to be provided to neighborhoods in the vicinity of the existing landfill on Eubanks Road. Last fiscal year, asub-committee of the LOG met and issued recommendations regarding the extension of water lines to various properties in and around the historic Rogers Road neighborhood. With the recent completion of the interlocal agreement governing the future organization and structure of solid waste management among Orange County and its municipal governments, it will be the responsibility of the County Commissioners to oversee the implementation of the remaining landfill community benefits. On October 6, 1999, Commissioners Halkiotis and Jacobs, formerly members of the LOG Community Benefits Committee, met with County staff to review the water line extension recommendations. Details must still be worked out on the exact scope, responsibilities, timetable, and financing mechanisms involved with the various aspects of the water line extension project. Nevertheless, as a result of that meeting, the Administration recommends that the Board initiate action that would lead to design of the extended system and installation of the main lines that will carry water to the historic Rogers Road neighborhood. It is the Board's stated intention to use Landfill Funds for the provision of landfill community benefits 2' to the extent that it is legally permissible to do so. There appears to be general agreement that the extension of main water lines to the landfill is an appropriate use of enterprise funds. The attached memoranda from the County Engineer explain the process that was used to estimate the costs of the project, and outline an approach under which OWASA could be engaged to undertake the water Fine extension project on an assessment basis. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The estimated cost of the entire water line project could exceed $1 million. The exact apportionment of cost between the landfill enterprise fund, any possible grant funding sources, individual property owners, and other financing mechanisms remains to be determined at a later date, and depends on the scope of the project as it is ultimately undertaken. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Administration recommends that the Board adopt the resolution and authorize staff to engage OWASA and the municipal governments in a process that will lead to design and construction of the main water lines to the landfill and its vicinity. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS A RESOLUTION INITIATING THE EXTENSION OF MAIN WATER LINES TO THE VICINITY OF THE EUBANKS ROAD LANDFILL WHEREAS, the governing boards of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange County have agreed on a series of community benefits that should be provided to neighborhoods in the vicinity of the Eubanks Road landfill, and WHEREAS, one of the agreed upon benefits involves the extension of water lines that would serve designated properties in the historic Rogers Road neighborhood, and WHEREAS, it is a reasonable undertaking for the Landfill Enterprise Fund to pay for the extension of main water lines that could serve the Eubanks Road landfill and related publicly owned properties, and WHEREAS, it is the desire and intention of the Orange County Board of Commissioners to carry out the plans to extend water lines to the historic Rogers Road neighborhood in as expeditious a manner as possible; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Orange County Board of Commissioners does hereby authorize the County Manager, County Attorney, and staff to undertake a process involving its municipal partners and OWASA to design and construct main water lines to the vicinity of the Eubanks Road landfill. This, the 3`~ day of November, 1999. June 1999 To: Osage Coutrty Board of Cammiatioutt Csrrboro Board of Aldermen Chapel I~'s1l Town Counml I.aadfil! Owner' t3roup From: Comm~y Buts Committx Subject: Recammeadstiow for Benefits to Rogers Road Cammuttity Coammtbee Members: Kenrin Foy, ooavener Joel Brous Jetlde t3ist Steve HaUdotis Satry iaoobs ndeaa MaDu$se Mtb ~ The Comrauosty Beae}tri C~roittee was established as a sulacemmittee and charged by the L~aadi3l! OMnaens Group with developing rboommendations far the oxtonsiaa of water line, iuCdadiag the geographic scope of water extension and rneclraaientis for ftndiag water eoctmeion. Based upon ci'iscssaians that included information provided by the soIId we~ste staff, co~mry engineer, OwA5A sta$ oou~aty housing crud development staff, and interested cttizens, the oommittoe made the followitag fadiaga: t) The acope of the project should ettcotnpess the area shown an tho attached map entitled "Grange County Landfill Study Area," with the erxeeption of Lata 30, 115, 116,117, and 118. Any water lice should be extended only so far as aeoessa>y to tveeeh Lot 32. This reavioe area iacittdes 114 properties, conrsuaing approximately 94 dwdfiag units, of which 77 units aro knowia W be inhabited. The cervice area is referred to as the "1~btoric RAgt~s Road Ares." Tt~e scope ofthe projeact was determimed slier sn ire physical survey made under the dua~.ioc~ of tlar courrty et>gineer'a office. z~ The estimated cost of extestding water is 8950,000.00. This includes construction costs t~ the public pcntion of tlm line (sStS0,000:00); P~~B ana arbor vests for ladividusl service lima: (1270,000.00); and utility service Seen for individual catmectioas ('580,000.00). 