Options On Water Explored
- Print print this page
- Discuss 22 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
Robbins and Moore County have begun exploring a possible new partnership to meet future water needs.
At a work session in Carthage Thursday afternoon, town and county commissioners — two each plus the mayor — met to talk about a new entity to connect water resources in the northern part of the county with customers in the Sandhills.
For four years, negotiations between Robbins and Moore County have stalled on the issue of the county’s eventual ownership of the town’s water supply. Under this new plan, an entirely new entity would combine county and municipal assets.
It would mean constructing a new water treatment plant in Robbins but keeping the town’s large reservoir and other existing infrastructure.
A North West Moore Water District — managed by an independent board — would become the water company for everybody from Westmoore through Seven Lakes. Robbins has plenty of water, but its plant is closed, and the town currently buys water from Montgomery County.
There is a cap of 200,000 gallons a day after which the cost doubles. With only 600 customers, the town’s rates are high despite its enormous reservoir. Water goes dead in storage and has to be dumped and replenished.
“It’s 100 million gallons just sitting there,” said Nick Picerno, chairman of the county commissioners. “The new idea is to create a new partnership. By participating, I imagine it would lower your water rates.”
Lower rates would make Robbins more attractive to investors looking to site a plant as well as families wanting to move there.
At a county board budget retreat earlier in the week, county Public Works Director Dennis Brobst said this would have the added advantage of complete control of the system. With the system fully located in Moore County, neither the county nor Robbins would be dependent upon the will and needs of other counties.
Moore County will obtain a three-year extension on a $16 million bond issue passed overwhelmingly by referendum several years ago. After that, the town board would need to pass a resolution to take part.
“It’s doable,” Brobst told the group. “Using an asset we already have, we can cut a lot of head-time. You might not have to buy land for a plant if you can set it somewhere near the reservoir — which is where it needs to be.”
Area ‘So Vast’
The success of the East Moore Water District has encouraged optimism on the part of Picerno and County Commissioner Larry Caddell.
As mayor of Carthage, Caddell spent a decade working on town water needs. The county seat built a new, modern treatment plant and — after years of bureaucratic hurdles — restored its old reservoir at Nicks Creek.
“This was a 10-year project,” Caddell said. “You’ve never seen the problems we had. Now (Carthage has) a 3 million gallon plant and Nick’s Creek. It’s our time to do something. The best solution long term for Moore County is to include Robbins. I’m just stating a fact.”
The McGill water study, a comprehensive look at existing water systems and prospective resources for Moore County, completed a few years ago, proposed county water solutions using Robbins. Mike Apke, from McGill, was at Thursday’s discussion.
“The problem is it (the northwest area) is so vast,” Brobst said. “We don’t have the population density we had in East Moore.”
That problem could be met by combining the needs of the Seven Lakes area and the potential of a future Heart of Carolina Industrial Mega-Park planned on the Moore-Montgomery County border, with Robbins as source and plant site.
Robbins Mayor Theron Bell wanted to know how selling all its assets to the county would benefit the town.
“It’s selling to a board,” Picerno said. “The new entity owns it. It is only viable if we bring our people — those Seven Lakes users — and sell them to the deal. You have assets you sell also. The board is independent. You would have two commissioners on the board.
“The key thing is: It’s not a county board. It’s a new entity. You get 2,600 customers from day one.”
That would mean an initial customer base of 3,200, with more adding on during the sign-in period.
New Partnership
A number of alternative ways to put such a partnership together were discussed. Rocky Davis, a Robbins commissioner who is also Carthage’s public works director, asked whether a long-term lease rather than a sale would work. Robbins Town Manager George Hayfield asked if — rather than in money reflected in debt service adding to water rates — Robbins could be paid in water instead.
“What if Robbins was paid 200,000 gallons a day?” Hayfield asked.
That and other details would need to be worked out. The key difference at this meeting was that, for the first time, all options, including the town’s selling its old plant and large reservoir, were on the table. Robbins would sell its assets and the county its customers to the new water district. The county would contract with its board to operate the plant and service the lines.
Robbins Town Commis-sioner Claire Matthew asked whether the new water district would pay the cost of maintaining the infrastructure — all the town’s water lines, which include many old pipes that need constant repair and replacement — rather than Robbins.
