March 14, 2006

Goals/Objectives

1. Continue to build connections among committee members.
2. Examine the critical role that water quality and quantity plays in the County’s growth and economic development efforts, specifically by examining the countywide water/sewer plan and open space preservation plan.
3. Review process for formulating recommendations.

Process Overview

Frank Holding Jr., Committee Co-Chairman, welcomed the committee and summarized the February 24th meeting. He told the committee that the questions generated from the group engagements following presentations would be answered in writing and also by inviting presenters back to the April 4th meeting for further discussion.

He again reminded the committee that these sessions were aimed at providing information, and urged committee members to resist jumping to solutions but instead to learn as much as they can at this stage and to think about the information they would need to make recommendations on funding solutions in the future.

During closing remarks, Committee Co-Chairman Fred Day briefly outlined the recommendation process and announced a schedule change to extend the meeting time on Tuesday, April 25th, to 2:30 p.m. to allow additional time for committee members to work together on recommendations. The meeting will now be held from 8 a.m. – 2:30 p.m. at the RBC Center, and will include a working lunch.

Countywide Water/Sewer Planning

The committee heard from three professionals in water and wastewater issues: Tommy Esqueda of Camp Dresser McKee, who has consulted on Wake County water-sewer planning for the last 10 years; Dale Crisp, the City of Raleigh’s Utilities Director; and Leila Goodwin, water resources manager for the Town of Cary.

Wake County currently has three water treatment plants (Wake Forest, Cary/Apex, Raleigh) and nine wastewater treatment plants, along with three inter-regional connections. Raleigh has service partnerships with Wake Forest, Rolesville, Garner and Knightdale, and Cary has partnerships with Apex, RDU Airport and RTP South. About 140,000 of the county’s 750,000 residents are on private water systems, and 51,000 of those residents are in water supply watersheds. Under current zoning, groundwater quality and quantity are sustainable.

Projections for water and wastewater treatment needs through 2030 show that current Wake County utilities’ plans will be sufficient for the water needed. The water supply that is planned is projected at 151.5 million gallons per day, while needs are projected at 148.7 million gallons. Water treatment capacity is projected at 220 million gallons per day, with needs projected at 198 million gallons.

The projected wastewater treatment capacity by 2030 is 169.8 million gallons per day, exceeding the wastewater flow projected at 150.8 million gallons.

Group Engagement on Water/Sewer

The speakers took questions following their presentation. Highlights from that discussion include:

Projections for water and wastewater needs are largely made based on growth histories, particularly the past 10 years.

With regard to the use of wells (about 20% of the county uses well water), the assumption is that number will remain on groundwater. Raleigh has no mandatory connection policy; those in the urban service areas have been included in the municipal projections.

Terrorist issues are being evaluated and handled by local governments; the water supply system’s vulnerability has been assessed and recommendations implemented.

Given the two droughts in the last five years, Raleigh will need to reassess the water supply situation if current weather patterns become the norm rather than the exception.

Regional partnership studies are underway, including one with Johnston County and one with Granville County for Kerr Lake.

Use of reclaimed water: Cary now distributes approximately 1.2 million gallons/day (MGD). We will never get to 100% reuse, as the infrastructure is very expensive, especially for existing retrofits. Raleigh and Cary are continually looking at demand management and use of these resources.

The size of the Raleigh and Cary systems precludes the use of naturalized means of purifying water. The demand cannot be met with non-traditional (natural) methods at this time.

Later, the committee worked in small groups to discuss and report back the answers to these questions:

1)What infrastructure needs and challenges did you hear that the committee should address?

