Planned Variations of the Proposed Wastewater Treatment Systen-1984

■■■M■NM■N■
UNNIUMONSION
■E■■ME■MO■
moommumomm
■■MM■ME■■■
■XE■EN■■■■
moommommom
■E■■M■R
■ESI■MMI
ME

TOWN OF BATH
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Ray S. Brooks, Mayor
Mary Brooks, Bruce Tankard, Teeny Mason, Wilton Smith, Commissioners
Judy Edwards, Ira Hardy II, M.D., Former Commissioners
'
Bubs Carson, Town Administrator
LPREPARED BY: THE BATH PLANNING BOARD
James R. Edwards, Chairman
Erma Tankard, Rachel Tankard, Guy Cutler, Helen Brooks, Ed Swindel
WITH TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM:
1-1
Planning and Design Associates, P.A.
3515 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27612 (919) 78179004
Terry W. Alford, President
Consultants: Rex H. Todd, AICP, Project Manager; James S. J. Wang, P.E.,
Wang Engineering; Gregory Miller, Graphic Designer; Debbi Wall and
Janet Roberts, Word Processing.
The preparation of this plan was financed in part through a grant provided by
the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the
Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. The Town of Bath contributed cash and in —kind services...
February, 1984

1
1
PLANNED VARIATIONS OF THE PROPOSED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT SYSTEM
BATH, NORTH CAROLINA
I. Introduction
A.
Background
B.
Objectives
C.
Narrative Outline
II. The
Empirical Case: The Bath Experience
A.
Variations within the first choice system.
1. Constraints
a. Lack of Available Land
b. Lack of Funds
c. Lack of Certainty
2. Responses to Constraints
a. Changing the Site
b. Changing the Source of Funds
c. Changing the Perceptions of the Project
B.
Variations outside the first choice system
1. Changing the type of system itself: From subsurface to surface
a. Description
b. Constraints on the newly proposed system
c. Responses to major constraints
2. Changing the service area: Local and District Options
a. Description
b. Constraints
c. Responses
III. The
Hypothetical Case: Methodology for Other Coastal Communities
A.
Analyzing demand for Wastewater Treatment
B.
Analyzing Supply (Capacity) of Different Treatment Systems
C.
Targeting Constraints
IV. Summary Chart: Applying the methodology to the Bath Case
A.
Description
'
B.
Chart
C.
Conclusion

I. Introduction
A. Background
Wastewater treatment has been a problem for small communities for years.
With reductions in EPA funding, lapse of many of the State's local DEM
accounts for collection system, continued inadequate performance by
individual septic tanks in coastal soils, and increasing costs of private
cluster -type systems, the communities of the CAMA area face extensive
searches for feasible community -wide wastewater systems.
The need for such a system in Bath, North Carolina was realized .years ago,
and in October 1981 took the form of a CAMA Land Use Plan which recommended
investigation of alternative systems. Subsequently, CAMA funded revision of
the Town's zoning ordinance, a feasibility study of conventional wastewater
treatment systems, and a demonstration project on alternative systems
appropriate for small coastal towns. The latter produced a design for a
community -wide subsurface collection and treatment system within the town
limits. However, just as the $726,641 in FmHA and DEM loans and grants from
' the plan (and its subsequent funding applications) were being awarded, the
original site was pronounced unavailable by the Beaufort County Board of
Education.
Thus, the search for a new site resulted not only in going beyond the city
limits for a treatment site, but also in the design of a different system,
this time a land based surface application system. As of this writing, the
' search continues for contingency sites and systems, in case the chosen
solution does not meet the criteria for the State's permits. And, the search
for sources of monies to cover the hook-up fees and find the key elements of
a successful public referendum has begun.
I
1

I
B. Objectives
In service to the community as well as others in the coastal area, the
following report will produce planned variations for the alternative
wastewater systems for the one presented in the May 1983 CAMA Demonstration
project. The objectives of this project are:
. To follow through on planning at a level of detail which will
facilitate the development of financial packages for the proposed system at
the Town Commons site (the surface system) and one contingency location.
. To evaluate the results of sensitivity analyses applied to each of the
systems (that is, weighting the variables differently so as to produce
different results for decision -making).
. To prepare the Town of Bath to make appropriate installation of a
community -wide land based alternative wastewater treatment system
(particularly in the event that the currently FmHA/DEM funded system fails to
receive permits).
1

C. Narrative Outline
These objectives are addressed in this report in three parts. Part II
presents the empirical case of Bath, North Carolina in which three variations
of wastewater treatment systems were planned.
Part III presents a methodology which can be applied to hypothetical cases
(or other actual cases) to assist in final selection of an appropriate
system.
Part IV presents a summary chart which illustrates how the Bath situation
helped shape the methodologies and how they in turn fit the Bath situation.

ii. The Empirical Case: The Experience in Bath
A. Variations within the first choice system.
1. Constraints
The chosen system
presented in the May, 1983 CAMA Demonstration Project as a
subsurface system
located within the Town's municipal limits immediately ran
into constraints.
These were:
. Lack
of available land
. Lack
of funds for amending loan and grant applications
. Lack
of certainty by the community about the affordability
of the system.
In this section, the nature of these constraints will be discussed. The
proposed responses
to these constraints is presented under the next section,
(Part E, Responses
to Constraints).
a. Lack of Available Land
In the Bath situation, the land assumed available for the treatment site
suddenly became unavailable.
The Beaufort County School Board, which owns parcel 152 (see Exhibit A) voted
not to lease that because the Union School 1-12) located
property (grades now
in Bath does not meet the campus acreage requirements set forth by the NC
Department of Public Instruction and the addition of even a compatible use
P P
{
(like subsurface wastewater treatment) would not improve that situation.
Additionally, the long-range plans of DPI and the Beaufort County Board
tincluded
the conversion of the Union School to a K-8 school, which would
reduce the population from 800 to about 560 and drastically reduce the site
area requirements for parking and athletic field space.
4

HISTORIC
BATH
NORTH CAROLINA
•I,rWM WWrI� iMMlll
IL
o __a 13

The athletic fields presented to the County Board of Education (See Exhibit
site.
B) are compatible with a subsurface wastewater treatment However, the
land in Lot 152 had been originally purchased for building purposes, and the
Board wanted to protect the buildable capacity of the land (a use which is
not compatible with co -use of subsurface wastewater treatment). This
situation was confounded earlier as the owners of parcel #103 and parcel #163
for town's
(See Exhibit A) were unwilling to lease their properties the use
as a subsurface wastewater treatment site.
to Apply for Loans and Grants
b. Lack of Funds with which
The second constraint most active upon the May, 1983 proposed subsurface
system was realized when the additional costs of re-applyingto FmHA and DEM
y
for loans and grants were incurred.
The estimate for preparing the FmHA and DEM applications (plus a CDBG
application) was estimated to be $10,500.
6

M r M r M M M M M M M mil M M
V
Proposed Recreational Use
for Parcel 152
(See Exhibit A)
BASEBALL
SOFTBALL 1
MAIN
CAMPUS
PARKING
-_4
- _ r
v
1
I.
cffl
TENNIS
BASKETBALL
FOOTBALL
Proposed to be simultaneously used for subsurface wastewater treatment.
M
x
r•
cr
N•
rt
JEj

1
c. Lack -of Certainty by the Community
Since the type of system may change again, and the detailed studies are
reimbursable only after a referendum passes, the town has a low median family
income profile, and many of the septic tanks in town are fairly new and well
operating, uncertainty as to the passage of the referendum has become a
constraint. At the December, 1983 Town Council meeting, it was estimated
that there was a 50/50 chance of the referendum passing, given the
communities current level of awareness and acceptability.
Other factors which influence the ability of the community to pay, or its
willingness to do so, arise from the fact that 70 of the households of the
community's total (160) are estimated to qualify as low and moderate income
persons under the Small Cities Community Development Block Grant program
guidelines. This presents considerable constraint, and in the words of one
of the Town Council members, indicates that there may be considerable
difficulty passing the referendum unless the funds are made available to
finance the hook-up fees of at least the low and moderate income persons.
Other preferences are for no one in the community to pay a hook-up fee, since
monthly costs of the new system will already create additional expense for
wastewater service to everyone in the community.
Additionally, homes which are near the water's edge will require an
individually owned and maintained pump. This extra cost became an issue of
discussion at the January 17 meeting of the Bath -Lions Club and the Bath Fire
Department.
91

