Sewer System Engineering Report/Environmental Information - Questions and Answers

Image of the Engineering Report

Related questions will be posted here if received prior to the public hearing. All questions and answers will be presented here following the presentation on 9/14/21.

1. Does the $12.5m loan cover the total sewer replacement cost or only Phase 1? What is the latest estimate of total cost for sewer replacement? What are the plans for presumably passing the costs in to residents?

Answer:  Great questions, LaBella Associates, the Town's Sewer System Engineers will be addressing these questions directly in a presentation at the Zoom meeting.  The questions about funding, scope, and cost will be directly addressed during the presentation.  

2. Sub Aqueous Sewer System (SASS) Comments/Questions: My name is David Keenan and I live at 104 Lost Cove Dr in Lake Lure and am a full-time resident. This is my only home and my wife and I are on a fixed income (retired.)

I want to acknowledge and clearly appreciate the work and effort required to put this document/plan together and I fully support both the new damn and the replacement of the sewer system as the highest priority for our community and do not intend to hold up execution of the plan.

I do want the Commissioners and LaBella to recognize that many residents will incur significant costs that are not included in this overview. These include the cost of hooking into the sewer system (trenching, materials, labor, permits, etc.,) the cost to “abandon” (and fill abandoned) septic tanks, and in some cases, a perfectly acceptable and working septic system (which follow all the existing rules,) as well as the Tap Fee. At least a portion of the “new customer base” were not allowed to connect to the sewer system at construction due to the moratorium, at the time of construction.

On page 10 of the report, “this additional lowering is not anticipated to have any greater environmental effect than the previous lake level reductions.” I have a concern about the “gulleys” formed in the past during lake drawdown runoffs and any other lake bottom disturbances that occur in coves and other areas exposed during drawdown.

On page 14 “The Town of Lake Lure (Town) is also looking to impose sewer development fees to new customers and would set rates consistent with the size of living space for the new customer. . .  Sewer Development Fees and Availability Fees would provide a significant and immediate source of new revenues to form a capital reserve and increase cash flow to source follow-on phases of design and construction.” My hope is that those on septic systems are looked at as a significant source of revenue to install the SASS.

Are there any provisions for a “blanket” permit for portions or all of the connections required for septic system owners? i.e. Trout Buffer, Lake Structure Permits, County plumbing permits, etc.

The statement on page 179 indicates that many people chose to install septic tanks due to issues involved with connecting to the existing sewer with only 65 manholes. While this may indeed be true, there are those who were not allowed to connect with the sewer system due to a moratorium placed on any additional connections to the sewer system (around 1998 for my house according to the builder.)

While the land disturbance of the replacement of the direct components of SASS as mentioned on page 182 and 183 will be minimal; connection to the SASS by those residences currently on a septic tank may involve significant land disturbance.

How are lift stations powered? What is visible/involved with the location of a lift station? According to the C201 map on page 693 of the Engineering Report, there will be a lift station in the shallow portion of our cove. Will this affect the use of the cove?

I’m also concerned about the availability of contractors that are qualified and available to make the required connections. I would hate to pay for “availability fees” when waiting 6-9 months for a contractor.

I assume that the location of the new replacement damn does not conflict with the location of the sewage treatment plant and therefore will remain an acceptable location.

What are the development options for the land that is intended(?) to be used as a State Park (South of Blue Heron Point.) Is there an option proposed for that area? (I realize this is not in Phase I, but consideration must be taken when designing the treatment facility.)

Answer: Good questions and we have thought through all your concerns. The costs are what they are, and we defaulted to the NC state norms for how to fund. The others should be addressed on the zoom meeting Tuesday. 

3. This is a solicited comment on the SASS Engineering Report (the Report) dated May, 2021 which was made available to the public in late August, 2021. I own a personal residence at 143 Bee Tree Point in the Town of Lake Lure (the Town). The opinions expressed are my own based on this limited opportunity to read and digest the Report.

The town’s elected leadership is dealing with overwhelming infrastructure problems bequeathed to them by several generations of previous office holders. There is no solution to those problems that is not dependent on massive amounts of funding from state and federal governments. The Town is simply attempting to marshal the funds necessary to “match” or provide seed monies to prime the pump for funding decisions made by higher levels of government.

In regard to the new sewer system, the Town plans to partially fund the project with increased user and connection fees. Unfortunately, as part of the opening gambit of a 12-year strategy, the Town is also contemplating the use of funds from ad valorem (general) property taxes. That would require residents who will never derive any benefit from the new sewer system to help pay for it.

Using general property taxes for the benefit of only one segment of a general population is acknowledged by North Carolina law as unfair. Accordingly, the state legislature would have to pass specific legislation allowing the move. That would be a bad result for a number of reasons.

First, there is no projection of the amount of any shortfall based on real numbers. Revenues from usage fees and connection fees should at least be estimated before seeking authorization for a blank check drawn on taxpayers who will never derive any benefit from this piece of the Town’s infrastructure.

Second, the Report notes that projected sewer usage fees will be among the highest in the state. It also purports to compare those fees to the median household income for the area and reaches a conclusion that they will not be excessive. If fees are be kept lower by relabeling the extra amounts collected as ad valorem taxes charged to the same people, that renders the Report’s analysis of these two points meaningless.

Finally, the observation is offered that a new sewer system will increase property values throughout the community. As a truism from a text book, that works. However, it is unsupportable here. A review of current and past real estate listings in the Town indicates that very, very few listings (if any) tout being on city services as a positive selling point. Moreover, as the cost of Town sewer services increases, potential buyers will compare the monthly/annual expenditures to those of maintaining a septic system and find the latter is a far more economical option.

I have a tremendous amount of empathy and admiration for the Town’s current elected officials and support their efforts to remedy problems caused by decades of sloth and indecision. However, enabling legislation that would allow the use of ad valorem taxes will likely be fought by local residents (those whose political acumen reaches beyond wake surfing) and generate a major distraction from their efforts to resolve infrastructure problems. I encourage the Town to develop a more specific budget indicating that 1) there is simply no other alternative and 2) what the amount of funds necessary might be before making any attempt to move this question into a contentious public arena.

 

These questions and statements will be addressed at the Public Hearing on 9/14/21 at 5:00 PM via Zoom.

  • Printer-friendly version