“We could spend $10 million and put all that into infrastructure,” Hayfield said.
Maintenance would no longer be a burden on the people of Robbins under this plan. The new Northwest Water District would take over all maintenance for the entire area it served.
“The district would then be responsible,” Caddell said. “It has always been my belief that this was the best option. I think, long term, this is the best.”
Picerno summarized some of the main advantages that would come Robbins’ way with this partnership. Economic growth was at the top of the list, as the availability of a secure water supply would make the area much more attractive.
“It would also mean a more reliable water supply,” he said. “You’d have better water at a more affordable cost.”
As a way of resolving any conflicts, Brobst suggested they consider hiring a completely independent adviser.
“Perhaps an independent third party could look at these alternatives and make a recommendation to everybody jointly, at the same time,” Brobst said. “Each board could fund half of (the cost).”
That might be a way to move more quickly, Davis said, depending on the cost.
“Why don’t you, Dennis, get us some numbers?” he said. “What would an independent evaluator — for the study — cost? That way, you’ve got a starting point.”
There was a mood of cautious optimism as the meeting ended.
“We are going to get this done,” Picerno said.
Bell was also somewhat hopeful.
“Thank you all very much,” Bell said. “We think this is very important for Robbins — for our board, our people. We thank you all for meeting with us. I’ve been wanting this for some time.”
Contact John Chappell at jfchappell@gmail.com.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
ncsnafu1 2 years, 3 months ago
A more appropriate title for the article should have been: "Higher water rates coming to Seven Lakes & Pinehurst". Subtitle should be: "Moore County saves Robbins at expense of others." There is simple no way that the "numbers" Mr. Brobst was asked to provide will show a break even for the two communities. Mr. Brobst was correct in sggesting that an indepentent consultant was needed. Otherwise, just another commissioner unilateral decision without resident input.
difflook 2 years, 3 months ago
Saving Robbins at the exoense of others? that is an untrue statement, would you rather have low rates and an insufficient supply ? OR higher rates without worrying about would you have a sufficient supply?
ncsnafu1 2 years, 3 months ago
@difflook: My statement is entirely accurate ONLY if MCU is able to maintain its current rate structure to its non-Seven Lakes or EMWD customer base. I strongly doubt this ability given the % Seven Lakes comprises of the current rate base.
As for supply, MCU has repeatedly stated that supply is sufficient which the numbers support. The real issues are: 1) the absolute fact that Seven Lakes needs and has needed for some time a secondary water source and 2) Robbins has a failing infrastructure that can't be maintained and debt from the ill-advised Perdue contract that some county commissioners now feel a moral obligation to apparently absorb.
I think that there are other ideas for solving the Seven Lakes issue such as extending the Rt. 73 line rather than inappropriately using the NMWD bond fund. The bottom line is that the residents of Moore County are owed a professional cost analysis of this idea before further expense is incurred.
Zoey 2 years, 3 months ago
"“We are going to get this done,” Picerno said."
I think Robbins should hold out for more...They're the ones with the resource that the Mega-Park, Dormie, Pine Forest need.. Call it whateva district you want. Here's my take, Moore County pays for treatment plant, but doesn't pay for Robbins' infrastructure. Robbins owns the water, but allows a, lets say, 1.5 million GPD cap. After that, Moore County pays double the average rates. Then Robbins could pay for infrastructure and make their area 'more attractive to investors looking to site a plant as well as families wanting to move there' and 'neither the county nor Robbins would be dependent upon the will and needs of other counties.' Robbins, don't let MCBC dupe you....
difflook 2 years, 3 months ago
Im sure some of the infrastructure could be replaced, but that does not include the three elevated storage tanks, the currently unused town resovoir, DEBT FREE. Ill advised Perdue contract? moral obligation? Robbins does not had/has a Perdue contract? The current Moore County Board of Commissioners does not operate the spending of funds based on moral obligations. Im sure you know all five of those folks have sound business experience and would NOT be pursuing this unless it was based on a sound business model. Robbins debt is soley on its wastewater plant (see NC State Treasurers office list) which was incurred when NC Dept of Environmental Resources required that they upgrade/enlarge the waste water treatment plant. That was several years ago. Robbins at one time provided water for Milliken, Ithaca, Perdue, and a few other small industrial users. To give a catch all statement that their failing infrastructure, meaning that the entire system is failing? is not true, nor is the ill advised Perdue contract? is simply untrue.