2. Responses to Constraints
a. Changing the Site
When the feasibility of using the school site appeared dim, the following
work was undertaken to exhaust all possibilities of success in obtaining that
site, before moving on to another alternative:
identification of special problems (there was a pocket of quicksand
in the site which would have raised construction costs)
. meetings with the principal of the school to gather detailed
information on the school's treatment demand and current capacity to
treat wastewater. (The school did have overflow/seepage problems in
wet months among its five septic tanks.)
special presentations before the local committee by the Planning
Board Chairman and one by the Consultant before the Town Council
members.
. letters of information to the local school committee explaining the
technical details (capacity, design, etc.) aspects of the proposed
system.
. letters of information, and presentations using charts and handouts
to the Beaufort County Board of Education on two occasions
• discussion with planners at the Department of Public Instruction.
01

b. Finding funds with which to re -apply for loans and grants.
in Bath Town Council financed
Fortunately, the situation, the a portion (66%)
of the costs of preparing the first iteration of applications to FmHA and
DEM. This is rare in small towns, with the consulting Planners and engineers
'
usually being asked (or volunteering) to prepare the lengthy application
forms themselves. It speaks well for the commitment of the Bath Town Board
this
to solve community problem.
Under the FmHA guidelines, part of preparing the Preliminary Engineering
Report (PER) is allowed as a reimbursable cost. Thus, the Bath project
allocated $2,000 of the cost of the PER to'the FmHA loan/grant package as
reimbursable.
The estimate for preparing the FmHA DEM applications (Plus a CDBG proposal)
)
was determined to be $10,500. The percentage of this real cost covered by
the town and by the PER allowance was $6,000, allowing the remaining $4,500
to go uncovered since preplanning expenses are not reimbursable by either
FmHA or DEM.
10

Ic. Changing the Perceptions of the Project.
As referenced above, the third constraint took the form of uncertainty about
the referendum.
' This constraint caused the consultant to propose a "community information and
involvement program" in order to disseminate the facts of the community
wastewater system concept (and alternatives). This was not fully paid for by
' the town... in fact the Town Council was able, given other expenses, to
contract to pay for only the out-of-pocket reimbursable expenses of the
consultant (not his time) doing the work.
The community information and involvement program was designed to determine
information needs of the community regarding the proposed wastewater
treatment system and to address those needs through presentations to civic
groups. See attached example survey (Exhibit C) sent to the civic clubs to
determine information needs and presentation dates (See Exhibit D for list of
Bath Civic Clubs).
The survey and discussions with the Town Council produced the attached fact
sheet (see Exhibit E) which was used as a basis for developing presentations
and hand-outs regarding the referendum (pending). A roster of the electorate
in the town of Bath was also compiled for distribution of the information or
potentially for a well-timed "straw ballot" or survey to be conducted by the
Town Council.
I
' 11

Exhibit C
Referendum Questionnaire
me of Organization j /liH i�C. l „&- d, ,,;• IlR(u„ ,t1 /-��5ar7c
15k
Officers of Organization f - f/A,Cc r'g Z.
Please complete
and return in
envelope provided
by Dec. S, 1983
1•� b. n I -e? rif.?.1A
- 7 _ 7 F i
Person who completed
questionnaire C11601 e>
FDcvfl;R ;
Phone # _ jJ. J
Meeting date A, cJe r,;
///c�� 5,
Time 7: 3 Al
Meeting place iqA-Tf!
jHow
many members?
Active? / 5�
How many members live
in Bath or Springdale Village? / �?
Would your group be interested in having a short program with a question and answer period
on waste water treatment systems proposed for Bath sometime_ bgfore mid -Feb. 1984?
Preferred date in Dec. Jan. Feb.
r1nes your group have any suggestions on how to best educate the affected citizens of the
,ea about the proposed waste water treatment system, cost, bonds, voting, etc.?
( 1 �v ti T / C 6'
Enclosed is a list of groups in the Bath area which have received this questionnaire. Do
you know of any other groups in the area that may be interested in receiving the questionnaire?
Your suggestions please:
Would any of your members be interested in an organized trip to and tour of a facility
which is similar to one of the systems proposed for Bath? There is one in operation in
Shallotte, NC in Brunswick County. (This system is about twice the size that Bath would
need, but it would give good insight of how the system works, smells, looks, etc.) If
you know of interested parties please list them:
".,iuld your group decide not to have a program, or if your group does not have enough
.,;r:nbers that would be affected by the system to justify a separate presentation, there
will be an open forum for the general public with a question and answer period. We will
notify you of this meeting so that you can help us to spread the word.
We thank you for your time and help. 12

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Exhibit D
ORGANIZED GROUPS IN AND AROUND BATH
AND CONTACT PERSON
Mrs. Betty Slade, President
Bath High School P.T.O.
Bath High School
Bath, NC 27808
Mrs. Louise Tankard, Program Chairperson
Historic Bath Garden Club
Main Street, Route 1
Bath, NC 27808
Mr. Kelly Gurganus, President
Bath Lions Club
Route 1
Bath, NC 27808
Mrs. Judy Belote, President
Mrs. Jack Gilliam, Warden
Heritage Book Club
St. Thomas Episcopal Church
Route 1, Blackboards View
Route 1, Blackbeard's View
Bath, NC 27808
Bath, NC 27808
Mr. Gary Duncan, Pastor
Mrs. Becky Tuten
Bath Christian Church
Bath Athletic Boosters Club
Bath, NC 27808
P. 0. Box 57
Bath, NC 27808
Mrs. Jenny Worrall, President
Colonial Book Club
Mr. Charles Edwards, President
Route 1, Bayview
Bath Volunteer Fire Department
Bath, NC 27808
Route 1, Springdale Village
Bath, NC 27808
Mrs. June Wallace
Old Towne Book Club
Route 1, Bayview
Bath, NC 27808
Mr. Starly Stell, President
Bath Ruritan Club
Route 1
Bath, NC 27808
Mr. Thad Tankard, Jr., Chairman
of the Board
Bath United Methodist Church
Route 1
Bath, NC 27808
13

IExhibit E
1 FACT SHEET
Through its Planning Board and Town Council, the Town of Bath has been
working on obtaining funds with which to construct an appropriate
wastewater treatment system for the community.
' Intensive study has shown that.land-based systems (either subsurface or
irrigation -type surface systems) are more appropriate than systems which
discharge into the creeks. Final selection between these land -based
systems and their location will depend upon scientific engineering tests
and state permit decisions.
'
Bath has been
awarded $726,641 in loans and grants with
which to
construct an
appropriate system:
FmHA
(Farmers Home Administration)
$217,000 loan
FmHA
(Farmers Home Administration)
419,000 grant,
'
DEM
(N.C. Division of Environmental Mgmt.)
90,641 grant
Total Funds
$726,641
' In order to get the $509,641 in grants, the townspeople (registered
voters) must pass a bond referendum (date to be determined), thereby doing
two things:
a. Authorize the Town to issue general obligation bonds in the
amount of $217,000
1 b. Authorize the Town to levy taxes sufficient to cover the
bonds if the system is not self-sufficient
The following are some important facts about the system:
1. It is designed to have a capacity of 40,000 gallons per day,
or to handle about 400 people (about twice Bath's 1980 population).
2. It will serve the Town of Bath and Springdale Village.
Because of N.C. law, only the registered voters in the Town
however, will vote in the referendum.
3. Its monthly cost depend on the type of user you are (residential,
commercial, or institutional) and the amount of water you use each
month. In order to make the system more affordable to residential
users, the water system rates and the new sewer system rates are
proposed to be combined to provide BOTH WATER AND SEWER at the follow-
ing low rates:
'
Type of Users Rateper Month
Residence $12.00 minimum, plus $5.00 per
1,000 gallons over 2,000 gallons
Commercial Flat rate of $6.00 per 1,000 gallons
Institutional (or other user
'
on larger than 3/4" meter) Flat rate of $7.50 per 1,000 gallons
14