4 3) The Nunn property presmdts a challenge because it caru~ot easily be served by an exte~iOn of water linty fra:<t other paints in the Historic Rogers Road Area. The careaulttee met end spoloe splly with r~eprese:statives of the Nunn FarrWy. Based an tbea~ oanwnadaa-t, the Nuam Farmly aad the committee agreed that the re~saabk local ageetey should ec~' into an ggra~nert with the Nwsn Family to provide t~ ~liowieg: 1) a new ~ weII to monitor water quality on tl>c NuAn ProP~y would be put ia- place iaamedaste~y; 2) a wmtract would be entered iruo ~- betweeat tlse Naaam acrd the reaponndible local atgaetey that guatramtees of water to the Nuem property upon the happening of cagier aiggerlasg waaits. These tti~iog eYeo~ts would inaichude, among other thirds: a) am deaorioresian of water QTY that the Na»xss idesst~r, whether through the ~~~ b} watac ~ exteeaded witlaia the viciaity of the Nunn property (for v~6 Rom: c) other aNents of a siad~i+tr nature that would lead to clue nrocasity err eonveniencx ~ awter to the lvtmas property. 4) T]ae committee nx~oatNacseasds dse project is two pasts: SS60,000.00 for the phoensetrt of public water }ioea and x390,00,00 ihr coanectiane to private propeaties. 5) The committee t~ ibst the pubes portion ofthe project be funded sad started . Funding eLoeld bE 5+oaa a caumtywide source, such ss (e) a band, (b) o aft or (c) gateral fiord- 6) 'The comtrgttee reoorrarernds that the comrxdons to Pie P ~ through a p b3- ~ P~ local ageat3-. The cotuseetiorm should be Sutded to the eu~ertt possible by eker~iv~e fttndi~g rneciwriama, including state and federal aowoas. Hoa-aver, the conaetigee imnatigated potential sources of fia~nds, and is aware that eaadt aouroas might bn tpaad~- avau~able sad are unfikety to meat the amiaipatad need for tba Nrsboric Rogers Road .Aral. Assy shartihll of futrds fi~ alteat~uive sources steroid be path for by fiords from a ao~tyvride source, suds acs those earu~atempad io ~ a~bowe. u any care, the committee r+ooortds that as part of the llaatditag program, the owiser of easy private property drat is the betteBaaty of public fiords floc cassttections slwald be ~ tv aatar into as agrraatsient with the locate agarucy to mai~in the pro~r es aft'ordab~ housing far a t~anabk period of time after the water lissa beneftt has bees aocteaded. MEMORANDUM TO: County Commissioners John Link, County Manager COPIES: Rod Visser, Assistant County Manager FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Engineer DATE:. October 25, 1999 SUBJECT:. Water utility project for Rogers Road neighborhood As per the request of the Commissioners Halkiotis and Jacobs, I have outlined a potential strategy/scenario for the BOCC to consider as it deliberates on the process of providing an extension of OWASA water. utility service for the Rogers Road neighborhood. Although this strategy does not deal directly with the manner or source of funding for the project, it may strongly influence funding options. 6 The basic strategy which the County can employ to bring about the extension of water utility service to Rogers Road is one in which the County would work with Chapel Hill, Carrboro and OWASA to develop the project in a manner similar to a typical OWASA utility assessment project. Engineering design, surveying and construction would be provided by independent contractors or consultants. However, as per standard assessment project procedures, OWASA would provide the legal, technical and administrative services related to acquisition of easements and oversight of surveying, engineering design, construction activities, project close-out, eta The advantages of this process are numerous: a) OWASA staff, which is very experienced in dealing with utility extension projects, would be providing the administrative services for the project; b) the assessment process provides the potential for an annualized (as opposed to lump sum) repayment of project costs; c) the necessity to make final decisions on funding sources prior to project implementation is eliminated as the fmal assessment amount is not determined until the completion of the project; d) the effort to provide a system that meets OWASA's standards is greatly simplified. There may also be a few unclear areas relating to developing the project through the OWASA assessment process. One important issue is the application or suspension of OWASA's agreements with Chapel Hill and Carrboro as to OWASA's assumption of legal and engineering expenses and financial participation by the towns in assessment projects. A second issue is that coordinating the project through OWASA but securing Chapel Hill .and Carrboro's consensus for the process or the details of the project could prove to be as