SoPinesNo1 2 years, 3 months ago
I believe that the project is doable. The problem with re-establishing the boundaries of the Water District is that the inclusion of the Seven Lakes area would make the District ineligible for grant funding from USDA-RUS. This is a big deal. The District is most likely eligible for 20% grant funding under it's current structure. The loss of this eligibility to include Seven Lakes would mean that a project that could be done for $8,000,000 dollars in loan would end up being a $10,000,000 loan project. The District can serve areas outside its boundaries, (such as Robbins and Seven Lakes) without being restructured. Leave it as it is, and just serve these areas as outside areas.
CSmithson 2 years, 3 months ago
@SoPinesNo1
Very good points.
To keep Pinehurst ratepayers out of having to pay for Seven Lakes, Robbins, and NWMoore needs, the County could also create yet another district that encompasses the Seven Lakes, West End, McLendon Hills area(or create a "Pinehurst" district or both).
Depending on how the numbers come out, there could be a higher charge on the "Seven Lakes district" water from the NWM district to help pay for the cost of running the line down from Robbins. This would also make Pinehurst residents happy because the complaint has always been that they are subsidizing other customers and sending "Pinehurst" water elsewhere.
There are many ways to address the water needs of Moore County. It will just take work, creativity, cooperation, and money.
davidlambert87 2 years, 3 months ago
This is good news.
I agree creativity and innovation are key to this endeavor. However, this is a step in the right direction. Im am absolutely thrilled that this project is taking place.
ncsnafu1 2 years, 3 months ago
@ CSmithson: Agree with your thoughts especially "...how the numbers come out...". I just want to see a valid economic study including illustrative rates for both proposed and non-proposed district customers before the commissioners and other parties get too far into this.
I'm sure that the commissioners have many objectives for this project - one of which should be that non-district MCU customers will not incur a rate increase.
SoPinesNo1 2 years, 3 months ago
This exists now. Go to the Moore County Website and check on water rates. While the per gallon charge is the same for all customers, the base rates vary greatly from "Pinehurst" customers to the East Moore Water District customers. The North West Moore District base rate would also likely be different, because the district must be self-supporting. The East Moore Water District base rate is likely higher than it could be, because the bulk of the water is the District purchases from Harnett County is being used by Pinehurst and Seven Lakes. Thus the EMWD customers are paying higher rates so the other folks have plenty of water.
CSmithson 2 years, 3 months ago
@SoPinesNo1 Do you happen to know if there is a difference between what Harnett County charges East Moore and what East Moore charges MCPU?
I ask because I have heard the theory expressed in opposite terms from what you describe. Some people wonder how much money East Moore makes in "markup" of the Harnett water sold to MCPU.
Any insight?
ncsnafu1 2 years, 3 months ago
@CSmithson: It's my understanding that MCU has the contract with Harnett County and not EMWD. It true, your question then becomes - what does MCU charge EMWD?
CSmithson 2 years, 3 months ago
@ncsnafu
If we are to believe online records from NCDENR, Harnett does not sell water to MCPU. They sell it to East Moore. East Moore sells to MCPU.
https://www.pwss.enr.state.nc.us/DWW/JSP/SearchDispatch?number=&name=&county=MOORE&WaterSystemType=All&SourceWaterType=All&PointOfContactType=None&SampleType=null&begin_date=2%2F14%2F2009&end_date=2%2F14%2F2011&action=Search+For+Water+Systems
SoPinesNo1 2 years, 3 months ago
I do know that the original contract was between Harnett County and the EMWD. That could have changed recently though. It is public record, and a call to MPU will provide the answer. Early on, the EMWD sold water to MPU for $.25/1000 gals more than they paid Harnett County for it. That is fairly insignificant. The District also pays MPU for operation and maintenance of its system. For example, if the Town of Vass, which is an EMWD customer used 100,000 gallons per day, the District makes $25 per day. The base rate in EMWD is over $20 and that includes zero gallons of usage, and no one in Vass pays the District and MPU doesn't compensate EMWD for any base rates. So, it only takes approx. 35 water district customers for it to make as much money in a month as the district makes from MPU for providing the entire Town of Vass with water service for the whole month. That doesn't seem quite right does it?