Exhibit E (Cont.)
Systems of similar scale usually cost $15.00 per month for sewer
alone. This would normally mean that the minimum user would have
a water bill of $7.50 and a sewer bill of $15.00, for a total of
$22.50.
For the proposed system in Bath, we are restructuring the rates
for both systems to offer the minimum user both water and sewer
for $12.00 per month. For the 120 households in Bath that use less
than the minimum (2,000 gallons per month) this will be like getting
sewer for $4.50 per month. But this minimum price does largely
depend upon conservative use of water.
4. Other costs include a one-time hook-up fee between $300 and $450
per household. Estimated $300 per household if all hook-ups are
done at one time by one contractor, or up to an estimated $450 if
each hook-up is undertaken individually. Currently there are 70
households in' Bath that qualify as low and moderate income and which
' can ill afford this hook-up cost. The Town Council and its consultants
are working to raise the $31.500 (that is 70 x $450) to pay those
costs. Those who are able to pay will be asked to'pay the fee
' themselves. However, if all users (150) get free hook-ups, this
would require outside funding from $45,000 to $67,500.
' 5. While many of you have septic tanks in good working order, many of
your neighbors do not, and yours won't function perfectly forever.
Because of this reason and the fact that the system will be feasible
only if everyone connects, it is recommended that the town adopt a
' mandatory hook-up policy.
6. The system will take about 18 months to build once the funds are
in hand.
7. A local, trained person will operate and maintain the system
with supervision of an engineer.
8. The system will accommodate residential and commercial development
which will, over time, provide additional revenues from operation.
This shall allow stable prices (mostly costs) for the service to
individual users.
Please remember that wastewater treatment is a community problem. The referendum
provides an opportunity for Bath to pull together on this important issue.
The referendum will be on the question of whether the town will authorize the.
balance of bonds as they are needed to cover the construction costs. It is not a
vote for or against a particular type of system.
So, as you think about your monthly costs of the combined water and sewer service,
think of the opportunity it will provide in your community.
We hope these facts are helpful. If you have questions, please contact members
of the Planning Board or Town Council, or their consultants at Planning $ Design
Associates (Terry Alford, 781-9004) or Wang Engineering (Jim Wang, 467-4536).
15

In response to the call for funds with which to pay for hook-ups and thereby
improve the acceptability of the proposed system(s) to the community, a
letter writing campaign was undertaken. (See Exhibit F for a sample letter
sent to Congressman Walter B. Jones regarding the hook-up fees. In addition
to this letter, the Mayor sent letters to Senators John East and Jesse Helms,
and to the Chairman of the Beaufort County Commissioners, Mr. Ledrue Buck,
and Governor Jim Hunt.)
16

HISTORIC BANH
OLDEST TOWN IN THE STATE
IIAT7i. NORTH CAROI.INA 27. 808
January 9, 1984
The Honorable Walter B. Jones
' United States Congressman
U. S. Congress
Washington, DC 20510
' Dear Congressman Jones:
INCORPORATED 1705
Exhibit F
' Historic Bath, the oldest incorporated town in the State of North Carolina
has an urgent problem upon whieh we need your assistance.
We've had a long standing need for adequate wastewater treatment, but our
small population and the fixed incomes of many of our elderly citizens have
prohibited us from building a conventional system. After much work, we have
been awarded funds from the Farmers Home Administration and the State to
' construct a land application wastewater treatment system. However, this
involves two types of costs that may make it impossible for our town to
afford the system, even with the loans and grants.
' The first cost will be an average monthly payment of $15.00 per household to
pay back the FmHA loan. Since the town is now on individual septic tanks
(with no monthly cost), this presents a sharp increase to 70 low and moderate
' households, most of which are elderly.
The second and more important cost is a one-time hook-up fee of $450 per
household. For the 70 low and moderate income households in town (about 70%
of our households), this makes the system too expensive.
We are searching on all fronts for funds to cover the hook-up fees for these
' 70 households (a total of $31,500). Time is critical, since we face a public
referendum for general obligation bonds in March. The Community Development
Block Grants Small Cities Program cycle does not start until April 16, and
the hook-ups are not an allowable cost under the FmHA or State Clean Water
Bond programs. We are contacting the Beaufort County.Commissioners, but
their involvement in a single town is highly unlikely.
' So, we come to you for help in•locating federal funds to cover the hook-ups
of the 70 families who are about to fall through the cracks of the
bureaucracy. The remainder of our households that are able to pay are ready
' to deliver the vote.
I - 17

Exhibit F (Cont.)
With your assistance, we can pass the March referendum, and North Carolina
can see its oldest municipal citizen have adequate wastewater treatment
facilities. We believe this is important to the State as part of its tourist
industry, as well as to us, the residents of Bath.
Thank you for your help. If you have questions, please call our Project
Engineer (Jim Wang, 919-467-4536) or our Project Manager, Rex Todd
(919-781-9004).
Yours truly,
Ray S. fooks, Mayor
RT/jr
18

B. Variations outside the First Choice System
1. Changing the type of system itself
a. Description
Because the May, 1983 subsurface system had reached an impass, alternative
systems were examined. Since the availability of land was the major
constraint, that factor was the key element of the search in considering
alternatives.
Discussion was made with the owner of parcel 124 (see Exhibit A) regarding
purchase or lease of that site, though the area was too small to handle all
40,000 gallons of capacity projected to be needed. This land is probably
still available, if it can be combined adequately with adjacent property.
Informal discussions were with the owner of lot 127 (which is across Bowen
Drive from 124) regarding the residential and commercial development on that
lot. It was found that commercial development is inconsistent with the Bath
Land Use Plan, but discussions are still underway regarding other options on
this site.
Thus, the Town Commons, an area shown on Exhibit G (Location Map) and
Exhibit H (Site Map) became the location of the most available land in the
community. This land, as any other site, brought with it technical
considerations. These were so pronounced that they dictated a change in type
of system, switching the proposal from a subsurface to a surface (irrigation)
type system. See Exhibit I for the amended Preliminary Report which had to
be prepared and submitted to FmHA and DEM.
19

Exhibit G
Proposed Aeriation Site
Location Map
Jr B Z %
"7
X IJ
6j.
Ji .p
A...e;j
ve
Z:�
f"tC. C;
-Cr
Plf -r
Orj 1-0,�'
,
OF
A, B Alternative Sites
20

Exhibit H
PLAN OF LAND
SURVEYED FOR
TOWN OF BATH
BATH TOWNSHIP BEAUFORT CO,NC
w 9. DUKE. R.L.S Inc.— JUNE 17.19e3
SCALE, 1" * 100'
N
VAG.
uOr
r....ef 9 01—d
j0'P/ P
t.i 5.26°12'w 1
f r.,
Off, ... A.....
03 S.lS°17'w
!0'
frr
S. 5136'w.
3e.40,
rr
Is 45-Z'w
rr, .3.0,
S o•39•w
39 30'
"9ArH COMMONS'
"do 0-- J. f'.90 e. S I5°56'w
11 71.60'
t1R
150342 Acm E.rl..r°/ of R../ R/w 48.40,
PRUPOSED TREATMENT SITE O..rr C. Ewell
s3,31'E PC. 'Y. Sli/o 11•A
9100'
91.4
s.l7•!!'w
t.l.
r.l.,
23.8,
rrr, .V. rR...N S,/•30'w.
93./0' M.N. Nollego.
O.S. 723, Pg. 329
r•I.R
i399Yw,
r.l✓. 72.e0,
9./9.53'E. i
11.20 J
°77'E'
190to N.C. 92 1 a 4
a E
Palo.. Nrll Roo
0.'A—woo/...r. Ra1/")
la 5.72•02'w.
S, N. 114
1 '�
• 111.
Tl..e f.l rt
21

b. Constraints on the newly proposed system.
' The following constraints are actin upon the selective alternative
g P e native as of
' this writing:
'
additional cost ($64,000) of running the system out to the Town
Commons site. (Total cost of the previous system (May, 183).was
'
$665,291,
was compared to the revised price (see Exhibit I1) of
'
$726,691, rendering the alternative $61,400 more expensive.)
there was a lack of read access to records of owners
hip ship of the land,
'
since the site was last owned by the town (clearly) in 1914 when it
was about 60 acres, and had been allocated to various families over
'
time without clear title.
'
. a special survey was determined to be needed for the treatment site
to determine boundaries and ownership, costing1 500.
$
. funds to cover fees.of amending the original PER were not available
from the town, nor were funds to undertake any further amendments to
the PER if the system on the Town Commons fails to receive the
'
necessary permits from NRCD, etc.
the costs of preliminary engineering and evaluation studies,
'
estimated at a cost of $16,500 (see Exhibit I2) are reimbursable only
after successful public referendum, preventing access of information
which is really fundamental to the success of the referendum: that
is, what is the final proposed system, and what will be its monthly
costs?
0
1 22

