Agenda - 06-06-2000-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

There are other collection/pumping system designs that could be utilized to provide for the extension of sewer service to Richmond Hills without using of a large central pumping station. For example, a STEP system consisting of a septic tank and a small pumping station located on each lot with a small diameter force main collector network could provide efficient cost-effective service. This type of system has the advantages of having lower initial construction costs and long-term public operating casts than a gravity collector/central pumping station system. Maintenance issues, threat of major spills and odor problems are significantly improved over those of a gravity collector/central pump station system. The obvious drawback to using this technology is that each household -which by definition at a Habitat project is going to be a low or moderate income family- would be responsible for the costs of maintaining the on- site pump station and periodically pumping out the septic tank. Costs for operating and maintaining individual pump station costs are difficult to estimate. The costs of power and septic tank pumping should average less than $5 per month. The County has very little maintenance or cost experience with small wastewater pumps. However, there are three individual house pumps that the County operates in Efland that have never required a pump repair in nearly 12 years of operation. A failure of a household pump that required pump replacement could be expected to cost in the $300 to $500 range. It is difficult to provide a comparative analysis of casts for central pumping stations and individual on- site pumping stations at this time. The costs for operating and maintaining the main Efland pumping station have averaged approximately $1000 per month over the last ten years. However, the costs for operating and maintaining a central pumping station at Richmond Hills should represent more of an incremental cost increase because a significant portion of the maintenance costs for the existing pump station are OWASA maintenance personnel casts incurred in travel time between Chapel Hill and Efland. Power costs should be significantly less as well. Realistic operational costs estimates can be more readily calculated on completion of pump station design when information about power consumption, cost of equipment replacement, etc., become available. Regardless of the outcome of decisions as to system design for the Richmond Hills subdivision, the Rules of Operation for the Efland sewer system should be modified to reflect the BOCC's will as to exactly where sewer service should be made available and how - in terms of system technology or design -- that service should be provided. If, in cases where sewer service is to be extended for the benefit of development, the use of technologies that have long term and relatively expensive public maintenance costs is to be approved, the rules of operation should specify whether those costs are to be born by all users of the system or apportioned directly to the beneficiaries. If the costs are to be born solely by the beneficiaries, the rules of operation should specify how those costs are to be determined and applied. In the particular case of Richmond Hills, the Planning Board has recommended that a perpetual maintenance fund be created for the subdivision's proposed pumping station. There is no question that the Richmond Hills project is an important component of the effort to implement County affordable housing strategies. Furthermore, the Efland system (if it is developed to the extent of the existing system master plan and if the Buckhorn EDD and the Perry Hills community are incorporated into the system) may ultimately contain at least five pumping stations in addition to the existing main pumping station. Consequently, a pumping station at Richmond Hills may not represent a significant incremental increase in the cost or difficulty of operating the overall system. Ultimately, decisions related to the use of various collection system technologies, dealing with setting policy precedents, creating maintenance funds, etc., in this particular case may be weighed against the imperatives of affordable housing goals and strategies. However, many or perhaps all of the utility related aspects of this particular situation will arise for another development that does nit involve