SoPinesNo1 2 years, 3 months ago
The above senario also emphasizes how important it is for the water line along Hwy 73 to the Dormie Club and all customers belong to the EMWD, and not MPU. Only EMWD customers retire the debt service on it's loans from USDA-RUS. MPU and the County needs to recognize this and stop taking customers away form the EMWD or giving them away.
I know this isn't something that Chris wants to hear, but every EMWD resident that the Town of Southern Pines serves is a loss of revenue that could be income for the EMWD. For example, Kirby put in a subdivison on Michael Road off Hwy 22 just outside of Whispering Pines. The developer put in a water distribution system and Southern Pines provided the water. At the time EMWD did not have water lines in the area. With the implementation of EMWD Phase II, the EMWD now has a water main along Michael Road. There should have been an agreement that since this area is in the EMWD, the County would allow the Town to serve the customers until such time that the EMWD has lines in the area, as it now does. It cost Southern Pines nothing to serve this area, since the developer installed the lines, and the Town would have made money until the District's lines were in place. Then the area is disconnected from the Town's water lines and connected to the District's lines, and the customers would then be EMWD customers, assisting to retire the debt service on the water main that the District installed to serve the area along Michael Road.
The County was lax in allowing the Town to serve this development and did not look after the best interests of the EMWD which it established. This is just one occurance. It has happened in other places too.
CSmithson 2 years, 3 months ago
@SP There are all kinds of interesting arrangements. I don't know the story behind it, but The Carolina is in Southern Pines, but it is served by the County using Southern Pines water. You probably know the story better than I do.
Let's not forget, however, that there is more to water than water. Water and sewer availability makes higher density growth possible. Is such growth compatible with the County's land use plans and character? If the County, through the extension of water lines all over the place is encouraging subtantial growth in rural areas, are they prepared to provide the urban level of services these new urban areas require? The county cannot continue to expand its water empire without consideration for how it affects land use plans and how it can greatly increase the other levels of services it must provide.
CSmithson 2 years, 3 months ago
@SP Regarding that little development on NC22, I'll offer some thoughts.
First, I won't go as far as to say the Town "doesn't care" whether or not we serve water to that subdivision, but I will say that the Town's top priority is not to gain every single possible customer no matter what even when other options make more sense.
Who would pay to switch the neighborhoods distribution system over to the EMWD? My guess would be the homeowners, who already paid to hook up to Southern Pines since the EMWD could not serve them. Would they have to pay impact fees to hook up to the EMWD? I'm sure the homeowners there would LOVE to pay hookup fees in addition to the cost of whatever work in the ground it would take to switch the systems over.
Of course, let's not forget that the County conveniently ignored the service area agreement it had (through assumption of OWASA) with Southern Pines. At the very least, there should have been discussions between the two parties to see what areas SP really intended to serve. SP already had lines running all the way up to McCaskill while the EMWD was scrambling to "make their numbers" to get all the free money from the feds.
Now what we have are redundancies and gaps. There are water lines on top of water lines up 22 thanks to EMWD piling on. Other areas have gaps.
My business on US-1 is an example. We have been in our location for almost 50 years and are between the Southern Pines system and the County system yet there are no water mains running up the main highway in the area. We're on a well, which the EPA classifies as a "public water system," meaning we have to have a "certified operator" to stand vigil over our well, pressure tank, and "distribution system." I ended up having to go to school to become a "Certified Water Treatment System Operator" in North Carolina to avoid paying an outside "operator" to do nothing but sign a form every once in a while. Along with the certification came the requirement to take yearly continuing education to make sure I'm up to date on "operating" a well and pressure tank system just like half the people in the couty have in their homes.