'
without the aforementioned engineering information, rumors have taken
hold regarding the irrigation type land application system, despite
'
public presentations that the spray will be pre-treated with chlorine
'
before dispensing it onto the land.
. the Town Commons site itself appears environmentally sensitive, even
'
though the degree of sensitivity is unknown. This may lead to
(forced) selection of another site, for which the total costs could
'
vary considerably.
'
Programs to leverage the hook-up fees are not available, except for
the unrealistic approach of folding the hook-up costs into the FmHA
loan, which in this case would have several undesirable effects:
. The principal of the loan would raise from $217,000 to
1
$248,500.
. The Town would have to own the entire system, from each house
to the pipes in the street, requiring an easement to be
acquired in every yard in town. This would place an
'
incredible legal and administrative burden on the Town staff.
It would create undue expense upon the tax base, since
expenses to cover extensive operation and maintenance costs
would be the Town's burden, and these revenues would likely
come from taxes (or increased user charges).
23

Exhibit I I
Amended 7/22/83
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
LAND AERIATION LOW-PRESSURE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
TOWN OF BATH
A. Area to be served: The area to be served by the proposed wastewater
system includes aTT commercial and residential users and Bath High School
(inside the Town limits), and a small adjacent subdivision east of Bath.
The service are is shown on Exhibit 4, IA2 of the April 12, 1983 Preapplication
' already submitted.
B. Existing Facilities: There are 186 septic tanks in the service area to
treat t e wastewater, out of which 83 septic tanks are in inadequate or marginal
' condition. Five septic tanks are used by the Bath High School. Two are in
inadequate or marginal condition. Often the school has to send students home
early each day to avoid the overload of septic tanks. Some residents and businesses
' have received warnings from the Beaufort County Health Department due to the
bad conditions of septic tanks.
' C. Proposed facilities and services:
1. General Description: A low pressure sprinkler land application
system is proposed to treat the wastewater being collected from the service area.
Featuring two stabilization lagoons, this is the most cost-effective method for
treating wastewater on the wooded disposal site. This type of system is widely
used for the treatment of wastewater by small municipalities and has been
recommended in coastal North Carolina as an alternative to conventional tertiary
systems which endanger surface water supply or are more costly to construct.
1 2. Land: The land required for the low-pressure sprinkler land application
system is about 5 acres plus V.acre as a buffer, totalling 6 acres. The land
is located north of the Town of Bath on Possom Mill Rd. on a site known as the
"Town Commons". It is surrounded on the north, west and east by private farm
land and on the south by Possom Mill Rd. (See amended Exhibit VI. 3. F attached).
3. Rights: The land is owned by the Town of Bath.
4. Collection System: The minimum of 8" Line is to be used for the collection
system. A minimum flow velocity of 2 ft. per second will be maintained in the
wastewater collection pipes to prevent the accumulation of solids in the sewer lines.
The design capacity is 40,000 gpd which is expected to be reached in 20 years.
5. Treatment facilities: The low pressure sprinkler land application system
is proposed to treat the wastewater with the design capacity of 40,000 gpd.
The land requirement is calculated to be 5 acres with the loading rate of
.18 gpd/sq. ft. There will be a set of two -stage lagoons to stabilize the organics
' and to allow sedimentation of the solids. Then the liquid will be pumped through the
sprinkler system to be disposed on the designated land surface for further
treatment. The natural ground cover and soil of this site will provide physical,
chemical and biological treatment and purify the liquid adequately before it is
' naturally discharged to the surface and subsurface water.
' 24

1
Amended 7/22/83
6. Costs: The initial construction and annual operation and maintenance
costs are shown on the attached supplement, pages 1 - 4 (pages 1 and 2 were
updated 7/14/83 and pages 3 and 4 remain as submitted on April 12, 1983).
' D. Cost estimate: (See attached supplement, pages 1 and 2 updated)
E. Annual Budget:
' 1. See attached supplement, page 3.
2. See attached supplement, page 4.
' F. Maps: See Exhibit 4, IA2 for Service Area and Exhibit VI.3.F for
population distribution and treatment site.*
r
G. Construction Problems: Sub -soil conditions will be investigated to
determine the extent to which they will increase the construction cost of
lagoons. Similarly, construction and operating costs may be increased in
order to prevent run-off from the site into Bath Creek which reaches near the
site on the east. The Town herein requests that the contingency line item
in the construction budget (page 3 of the PER), now set at 8%, be increased
to 15% to cover such*unforseen costs.
' H. Conclusions & Recommendations: Inadequate wastewater treatment has been
a problem in Bath for many years. The Town Board, Planning Board, Local School
Committee and the citizenry are committed to making this land application
' system a success. They recommend its funding wholeheartedly.
1
' * These Exhibit references related to the original grant application
document submitted to FmHA and the Division of Environmental Management.
1
' 25

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Town of Bath
7/14/83
SUPPLEMENT TO PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
(SEWAGE FACILITY)
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
(List All Major Items)
SEWAGE COLLECTION
1320 LF 8" Sewer Pipe @ 15 204,303
LF 10" Sewer Pipe @
LF - 12" Sewer Pipe @
Ea. Standard Manholes. @
15 Ea. Drop Manholes @ 2500'
Ea. Lift Stations @ LS
LF Force Mains @
Ea. Service Taps @.
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 241,800
(Round to nearest thousand dollars)
SEWAGE TREATMENT: (Include all items to which EPA
will grant)
LF 8" Interceptor Pipe @
5088 LF 12" Interceptor Pipe @ 20 101,760
LF 18" Interceptor Pipr @
LF 24" Outfall Sewer Pipe @
5 Ea. Lift Station @ LS $7000 55,UUU
200 LF 8" Force Mains @ $ 19 3,400
Treatment Plant @ LS_ $4�YT9U-
2 ea. low, pressure pumps ® 000 8,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 303,250
(Round to nearest thousand dollars)
Above prices are current through 1984
26

Town of Bath
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Page 2
Construction
Land & Rights
Legal 6 Adm.
Engineering 11.4,0
Interest
Equipment
Contingencies
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Cash
Contrib.
by Appl.
0
0
0
TOTAL FUNDING 0*
7/14/83
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Collection
Treatment
T_
241,800
303,250
545,050
20,000
20,000
--7,.52U '
8,480
, 16,000
32,932
62,136
'-'3Y,UUU
N/A
-0-
N/A
39.000� _
N/A -
24,180
20,325 -
44,505
341,704
384,987
726,691
PROJECT FINANCING PLAN
Clean
Nat. Bond Other
Grant Grant*
96,247 0
FmHA
Loan.
(GO Bonds) Total
630,444 726.691
(Collection Facility)
0 0 0
(Treatment Facility)
96,247 0 630,444 726,691_
96,247 0 630,444 726,691
*Identify source of grant.
Do not assume any FmHA Grant.
Existin& Indebtedness:
This facility only)
Amortization Amount of
Purpose Amount Owed Period Installment
27

Page 3
Sewer rates may be expressed as a percentabe of the Water bill or as a
.straight cost per 1,000 gallons of Water consumed.
EXISTING RATE SCHEDULE
(water only)
•
First 50000 gallons @ 7.50 Kin.
@ 1.25 Per
1,000
gal.
Next 0 0 0 gallons
" any ad itional gallons @ 1.00
„
" gallons @ ..
All Over gallons @
PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULE
(wastewater only, residents*)
• First 5_ 000 gallons @ 20.80 Kin.
@ 4.16 Per
1,000
gal.
Next any additional gallons
gallons '@
.,
" gallons @
All Over gallons @
*commercial'rates are 1500 of the residential
rates.
USE AND INCOHE ESTIPtATES
'
(According to proposed rate schedule)
SEWER:
'
Benefited Users (All users with 3/4 x 5/8 meters)
Existin New Total
gal.
. users@
resid. 0 120 users @ Z,000
gal.
$ 2,496__
resid. 13 13 users @ 8,690
@
gal.
$ 470
$ 1,368
cortuner al 16 16 users 13,700
@
gal.
gal.
$
'
_ users
users @
gal.
$
users @
gal.
$
TOTAL.-0 149 149 users @ 3,843__
gal.
Non Benefited Users (All users with larger
than 3/4
x 5/8 meters)
1ILLtin& New Total
1 users @ 65,000
gal.
$ 406
'
0 1 —
'—"'—'. users @
gal.
$----
...... --------- users @
gal,
$
"„_.. r..,,_.
users @
gal.
$
TOTAL 0 1 1 users @ 652000
gal.
$ 406
TOTAL $ 4',740 x 12 $ 56,880
Annually
•
28
1