unwieldy as working through the LOG. Although there are obviously some potential difficulties in developing the Rogers Road water utility service project as an OWASA assessment project, these difficulties appear to be more than offset by the potential benefits. It is my recommendation that the BOCC direct staff to begin negotiating with OWASA staff to create an assessment project - with a specific set of criteria for delineating what costs are to be assessed, how they are to be assessed and when they are to be assessed -for the extension of water service to the Rogers Road community. The criteria would also address the issue of line size/capacity and how any additional costs attributable to sizing lines to provide capacity for future use would be assessed and paid. These criteria can be submitted for approval - as necessary - to the BOCC and the boards of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and OWASA. "If I may provide additional information at this time, please advise. 8 MEMORANDUM TO: LOG Community Benefits Committee COPIES: LOG members and staff FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Engineer DATE: January 6, 1999 SUBJECT: Rogers Road Community Benefit Survey and Analysis At its May 1998 meeting, the LOG received a report from the County Engineer on the preliminary cost estimates for providing community water service benefits to the Rogers Road community. The LOG was advised that the information used to develop those cost estimates were derived from: a) County property tax records (which did not provide adequate information on mobile homes); b) aerial photographs from 1987; and c) a preliminary water and sewer layout and cost report developed by Hazen and Sawyer for OWASA (based on unclear or incomplete instructions as to the scope and nature of the project). The LOG authorized Orange County to hire an intern to survey the Rogers Road community to obtain or verify all available information relative to the physical extent, boundaries and description of the neighborhood, the need in the neighborhood for community water service and the neighborhood social and economic demographics. The primary purpose of the survey was to provide information that would allow policy makers and staff to determine the extent a water system necessary to provide service to the neighborhood, the cost of that service and what portion of the cost for service would be provided from local government expenditures. The intern, Neil Templeton was hired by Orange County in September 1998. Using Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) equipment to obtain relatively precise building locations, survey forms and visual observations, he worked in and through the neighborhood and with neighborhood leaders and activists from late September through early December 1998. The survey forms used by Templeton were developed by the County Engineer using existing CDBG eligibility forms modified (with input from County Housing and Community Development and Environmental Health personnel) to accommodate data specific to the. Rogers Road neighborhood and the decision process for local government policy makers ultimately for authorizing and funding community benefits specific to provision of municipal water service. Specific questions and observations related to; 1) number (of occupants), age, race and income of individuals in each household; 2) accurate location of dwellings; 3) age, condition and type of dwelling; 4) whether or not a dwelling was owner occupied or otherwise; 5) existing well water quality complaints; 6) observed existing or potential water system (plumbing) or other physicaUtopographic (septic problems, inadequate drainage/runoff) problems that could impact water quality; and 7) the chronology of building and property habitation relative to development of the landfill. The information obtained by Templeton was summarized and presented by the County Engineer in an oral report to the Community Benefits subcommittee of the Landfill Owners Group in mid-December 1998. The benefits subcommittee requested that the information be tabularized and summarized in a written report with maps for its meeting in January 1999. 9 There were a number of problems encountered during the survey process. Technical problems related to equipment malfunction with the GPS units and the accuracy of existing mapping of properties not recently surveyed introduced an element of error and inaccuracy to the process. A number of the residents of the Rogers community declined to participate in the survey process and many who did participate were difficult to contact. These problems, along with shortcomings in the process of .developing criteria for the initial design study undertaken for OWASA, lead.to a number of caveats for this report. The number of residents with the corresponding socio-economic data is underreported as a result ofnon-participating households. Several households located in remote areas of the neighborhood and which should be included in utility plans were undetected in the utility design study process giving rise to the