But I digrees. The point is that we have gaps and redundancies because the County ran around grabbing all the low hanging fruit to get their numbers and seem less concerned about who really should cover what area and what areas still arent' served. The results are examples where someone can be served by multiple sources and also people who are centrally located but cannot get public water.
SoPinesNo1 2 years, 3 months ago
Chris, There would be very little cost to switch the subdivision in question over to EMWD. The Town has a line that taps to the distribution system that Kirby installed to Town specifications. The connection is along Michael Road. The Town simply disconnects, and the EMWD connects to the distribution system in place. The Town removes its meters and the EMWD installs its meters. No new tap fees or impact fees, just simply relinquish the customers to the EMWD. The customers will likely see lower rates overall, so they should be happy, no more double out of town rates. The EMWD will be happy to have these customers that are in its service area helping to retire the debt service on the line along Michael Road. This should have been the agreement up front, without question. The County should have demanded it that way in order to protect the EMWD's best interests.
CSmithson 2 years, 3 months ago
Maybe, the Town should search out other opportunities where it can supply the infrastructure needed to allow development happen until the County can catch up...
Can the EMWD waive fees like that? would it be fair to others who signed up early or had to pay the higher rate after the intial period?
SoPinesNo1 2 years, 3 months ago
The East Moore Water District's reduced early sign up tap fees are to offset the actual cost of installing the tap from the water main to the property line. For all existing customers in the Kirby Development off of Michael Road, the taps were provided by the developer. So there's no additional cost for a customer if a switch in water suppliers were made.
I'm well aware of the service boundary agreement that existed between the Town and MoWASA. MoWASA no longer exists, and the County did its do deligence in determining where or not MoWASA acted legally in agreeing to the boundaries, but that's another story in itself. Depending on whose version of the defunct agreement you listen to, MoWASA needed to purchase water from the Town in order to meet the demands of its Pinehurst customers. The Town having MoWASA over a barrel so to speak, demanded the service boundary agreement in order to sell MoWASA the water. During the existence of the agreement, the Town did nothing to provide water service to customers needing water service in the area outlined by the boundary.
Zoey 2 years, 3 months ago
SoPinesNo1 & CSmithson & ncsnafu1, I respect your knowledge and would like some insight, please. As I have lived off of a well the majority of my life, I know little about Public Water.The Dormie and Pine Forest has definitely peaked my interest. Pine Forest has the head waters of Nicks Creek. As I read back, I find conflicting comments. One article says, MHK has no intention to withdraw water from Nicks Creek. Another says, MHK plans to use water from an existing water source on the parent tract. When Dormie has pulled water use as high as 3 million GPD from Little River, and caused complaints. What will be done keep MHK from tapping into Nicks Creek, if anything? If they do draw water from Nicks, what amount would cause problems for the Carthage treatment plant, if any?
I find your comments very educational and wish more people would get involved in matters that really matter... My uneducated opinion is, Our County is growing at a rate that our infrastructure can't handle, and very few seem to care..Money talks, everything else, walks...
ncsnafu1 2 years, 3 months ago
@Zoey: MHK claimed in the first public hearing that that would not impact Nicks Creek and by extension, the Carthage water supply. Unfortunately, while singing this tune, they knew full well that in their application, Section O - Covenants, Article XI, Section 10 - Use of Lakes and Waterways, subsection (a), page 36 the language specifically states: "Notwithstanding the ownership or control of such Water Management Areas, the Golf Club Owner shall at all times have the right , subject to obtaining all required governmental permits, to use and DIVERT the water in all lakes, ponds,streams (read as Nicks Creek), canals and waterways located in the Property or elsewhere for the purposes of irrigation...."
The answer to your question wrt what quantity of withdrawal could be made from Nicks Creek has many facets although I do remember just a few years ago Nicks Creek went dry in the Summer and this was without any withdrawl. Depending in Pine Forest course construction the estimated site shortage range is .625 M GPD to 1.55 M GPD which will need to come from somewhere. I personally think that since MHK is going to the expense of putting a reuse water line in from the site to the Dormie Club that it's reasonable to expect that withdrawal will come from Little River, as it does today, and simply be pumped back to the PineForest storage pond for later use.
All in all, it should prove to be an interesting meeting tommorrow evening.