Page 4
BUDGET FOR COMPLETED FACILITY
Actual
Estimated
(Fiscal -Year
(Completed
Ending 19 )_
Facility)_
Income: '
Sewer Charges N/A
56,880
Adv. Tax
N/A
Other
N/A
TOTAL .
56.880
EXPENSES:
Salaries
3,600
Supt. b Clerk
_
Labor
2,911
I
Soc. Security Tax
210
Office Exp. (Supplies, __
snn
Postage, Heat, Elec-
tricity, Telephone,", '
Equipment, etc.)
400
Bond b Insurance
100
'
Audit
Testing -St. Reg. Agy.
360
Chemicals
100
Transportation
300
'
Electricity
9;400
Supplies
inn
Maint. b Repairs
Ano
Miscellaneous
419
N/A
Bulk Treatment Charges
Debt Service
NSA
Existing
Proposed Addition
44,436 _ (pfrl)
56,436
TOTAL
AVAILABLE
444
BALANCE
FLOOD PLAIN INFORMATION
Is any part of project located in a flood plain
area?NOIf project is in
N/A
flood area, is applicant eligible for National
Flood Insurance?
29

F
el
Y'H
FORT CODWY NO . ell! i H CIRIOUNA
r-
0 611, r*.4--- 1-500 3-0100
30
Exhibit VI.3.F
Population Distribution
and Treatment Site Location
.y •
( it
V

Exhibit I2
' SECTION D- ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
In addition to the foregoing being performed, the following services may be provided UPON PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHOR-
IZATION OF THE OWNER and written approval of FmflA.
1. Site surveys for water treatment plants, sewage treatment works, dams, reservoirs, and other similar special surveys as
maybe required. (Topographic survey, $1,500) .
' ?. Laboratory tests, well tests, borings, specialized geological, soils, hydraulic. m other studies recommended by the
ENGINEER. Feasibility Study of the site; capacity & permit application & approval
3. Property surveys, detailed description of sites, m;t 11 260001, or estimates related thereto; assistance in negotiating
' for land and easement rights.
4. Necessary data and filing maps for water rights, water adjudication, and litigation.
S.
Redesigns ordered by the OWNER after final plans have been accepteU by the OWNER and FmHA, except redesigns
to reduce the project cost to within the funds available.
6.
7.
Appcarances,bcfore courts or boards on matters of litigation or I►carings related to the project.
Preparation of environment impact assessments or environmental impact statements.
8.
Performance of detailed staking necessary for construction of the project in excess of the control staking set Furth
in Section A.12.
- 9.
The ENGINEER further agrees to provide the operation and maintenance manual for facilities when required for
S 5,000
'
Payment for the services specified in this Section D shall be as agreed III writing between the OWNER and approved by
hmHA prior to cYmunencement of the work. Barring unforeseen circumstances, such payment is estimated not to
1
exceed S 16,500 The ENGINEEP. wal render to OWNElt for such services an itemized bill, separate
from any. other billing, once each month, for compensation for services performed hereunder during such period,
the same to be due and payable by OWNER to the rNGINffil:It on or before the loth day of the following period.
1
1 31

c. Responses to major constraints.
The following is a range of responses which have been considered in response
to the aforementioned constraints, primarily the hook-up costs. This format
of playing -out the cost and other consequences of each can provide
' considerable insight into decisions facing the Town Council and the
electorate.
1. Municipal borrowing.
Loan of revenue sharing from the County. Under N.C. statute, any form of
borrowing by a government obligates the government to repay from its general
' fund (and its revenue base is taxes). Thus, a referendum is required.
2. Existing Town Budget.
Capital reserves in the water fund account are not available, as the water
system currently operates at a deficit. Thus, other fund balances within the
town budget were considered.
On June 30, 1982, there was $5,000 of Fund Balance "designated for subsequent
years budget" and $8,176.92 "undesignated". The revenue sharing entitlement
was $3,968.17. These funds, if not already spent or designated for FY 1983,
could go for paying down part of the hook-up fees.
3. Tax increase.
The Town could raise the tax rate to establish a revolving loan fund to be
' administered by a non-profit organization established for the purpose of
loaning funds to the low- and moderate income home owner who cannot afford
connection costs. Low interest could be charged so'they could afford the
' payback and funds could be allocated to others. When fully paid back, the
fund could be used to match other community development projects on a
' revolving loan fund basis.
1 32

1 4. CDBG
The Town could write a Community Development Block Grant, though under
different terms initially thought. From discussions John Downs
than with and
'
Gregg Warren of NRCD, the community could take the following approach, though
it is highly uncertain how the project would point out (that is, rate):
S Y
'
Identify a target area of housing rehabilitation needs, probably
bathroom replacements, roofs, etc., containing 45 houses at an average
'
rehabilitation cost of $6,620, rendering a rehabilitation budget of
$297,900, budget administration at 13.29% or $39,600. The hook-up fees
of $67,500 (based on 150 users at $450 each) would come from the 20%
local option. The total amount of the CDBG application would need to
be $405,000.
Problems with this approach are that in order to rate well under CDBG,
houses have to be in a tight cluster (target area), be 80% low- and
moderate income, and the 20% local option would have to benefit at
least 50% low- and moderate income persons. The program is highly
competitive; applications are expensive to write; and funds for
reimbursing their preparation are not available except through writing
a Development Planning Grant, postponing the availability of the
$405,000 another grant cycle (year).

5. Philanthropy.
While once a major form of raising community development funds, the use of
' this mechanism has waned. There are, however, several well-to-do persons in
' Bath (and certainly several who currently dock their craft at the marina) who
could be approached for a sizable tax deduction of $31,500 over a ten year
period to finance the hook-ups of low- and moderate income persons.
6. Leveraging Private Development.
In places where there are inadequate systems, new wastewater systems
typically stimulate development. Projections may be constructed to show the
'
likely "build -out" of new development stimulated by the new wastewater
treatment capacity, and proformas written to determine the taxes generated
upon that development. If the revenue goal is spread over a number of years
'
(say 5 or 10), this method could provide the necessary funds with which to
finance a hook-up fund. This could negate the need for increasing the
'
current tax base or undertaking other interim measures (like CDBG). It is
important to remember, however, that this is a speculative option, since
'
development may or may not occur to the extent or at the time preferred.
One example is offered below:
Currently Bath's tax rate for ad valorem taxes is 20 cents per $100
' valuation. Discussion with residents indicates that the current valuation is
about 33% of market value.
1
34

' Thus, if the revenue objective is to raise $31,500 in ten years from new
development, the new development would have to generate $3,150 per year.
' This would require a development of $4,725,472.50 (($6,300 (target) divided
by .20 (tax rate per $100 valuation) times 100 divided by .3333 (ratio of
' valuation to market value) = market value of development required to raise
$3,150 per year. $3,150 per year times 10 years renders the original target
of $31,500.) This amount of revenue could be generated at the existing tax
' rate from 60 single family houses (and lots) selling for $80,000 each.
Doubling the tax rate to 40 cents would, of course, raise on the sale of 30_
such houses and lots.
Similarly, to generate $67,500 over 10 years at the current tax rate,
' development would have to generate $6,750 per year and have a market value of
$10,126,012.60 (arithmetic identical to that for the $31,500, starting with
' $6,750 however). This amount could be generated at the existing tax rate
' from 126 single family houses (and lots) selling for $80,000. Doubling the
tax rate to 40 cents would, of course, raise this much on the sale of 63 such
' houses and lots.
35

8. Varying monthly user fees.
This alternative involves combining the debt service of the water system
'
(existing) with that of the wastewater system (proposed) and developing a
new rate structure favoring low income households.
'
The following four scenarios present variations on the cost of providing
water and sewer services under different rate structures:
Scenario 1 - shows that the FmHA grants allow a $12 minimum monthly
'
charge to pay off the $217,900 loan.
'
Scenario 2 - shows that with a low interest loan but no grant, a minimum
monthly charge of $22 is required to pay back $727,000 low interest loan.
Scenario 3 - shows that a conventional loan for the $727,000 would
require a minimum payment of $31.00 per month.
'
Thus, the strategy in Table 1 (accepting the grants and loans) is the
preferred variation.
Scenario 1 extended - shows the fluctuations in monthly costs for
'
hypothetical variations in family size and amount of water usage.
'
36