• Permitting time increasing
• Self-financing system
• Innovative alternative treatment methods (European)
• Closed loop system (Sanford/Cape Fear)
• Consumer education re: water conservation
• Strengthening regional partnerships for water systems
• Stormwater runoff – how do we manage at a county/municipal level to be more effective?
• Water/sewer is a well-planned, self-sustaining system that can be finance with user fees
• Is Wake County an artificial boundary? (go to regional systems)
• Pricing policies to encourage conservation
• Regulatory issues
• Regional water and wastewater system under one management
• Growth doesn’t recognize county/municipal boundaries
• Mandatory gray water use
• Good balance scaling to the future
• This is necessary service (no age boundary)

2)   What other information would be helpful to you?

• What truly is the legitimate capacity of Wake County for all services?]
• How do prolonged droughts impact those off municipal systems?
• Have we done a longer-term climate change analysis?
• Maintenance issue (Atlanta example of huge maintenance costs due to failure to keep up) –how do we monitor?
• How much water will we need in 20 years vs. what we have?
• Partnerships should be regional

Wake County Parks & Open Space

Chuck Flink, the founder and owner of Greenways Incorporated, and the county’s open space consultant, presented the Parks and Open Space plans. Mr. Flink is recognized as a leading national authority for the planning, design and implementation of greenway and trail systems and facilities. He has worked on greenway projects in 100 communities and 27 states, as well as in Japan and Canada.

Wake County developed partnerships with all 12 municipalities to create the first ever countywide open space preservation plan. The plan’s stated goal is to preserve 30% -- or 165,000 acres – of the county as open space, including parks and greenways (currently, 11%, or 55,628 acres, is preserved).

The county’s open space preservation program is directly linked to water quality, with highest priority for land acquisition tied to the sensitive stream corridors outlined in the Watershed Management Plan. Several other plans tie to open space preservation efforts, including the Growth Management Plan, transportation plans, the Water and Sewer Plan and Groundwater Protection Plan.

The county’s voters have approved two bond referenda for open space: $15 million in 2000 and another $26 million in 2004. The funds have been used to partner with municipalities, the state and others to acquire 2,628 acres of open space worth $38.6 million. Of that amount, the county has contributed $17.6 million.

Following his presentation, Mr. Flink answered questions, covering areas such as:

• What other areas are doing to speed open space preservation – Charleston County uses a half-cent sales tax, other communities are using the land development process (such as Gwinnett County, which is using conservation subdivisions as the primary mechanism for open space preservation).
• What other like-size counties have the same goal of 30% open space – Charleston County, Gwinnett County, Jefferson County (Colorado – Denver metro area)

Group Engagement on Open Space

The committee, led by facilitator Phil Boyle, worked in small groups to discuss and report back the answers to these questions:

1)    What infrastructure needs and challenges did you hear that the committee should address?

• 30% good target
• multiple partners need consistency in goals but flexibility in methods (incentives)
• Dorothea Dix property and its final use
• Utilizing open space to protect water quality (continuing this practice to the level needed)
• Coming to consensus on 30%
• Are consumers prepared to make the lifestyle choices necessary to conserve greenspace?
• The demographic trends from earlier sessions don’t sync up with costlier, open space housing environments
• Count private space (i.e., land set aside by developers as open or greenspace)
• Continue current policy of buying land at fair market value
• Eliminate “double taxation” of requiring developers/subdivisions to “contribute” open space
• Continue emphasis on water quality
• Sense of urgency because of pace of development
• Structured buffer donation program
• 75% approval rating for open space speaks to public acceptance
• Work on incentives
• Conservation subdivisions
• Educate the public re: difference between open space and recreation
• Quality of life (who we are and what do we want to be?)
• Cluster development options need to be encouraged to accommodate growth plus have 30% open space

2)  What other information would be helpful to you?

• What is the County’s role in the Dorothea Dix decision and what is it doing?
• How do we pay for greenspace? Is there a possible connection to water/sewer fee?
• What sort of cooperation (or resistance) are we getting from homebuilders?
• What are current rules and regulations (re: open space) for new construction?
• Is 30% achievable?
• What would it cost?
• We have nine focus tracks – what are the relative total costs?
• Who can we partner with to reduce costs (e.g., state with Dix land)