potential for inaccurate estimation of utility construction and plumbing service costs. The neighborhood contains a number of unoccupied buildings and mobile homes. The decisions as to whether to classify individual structures as merely uninhabited and needing utility service or as actually abandoned and uninhabitable and not needing utility service may be erroneous in some instances and lead to inaccurate cost estimates. OWASA connection fees used in this report were derived from information contained in the initial. utility layout study. Those fees have since been revised such that current connection fees should be somewhat less. Finally, construction costs for water main and related construction and for the installation of individual plumbing services often vary wildly, depending on demand for contractors, labor, materials, etc. The findings of this latest engineering study, in terms of various cost elements and socio-ecanamic data can be summarized as follows: 1. The total estimated construction costs for mains, service taps, meters, etc., for the entire 119 properties shown on the attached map of the Rogers Road Community - $560,500 2. The total estimated plumbing costs for individual service lines between service .meters and internal household plumbing systems for the entire 119. properties shown on the attached map of the Rogers Road Community - $257,400 3. The total estimated utility service fees for the entire 1.19 properties shown on the attached map of the Rogers Road Community - $215,300 4. The total estimated cost of the water service community benefit for public funding of all construction, plumbing and service fees for the entire 119 properties shown on the attached map of the Rogers Road Community is $1,033,200. 5. The water service benefit, as costed out above, can make water service available to 119 properties, 98 dwelling units of which 81 are known to be currently inhabited. 6. These units house more than 134 individuals, of which at least 105 are known to be considered to be of low/moderate income (according to 1998 HLTD criteria for Orange County), at least 25 are known to be at least 60 years old and at least 27 are known to be less than 15 years old. 7. At least 34 of the occupied dwellings are reported to have some sort of problem with quality of their on-site drinking water supplies. 10 ^ 8. Thirty-eight of the dwellings predate the opening of the landfill (1972), 38 post-date the landfill and 22 aze of unknown date of origin. 9. At least 49 units are owner occupied and 47 of the units aze either mobile or modular homes. The LOG may wish to modify the assumptions made for the purpose generating cost estimates given in this report. For instance a number of dwelling and properties (pazcel numbers 30, 81 through 88, and 115 though 118) located on the periphery of the Rogers Road community and post-dating the landfill could be excised from the community benefit azea. In addition, providing service to the Nunn property from a Rogers Road service azea is probably not practical from an engineering standpoint, given its relative isolation from the community. Eliminating all of these properties could represent a total cost savings of approximately $185,000. Other cost savings could be achieved by tying public funding of or public funding assistance with plumbing and service fee costs with economic need as demonstrated by categorization as low. or moderate income. Additional savings could perhaps be achieved by a redesign of the portion of the water distribution system serving the azea on the north side of Purefoy Road where $124,000 in water main construction costs aze incurred to serve only eight existing dwellings. Regardless of the decisions of the LOG or its constituent governments relative to the extent of the benefit area or the amount of benefits to be provided, the LOG should plan on working closely with OWASA to determine how the project should ultimately be designed, developed and financed. This effort should be coordinated to provide maximum benefit at minimum cost. to the targeted properties in the benefit azea. It may be possible to recover costs associated with over-sizing lines to provide service to undeveloped properties within the benefit area by means of an assessment against each of those properties. As there are potential legal implications to any process which differentiates, in terms of benefit level, among properties within the benefit azea, County and Town attorneys should review all such assessment strategies. A basic framework for a utility development strategy that the LOG may wish to consider would involve having OWASA provide water service to the area with much the same process as it utilizes to develop a typical assessment project. The LOG and its constituent governments could then fund the portion of the assessment, fees, plumbing costs, etc., which have been determined to be appropriate. The remaining costs, fees, etc., would be funded by benefited parties deemed ineligible for full funding of benefits. If I may provide additional information or input, please advise.