'
Scenario (1). The Acceptance of FmHA/DEM loans and grants.
With the approved grants from FmHA and N. C. State DEM of $510,000, FmHA loan
of $217,000 of 7 1/8% interest rate for 40 years, the total annual cost of P
& I for the loan and 0 & M cost for wastewater system is $28,683 per year.
The monthly water and sewer costs are calculated as:
TABLE 1
Less than More than Projected
2000 gal./ 2000 gal./ No. of Sub -total
'
Month Month Users fee/month
Residents $12 $5/1000 gal 133 2,031
Commercial $6/1000 gal 16 1,315
Institution on
'
larger than
(3/4"x5/8") $7.5/1000
'
meter gallons 1 488
Total $3,834
'
$3,834 per month or $46,008 per year of water and sewer fee is projected to
be raised, out of which $28,683 will be paid for sewer cost and $17,325 will
be paid for water cost.
'
Scenario (2). Using a low interest loan, but no.grant.
Assuming a total loan of $727,000 at 7-1/8y interest rates for,40 years, the
'
total P & I for loan and 0 & M costs will be $67,010 per year. The total
water and sewer costs will be $84,335 per year. The monthly water and sewer
'
costs were calculated as:
37

TABLE
2
Less Than
More Than
Projected
2000 gal./
2000 gal./
No. of
sub -total
Month
Month
Users
fee/month
Resident
$22
$9.17/1000
133
$3,723
gallons
Commercial
$11.00/1000
16
2,410
gallons
Institution
on
larger than
(3/4"x5/8")
$13.75/1000
meter
gallons
1
895
TOTAL
$7,028
Scenario (3). Conventional loan with no grants.
Assuming that the $727,000 loan is borrowed at 12% interest rate (prime rate
plus 1%) for 30 years, the P & I costs would be $89,737 per year. The P & I
plus 0 & M costs for the sewer system would be $101,737 per year. The annual
costs for water and sewer will be $119,062.
The monthly water and sewer fees for users are projected as:
Residents
Commercial
Institution on
larger than
(3/4"x5/8")
meter
TABLE 3
Less than
More than
Projected
2000 gal./
2000 gal./
No. of sub -total
Month
Month
Users fee/month
$31.00
12.90/1000
133 $5,256
gallons
15.53/1000
16 3,403
gallons
19.41/1000
gallons 1 1,263
TOTAL $9,922
38

'
SU21ARY: With the funding in Scenario 2, the users will pay 83.3% more for
water and sewer P & I and 0/M monthly fee.
With the funding in Scenario 3, the users will pay 158% more for water and
sewer P & I and 0/M monthly fee.
Again, the best variation is Scenario 1, that is, for the town to accept the
'
grants and loans, thereby qualifying for the low rate of $12.00 per month.
39

Scenario (1) Extended. The following presents the financial impacts
(column F) of various family sizes and use rates.
i
A
,Persons/',
i B i C
:Gallons over
i D i E
min. !Rate/10001 Change
F
:Total ;
i
House-
!Min.!Gallons:X
- 2000 (round tol gallons Ifor galls.;Charge
'User:
Hold
!Rate;Used(a)lnearest
1000
gal.)jover min.:over min.
;A + E
+------ ------ -----+----
--+--+------+------------------ +-------+------- --+------+
:Residence
(1)
1$12
1 1950 0
$5.00 ' 0
' '
12.00�
�
Residence
�
(2)
�
12
� �
113900 11900 - 2
� �
5.00 110.00
�$
22.00
i
Residence
(3)
12
1 5850 112850 - 3
5.00 15.00
27.00'
Residence
(4)
i 12
i 7500 115800 - 6
i 5.00 130.00
42.00
;Residence
(5)
12
9750 [7750 - 8
5.00 :40.00
52.00'
:Residence
!any size! 12
8690 16690 - 7
1, 5.00 135.00
1 47.00
;Commercial: Is
Bath !average
i
i
1Industrial (school):
Bath High School 800
0
0,
13700
i
i
i
i
i
i
65000
i
i
0 ; 6.00 ; ; 82.20
i
0 1 7.50 487.50:
(a) 1 person - 65 gallons per day, 30 day month - 1950 gal./month.
According to the Town's water records (1981). 120 households now use less
than 2000; only 13 households use more than the minimum, (8690 per month).
16 businesses are estimated to use 13,700 gallons per month. The school
uses 65,000 per month.
1
40

As the system is now costed out ($727,000 total cost, with loans and grants),
the system will
pay for itself
if:
120 households
use
2000 gal.
per mo.
-- 120 x $12 = $
1440/mo.
13 households
use
8690 gal.
per mo.
-- 13 x 47 =
611/mo.
'
16 businesses
use
13700 gal.
per mo.
-- 16 x 82.20 =
1315.20/mo.
1 school.
uses
65000 gal.
per mo.
-- 1 x 487.50 =
487.50/mo.
'
$
3853.70/mo.
So, $3853.70/mo.
x 12
mos. will
raise $46,244/year.
Actual debt service is
'
$17,120 for water
and
$28,683 for
sewer
or $45,803. The
fund balance (excess
'
revenue) of $441
per
year will
revert to
the contingency
line item in the
water and sewer
fund.
t
1
1
'
41

' 2. Changing the Service Area Local and District Variations
a. Description.
' Since November, 1983, discussions have been undertaken at Town Council
meetings about the obstacle of the hook—up fees, etc. In these discussions,
three (3) other sites for land application systems have been identified. Two
(2) of these are "local variations" (serving the original service area only
(that is, Bath proper and Springdale Village), while the other is a "district
' variation" (that is, serving a larger area of which the original service area
is a portion).
The local variations may be seen on Exhibit G, indicated by the letters "A"
and "B". Site A is currently used for agriculture, and is about 15 acres in
' size. The owner stated in a public meeting that she would be willing to work
with the town to provide the site if it was needed (that is, if other sites
' cannot be found, etc.).
' Site B has been mentioned earlier. The owner has several creative ideas
' about donation of an area large enough for a subsurface application system,
but that suggestion is complicated by the proposed use of parking on top of
the septic system, and such a system's unknown relationship to proposed (but
' not yet platted) development of lots. (That is, there is no subdivision plat
showing how the development would accommodate the wastewater treatment site,
' or vice versa).
1 Exhibit J1 presents another variation of considerable merit, that of
developing a district approach for the wastewater treatment system. The
' expanded service area would likely extend from the currently proposed service
I - 42

area to the east side of.Bayview initially covering the shoreline to Bayview,
with fill-in of the area between the shoreline and Hwy. 92, over time.
' Exhibit J2 presents the nucleus of the expansion idea, indicating the
involvement of a private developer (the Weyerhauser Real Estate Company).
Under this proposal, a land application treatment site could be located near
point "C" (see Exhibit J1) under a modification of the current FmHA proposal.
This would leverage considerable development into the area which could help
' pay for the system in Bath, and serve needs of Bayview, which is having
severe water problems (and potentially septic problems due to
floodproneness).
The threads of a deal with the Weyerhauser Real Estate Company are being
developed by one of the local town council members and Mr. John Doughty, who
authored Exhibit J2. The essence of the thinking to date (1/17/84) is as
' follows:
Weyerhauser owns the land cross -hatched shaded in Exhibit 1.
Y (shaded) J In exchange
' for reserve capacity (say 10,000 gallons per day of the proposed 40,000)
which would allow the company to forego the cost of building its own package
treatment plant to develop the property, the company would donate the land
for the Town's treatment plant. This would reduce the Town's land costs and
' could leverage a donation of $70,000 into a hook-up fund from Weyerhauser
which would pay for the currently proposed 150 households to hook-up. This
would effectively remove the tightest constraint on the -upcoming referendum
I-- the lack of funds for hook-up.
43

Lill'
Af
I,U r uu `•LUA O
BEAUFORT COUNTY
1,..
NORTH CAROLINA
•en•u •► JIB
.�
NORTH CAROUNA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION
ti
PLANNING AND RESEARCH DEPARTMENT
S W A M P
0 COO.•••11011 .ml M
U.S. DEPARTMENT Of TRANS►ORTATION
'
fEDERAL MGMWAY ADM"STUITION
Wl
_W! +
' �V
KAj
� • - •J 1W
�(yT
l 1
VL
J
I[L llf
•
>d vr.r. w �
V
�
'/M
IM1
�•�MOa
M A M
f�
f/. I
��•i
note: Alternative site "c" is shown inside the shaded area.

