Browse
Search
Agenda - 05-23-1985
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1985
>
Agenda - 05-23-1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/5/2016 2:21:00 PM
Creation date
9/9/2016 10:42:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/24/1985
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
OFFICIAL COPY <br /> 1 <br /> KxNtn:EAPI_a___yaQym_sL3za <br /> MINUTES <br /> ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS <br /> SPECIAL MEETING <br /> MAY 24, 1985 <br /> The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in Special Session on May 24, <br /> 1985 at 3:00 p.m. in the Commissioners' Room of the Orange County Courthouse, <br /> Hillsborough, North Carolina to discuss several items pertaining to the Efland <br /> Sewer Project. <br /> COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Willhoit, and Commissioners Shirley <br /> Marshall, Moses Carey and Ben Lloyd. <br /> COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Commissioner Norman Walker. <br /> ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. <br /> STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Assistant County <br /> Managers Albert Kittrell and William Laws, and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. <br /> Blythe. <br /> IroTO E* OM_ ' PM NI R: ON <br /> Don Kordell, Hazen and Sawyer, took the two options for the 191 people in <br /> Efland who had signed customer agreements back to FHA and explained the <br /> intention of the County to either scale back the original phase one project <br /> because of the limitation of funds or cancel the original project and start a <br /> new project with construction of the same sewers. FHA is in agreement that the <br /> County may scale back the project and suggested that the Board adopt an overall <br /> long-range plan, build what can be built at this time and then adopt a loosely <br /> defined schedule for construction of the remainder of the sewers. If the <br /> project was considered a new one, the present loans and grants would be lost. <br /> Kordell suggested adopting the modified plan, scale back the project to <br /> build what funds would allow and develop an implementation plan for <br /> construction of the remainder of phase one. He further suggested that a fee <br /> schedule be designed to generate additional revenue to help finance the growth <br /> to the system. <br /> 2.4.----REEDELALME_EMINIVPAN BY DON KORDELL <br /> Kordell reiterated the portion of the plan that could be built within the <br /> budget (Base + A + part of C). He noted the importance of the interceptor at <br /> McGowan Creek which would give the County the flexibility needed for servicing <br /> future industrial growth in the 1-85 corridor. If the bids come in higher than <br /> the amount of money available, the plan would need to be scaled back <br /> accordingly. As funds are available, additional sections could be constructed <br /> one at a time or in several sections at a time. <br /> 1. ORANGE HEIGHTS (See the map in the permanent agenda file.) <br /> Kordell presented a map of Orange Heights showing a total of 78 houses. <br /> Fourteen (14) or fifteen (15) could readily be served by the lines constructed <br /> under the base bid. In order to pick up all 78 houses it would require an <br /> additional investment of $130,000. <br /> 4. _QPTIONS FOR GENERATING CAPITAL <br /> Kordell presented a comparison of rates for several sewer providers in the <br /> area. He mentioned five (5) ways of producing capital to finance the system: <br /> (a) establishing rates for the users that would generate excess revenue which <br /> excess revenue would accumulate until enough money is available to construct a <br /> portion of the system, (b) increase the tap fees (c) charge an acreage <br /> availability charge, (d) future grants or loans, and (e) future County <br /> contributions. <br /> It would take approximately $700,000 to build the remainder of phase 1 to <br /> serve the 191 people who signed customer agreements. It would take 800 to <br /> 1,000 new customers to generate the $700,000 by resident equivalent with the <br /> proposed rate structure. One way to reduce the amount of time would be to <br /> charge an acreage fee ($300 or $400 an acre) or a front foot fee. This would <br /> reduce the amount of new customers needed to raise the money by brie half. <br /> 111111Mismommeimemmir <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.