Exhibit J2
AWeyerhaeuser Real Estate Company
P.O. Box 1391
New Bern, North Carolina 28560
[phone]
December 9, 1982
Mr. Wilton Smith
P.O. Box 713
Washington, NC 27889
Dear Wilton
I have discussed the possibility that the Town of Bath may build a
sewer system in the area east of the town with Dewitt Darden and
Roger Lyons_ of Weyerhaeuser Company. They both realize the need
for such a system and the value it may be to the Company should
it ever develope the property known as Plum Point.
If a site is needed for a pumping station or treatment plant and
it should be determined that the best site is on Company property
it is possible that the property could be made available. A final
decision can be made only after all the details of the project are
known.
It was a pleasure talking with you about development in the Bath
area. If I can help you or the town in any way please do not
hesitate to call.
JD/ti
1
1
1
1
45
John Doughty

' Preliminary (discussion level) estimates of the details of the system are
that:
. the treatment site could be placed near Highway 92 with pipes running
along the road, encouraging further commercial development of the Bath
planning area. This could stimulate annexation, thereby building the tax
' base.
. Weyerhauser is discussing building up to 400 housing units in the
shaded area on Exhibit J1 (over, say, the next 10 years). Assuming 65
.gallons per day for each person, a family of three (assuming younger families
than Bath now has) would generate 5850 gallons per month, times 400
households would generate 2,340,000 gallons of wastewater per day. Adding
the currently proposed 40,000 brings the total design capacity requirement
for the "District System" to 2,380,000.
' Under such a scenario, the company would have to provide expansion of the
system beyond the 40,000 currently fundable by the FmHA/DEM proposal, since
Beaufort County does not itself qualify for FmHA reduced interest rate loans.
However, even the 9 1/8th percentage rate (FmHA's full rate) is more
favorable than conventional rates, and the county is eligible for the FmHA
full rate.
. The hypothetical location of the treatment site "C" is about 1.5 miles.
' from the western shoreline of Back Creek, while the proposed Town Commons
site is about 1.2 miles from the northern city limit line. Rough estimates
' of increased expenses for the District System are as follows:
' 46

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6864 if (1.3 miles) of 12" interceptor
pipe @ $20/lf
1200 if of 4" force main across the Back
Creek bridge @ $19/lf
2 lift stations @ $7,000
TOTAL excluding 0 & M costs:
Comparable line items of the proposed line
items for the Town Commons "local system"
Difference (excess of the district system's
cost over local):
District
Local
$137,280
$101,760
22,800
3,400
14,000
14,000
$174,080
$119,160
119,160
$ 54,920
Prorating the current FmHA loan/grant package to a hypothetical system on
Site C which would support 100 new homes is as follows:
FmHA loan: $ 940,000
FmHA grant: 1,089,000
DEM grant: 297,000
TOTAL cost: $2,326,000
Besides additional cost, complicating factors on this variation include the
following issues:
1. What will be the environmental requirements of the sewer along Back
Creek?
2. Will the environment (and the state permit system) allow lift stations
near the Back Creek bridge?
3. Will DOT allow the pipes to be "hung" on the bridge to get across Back
Creek?
The resolution of these important uses is beyond the scope of this study.
47

1
III. The Hypothetical Case: Methodology for Other Coastal Communities
A. Analyzing Demand for Wastewater Treatment
The following section moves from the empirical experience at Bath to a more
abstract or methodological way of identifying constraints before they bind,
as an aid for other coastal communities embarking on the selection of an
alternative wastewater treatment system.
Exhibit L presents a check list of demand criteria which can be helpful in
articulating the community's profile of demand -- the target, so to speak,
'
toward which funds and technical solutions will be directed.
Funding sources typically respond best to the best informed applicants. A
considerable amount of time can be saved by preventing pursuit of the wrong
funds.
Additionally, from completing Exhibit L, a range of alternatives could be
'
established for variation.
48

Item
1. Level of Environmental
Sensitivity of
Community
a. Effluent
Quality
2. Special Site
Limitations
3. Type of Effluent
CHECKLIST OF DEMAND
Data & Sources
Exhibit L
Response
BOD (PPM)
suspended solids
(PPM) ;
Stream class-
ification ;
Site requirements Engineering
Suitability Analysis
Known soils info.
Proximity to water
etc. (use Exhibit M)
Residential, Commerical, Institutional,
Industrial, by number and size of water.
DEN classification and
Effluent Quality.
Limits will be determined
by hTRCD stream computer
modeling analysis.
a. Quantity of Effluent
Minimum Treatment
Quantity of Effluent in
Engineering
Capacity
Terms of GPD
Projections
b. Ability to Pay
. Median Family Income
NC Budget Office
Community
Planning
. Available Source of
Funds:
Contact each Agency
Engineer's and
FmHA
Planner's
EPA
Assistance
DEM
Unappropriated Fund
Town Budget
balances
Tax base
Town Budget
(existing & future)
c. Desired impact on
State any growth
Community
future land use and
assumptions; existing waste-
Planning
community lifestyle
water treatment system
residents attitude for
improvement and progress.
d. Others
TBD
TBD

1
Exhibit PSI
Demand in terms of Daily Flow
'
Type of Establishments Daily Flow for Design
Residences ..........................................
.100.gpd/person
Airports, also RR Stations, bus terminals.
(not including food service facilities) .............
.5
gallpassenger
Barber Shops .........................................
1.00
gal/chair
'
Beauty Shops .........................................
Bowling Alleys ..........................................
125
50
gal/booth or bowl
gal/lane
Camps
Construction or work camps .........................
50
gal/person
'
Summer Camps ...........•••.•.•. ...................
Camp grounds
50
150
gal/person
gal/campsite
Churches .............................................
5
gal/member
'
Country Clubs -- Resident members ....................
Non-resident members ................
75.ga1/person
20
gal/person
Day Care Facilities ..................................
15
gal/person
Factories (exclusive of industrial
wastes) per
25
gal/person
•shift •..............................
Hospitals .
....
300
gal/bed
Laundries (self-service) ................................
500_gal/mach.ine
'
Motels/Hctels........................................
..With cooking facilities in room ...................
75
125.gal/room
gal/roam
Resort '...............................................
200
gal/room
Offices -- per shift .................................
Nur$ing/Rest Homes -- With laundry ................. ..
25
150
gal/person
gal/bed
Without laundry .
75
gal/bed
Residential Care Facilities ..........................
.75.ga1/person
'
Restaurants ..........................................
Schools: Day Schools
40
15
gal/seat
gal/person
Note: Use 20 gal/person if aerobic
treatment is proposed
Boarding Schools ............................
75
gal/person
Day Workers .................................
25
gal/person
Service Stations .....................................
250
gal/water closet
or urinal
Stores -- Note; if food service is
'
included,.add 40 gal/seat ..................
250
gal/water closet
or urinal
Swimming Pools and Bathhouses ......... .... .......
10
gal/person
Theaters -- Auditoriums ..............................
3
gal/seat
Drive-In........
5
gal/Car space
Travel Trailer Parks .................................
150
gal/space
'
History Note: Statutory'Authority G.S. 143-215.1;
Eff. February 1, 1976.
130-160;
I
s0

1
' B. Analyzing Supply (Capacity) of Different Treatment Systems
After having developed a general profile of demand, one should consider
' constraints (or limits) of various treatment systems.
Exhibit N presents the major constraints of four typical systems, in fact,
' the four which were considered in Bath over the years. Other systems, or
more specific types within these four categories, can be added to the array.
Exhibit
N
'
Characteristics
of Supply
'
+------------------- ----- ---+------------------+------- -------- ----+------- --------------+
!Most Constraining
!Second -Most Constraining:Third-Most Constraining!
!Type of System
!Characteristic
! Characteristic Characteristic
+- ----- ------ ---------------+---------------- -----+-------- ------ -----+-----------------------�
!System A: Package System
!Quality of Effluent
!Cost :Max. Population !.
! IServicable
--------
---------- ------ -----
:System B: Conventional Plant
!Quality of Effluent
!Site !Capital and Operating
!
!
!Stream Classification !Costs
!System C: Land Application System
!Land Availability
!Capital Costs !
! (Surface)
!Soil Characteristics
! ! !
'
+--------_-____--__-------+--
!System D: Land Application
------ --- +-------- --- --- F
!Land Availability !Sensitivity of Surface !Capital Costs — !
(Subsurface)
� )
!Soil Characteristics
!Water and Ground Water ! !
!
!Vegetation Cover
! ! !
1----------------------------+----------------------+-------------------+-------------------+
Additionally, specific data may be placed in the cells to get a general
quantitative idea for the capacity of each system to perform, relative to its
cost, sensitivity, etc. Then this information, in a quick outline form, can
be related to the demand information in the previous section.
1 51

IV. Summary Chart: Applying the Methodology to the Bath Case
A. Description:
The necessary considerations for the items listed on the community conditions
and requirements (demand side), and the wastewater treatment alternatives and
limits (supply side) are compared between the general evaluation process and
specific examples derived from the experience in the wastewater treatment
system development in Town of Bath.
This comparison will provide a guidance and example for the evaluation and
selection procedure for the future wastewater system planning and design in
the coastal area in North Carolina.
B. Chart
The following chart (Exhibit 0) consists of three major parts: the first
column lists the items needed to be considered. The second column states the
suggested consideration for general case. The third column presents the
specific experience and results from the Bath wastewater treatment
development projects.
Both demand and supply considerations for the wastewater treatment planning
are presented in the chart.
W

M
to
W
+----------------------+--------------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS !SPECIFIC EXAMPLE: BATH WASTEWATER TREATMENT
SYSTEM
+----------------------+--------------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
:1) DEMAND SIDE: i
Effluent Quality
Quantity of Influent
Ability to Pay
'Residents Attitude
;Toward Wastewater
'Treatment Improvement
i
i
i
i
i
+----------------------
Stream classification, effluent quality limits,
type of influence from various activities
(residents, businesses, Industries)
The estimate of daily wastewater flow rate for
residents and businesses should be calculated in
accordance with Exhibit M. Industrial Wastewater
quantity and quality needs to be identified.
Future growth should be considered$ the capacity
to meet the community growth in 20 years is recom-
mended.
Community medium income level. Tax base for the
loan. Availability of 3rd party grants and loans
such as Federal and State governments.
Type, history, and cost of existing wastewater
;treatment system. Level of demand for improvement
Residents' attitude towards community improvement
and progress in general.
F--------------------------------------------------
Bath is a very sensitive area because of commercial
fishing and concerns for coliform pollution in the
water supply. Currently, there is no industry at
Bath, all wastewater comes from residents and
businesses. Domestic wastewater only. Point -
discharge effluent quality needs to be
determined by NC-DNRCD.
Current population at Bath is 214. It is projected
that Bath will have 400 people including 21
commercial establishments and one industry In 20
years (CAMA Land Use Plan). The projected waste-
water flow rate is 40,000 gallons per day.
The medium family income In,Bath 1s $10,000, The
total tax valuation of Bath In $2.3 million. with
the final estimate of wastewater system cost of
$7279000. $419*000 in grants were approved by
FmHA, $90.461 in grants by NC-DEM. and $217,000 in
loans at 7-1/8X•interest rate for 40 years. by FmHA.
'Septic tank is the only treatment for the wastewater;
'from residents and businesses at Bath. The field
survey indicated that 103 septic tanks were in good
condition. 53 are in marginal condition, and 30
were 1n bad condition. The septic tank at the union;
;school was in bad condition. The Town Council is
very supportive for the improvement of Bath waste-
water treatment system. However, the Individual
residents still consider the wastewater treatment asll
an Individual issue, particularly those residents
whose septic tanks are in good condition.
-----------------------------------------------------

f1l
+------------ ----------+
----- ---------- ------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
,ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS :SPECIFIC EXAMPLE: BATH WASTEWATER TREATMENT =
SYSTEM
+----------------------+---------------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
12. SUPPLY SIDE:
:Package Treatment i
:System 10
Conventional Treatment
System
Land Application (sub—
surface) System
Effluent quality needs to be examined carefully.
Site of package plant should be selected with the
consideration of point —source discharge quality
limits. The cost for package treatment may be
comparatively reasonable.
High quality effluent can be produced by this
advanced conventional wastewater treatment plant.
But the high capital and operation/maintenance
coats may be a limit for the selection of this
treatment alternative.
Land availability, soil characteristics, vegetation
cover, surface water and ground water contamination
health considerations (coliform and odor).
*----------------------------------------------
Due to the high environmental sensitivity at the
Town Commons, the low—cost package treatment plant
may not produce high enough quality of effluent to
satisfy the discharge quality limits for Back
Creek.
To provide adequate treatment for the Town of
Bath, the centralized conventional wastewater col—
lection and treatment system was estimated to
cost $1.2 million or $9,000 per unit for the
Bath residents, which is far too costly to local
residents.: EPA funding was at least 6 years off,
and even'then, the increased local share put the
program out of reach for Bath.
With the investigation of the soil characteristics
of all available open land sites, it was found
that the site adjacent to the school and owned by
the School Board was an ideal site for land applica-11
tfon purpose. ;
i
The subsurface wastewater land application system
was suggested, because the consideration of health
and odor problems and future use of the site as
football or baseball field. However, the Beaufort
County Board of Education declined the request of
using the school site as subsurface wastewater ;
drainage site.
-----------------------------------------------------+
N
O
w

M = = = = = = = = M = = = = = =
to
cn
+----- ----- ---------- +--------------------------- --------- ------------- -------- ------------------
:ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
:SPECIFIC EXAMPLE: BATH WASTEWATER TREATMENT
SYSTEM
+-------------------+---------------------------------------+---------------------------
-----_—_ -----+
:2. SUPPLY (con't.)
�
:'
:Land Application
:Land availability, soil characteristics,
vegetation:No land owners are willing to allow the land ap- :
:(Surface) System
:cover, surface water and groundwater
contamination,:plication systems to be established on their land :
:health considerations (coliform and
odor). :which is in the Bath Town Limits. :
:The Town of Bath owns 15 acres of mostly wooded �
:land north of the Town and adjacent to Possum Hill
:Road. It was found that this site might be suit -
:able for land application systems because:
11. The area is large enough, 15 acres (the calcu-
lation indicates 4 acres are enough). :
12. The soil can absorb moisture. :
The surface application was selected because:
1. This is wooded area. It will be expensive to
build and maintain subsurface system because
the tree roots.
2. There is about a 4 inch leaf layer on the
ground at the site which can absorb the excess
wastewater during the surface wastewater land
application process.
i :However, preliminary engineering study is required
:to analyze the odor, health, and surface and ground:
:water quality impact. The permit needs to be :
:approved by NC-NRCD through complete engineering :
:evaluation and study. :
I------__-------+------________---------_------------__ }---- -----F

'
C. Conclusion
'
This has briefly illustrated how the lists of demand (Exhibit
section check
'
L) and of supply (Exhibit N) may be used to summarize critical points in the
Bath situation. In a like manner, other communities can construct such a
'
summary, from which two points of information may come:
1. Information which indicates important factors which act as
constraints, and warrant further detailed study (variation).
2. A strategy for mobilizing resources toward a clear choice,
(if one is derived from the community's work with
tExhibits
L, 11 and 0) .
'
It is from the rigor of such analysis that the choices which Bath has to
select and install an appropriate wastewater treatment system have become
'
much clearer and implementation strategies more direct and fundable than
'
could have been achieved in a longer period of time under less structured
approach. The application of these techniques should provide similar
'
insights in other communities of coastal North Carolina.
S6

°
Town of Aurora
Extraterritorial
O
Jurisdiction
Map)(ETJ
N
Property Lines
Town Limits
a
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
0
0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Miles
Prepared By:
Mid -East Commission
PO Box 1787
Washington, NC 27889
Bob Paciocco, Executive Director
Joe Dooley, Planning Director
Berry Gray, Land Use Planner
MID -EAST January 13, 1999
Adopted April 12, 1999
The preparation of this map was financed in part through a grant provided by
the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is
administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
31-1
C7
0
This map represents a compilation of information from multiple sources, and
at different scales, which may result in inconsistencies among the features
represented on this map. The Mid -East Commission assumes no responsibility
for the accuracy of the source information.
Li

Town of Au ro ra
Extraterritorial
O
Jurisdiction
O
(ETJ Map)
�--
s
o�
W E
PropertyLines
Town Limits
--
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
ZE
0.3 0 0.3 0.6 Miles
G
-
Prepared By:
Mid -East Commission
_
PO Box 1787
Washington, NC 27889
L
TT_
Bob Paciocco, Executive Director
Joe Dooley, Planning Director
Berry Gray, Land Use Planner
MID -EAST January 13, 1999
Adopted April 12, 1999
'
The preparation of this map was financed in part through a grant provided by
the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is
administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
0
This map represents a compilation of information from multiple sources, and
at different scales, which may result in inconsistencies among the features
represented on this map. The Mid -East Commission assumes no responsibility
for the accuracy of the source information.
D

4 i ,
Aurora ETJ Ordinance —
Adopted April 12,1999
� h
ETJ Ord.doc Microsoft Word 97
•/ a F x a
"Y' ry. . v