NC0088757_Engineering Alternatives Analysis_20080311

RIVERVIEW DEVELOPMENT
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NC
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES
- ANALYSIS
(EAA)
PREPARED FOR:
_ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY - NPDES UNIT
1 61 7 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1 61 7
MARCH 11, 200S
BROOKS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES
PROJECT NO. 171006
17 Arlington Street
Asheville, NC 28801
828.232.4700

RIVERVIEW DEVELOPMENT
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
,""
�' ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
,� (EAA)
��
am Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality — NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
,`,,tt%JitIII tiff,
PER
oF�ss�o
Mqco
S L
5�9
C.
�/!lttt'riliii��
March 11, 2008
MR
Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A.
ow Project No.: 171006
Fw

RM
c
P, Table of Contents
am
1.0
Introduction.......................................................................................................1
1.1 Applicant Information...............................................................................1
1.2 Property Information................................................................................2
FM
2.0
Initial Discharge Determination........................................................................3
3.0
Technical Evaluation of Alternatives...............................................................6
00
3.1 Connection to Existing Waste Treatment Plant ........................................ 5
3.2 Individual or Group Septic Systems.........................................................6
FM
3.3 Land Application & Reuse........................................................................ 7
3.4 Direct Discharge to Surface Waters.........................................................9
3.5 Combination of Alternatives
4.0
Economic Evaluation of Alternatives.............................................................10
4.1 Connection to Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant ...................... ..11
4.2 Individual or Group Septic Systems.......................................................13
�•+
......................................................
4.3 Land Application ....................... .......14
4.4 Reuse....................................................................................................15
4.5 Direct Discharge to Surface Waters.......................................................16
4.6 Combinations of Alternatives..................................................................17
Figures
1.
Development Site Plan
2.
General Site Location Map
3.
Discharge Location Map
4.
Neighboring Discharge Facility Locations
Attachments
A.
Local Government Review Form
B.
Soil Scientist Report & County Environmental Health Denial Letter
C.
Brooks Engineering Associates Soils Report
D.
Present Value Cost Analysis
E.
Engineer's Opinion of Cost for Infrastructure
MR

OR
1.0 Introduction
am
This Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) is provided as part of the application for
a new NPDES permit for the Riverview Condominium Development in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H.0105. The purpose of this EAA is to determine the technical and
economic feasibility of wastewater disposal options available for the development.
As part of the 1972 Clean Water Act, discharge to surface waters is considered only as
a last resort. Brooks Engineering Associates has evaluated all of the alternatives and
has concluded that the surface discharge permit is the only viable option for the
applicant. The property was purchased with the intent of developing over 120 modular
units at the site. A preliminary soil report by Catena Group indicated that there was
sufficient suitable/provisionally suitable soil on site to serve the proposed development
with subsurface or surface land disposal wastewater options. However, upon initiation
of a permit level investigation of the soil conditions by Brooks & Medlock Engineering's
soil scientists, it was determined that the clay content in the soil was expansive and
therefore unsuitable for a land disposal system. The Buncombe County Health
Department confirmed these findings. This was after the developer had made a
substantial investment in the property. Grading and site development has begun.
`"`' Applicant Information
Pertinent information regarding the applicant and this application is as follows.
Property Owner: French Broad River Group of NC
3800 South Ocean Drive
,R Hollywood, FL 33019
[phone]
Attn: Ross Adickman
me NPDES Permit Applicant: French Broad River Group of NC
3800 South Ocean Drive
Hollywood, FL 33019
FM [phone]
Attn: Ross Adickman
on
Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A.
WA BEA Project No. 171006
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Riverview Development
1

am
EAA Preparers Information: Brooks Engineering Associates, PA
17 Arlington Street
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone]
on Contact: Mark C. Brooks, P.E.
f` Property Information
The subject property is located in Buncombe County at the intersection of Old Marshall
a' Highway (US 25/70) and Fletcher Martin Road (NC 1620). The parcel, approximately
50.72 acres is identified by Buncombe County as Tax Map ID No. 9723-04-53-9341.
FW The subject site is currently forest land. The Old Marshall Highway (US 25/70) borders
the property to the southwest. The French Broad River parallels the Old Marshall
I^ Highway across the street from the development.
The development project consists of proposed 160 two and three bedroom modular
cabin units on the 50.72 acres. Half of the units are anticipated to be two bedrooms
and half of the units are anticipated to be three bedrooms. The site water service will
be provided by transient non -community (as defined in 15A NCAC 18C) water supply
`" wells on the property. The site layout is provided as Figure 1. The units are termed
"condominium units" as they are sold as detached condominiums, with conveyance of
"k land. The Local Government Review Form is provided as Attachment A.
M+ A general site location map has been included as Figure 2 depicting the discharge
location. The proposed wastewater receiving stream is the French Broad River. The
,., design flow for the project is calculated to be 48,000 gallons per day (gpd) based upon
120 gpd/bedroom in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H 0.219. One half of the units are
anticipated to be 2 bedroom and one half are anticipated to be three bedrooms. The
requested permit discharge allocation has been rounded up to 50,000 gpd.
00
Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A.
ffm BEA Project No. 171006
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Riverview Development
2

OR
2.0 Initial Discharge Determination
am
ON
Brooks Engineering Associates has performed an initial determination regarding the
potential of the receiving stream to accommodate the proposed developments' design
Ron
wastewater flow of 50,000 gpd. The discharge location longitude and latitude are
provided on Figure 3. Initially, the receiving stream, the French Broad River, was
researched for limiting classifications and the following determinations were made:
♦ The French Broad River has no zero -flow restrictions per 15A NCAC 26.0206
(d)(2);
♦ The French Broad River is classified as a Class B River (Stream Index No. 6-
(54.5), Map No. EBNW Weaverville Quad);
TAM
♦ River Segment Index No. 6-(54.5) of the French Broad River is not designated as
an Impaired Water and has no designated TMDLs;
♦ This segment of the French Broad River has no known presence of endangered
species. David Hill of NCDENR DWQ said that the subbasin number is not
available because these are currently being changed; and
♦ Class B waters have no restrictions on watershed development or types of
discharges.
A basin plan does exist for the receiving stream watershed. The French Broad River
Basin Plan was implemented in 1995, renewed in May 2000 and again in April 2005.
FM The plan does not include any discharge restrictions or moratoriums, with the
exception of Impaired Waters identified in different sections of the river.
To address potential deficiencies of the receiving stream regarding flow, BEA staff
conducted an investigation by confirming a positive 7Q10 "low stream flow" for the
French Broad River with the USGS. These activities are discussed below.
on
On April 13, 2007 BEA staff contacted Mr. Curtis Weaver, PE of the USGS in Raleigh,
North Carolina. Mr. Weaver is the principal engineer in charge of making stream flow
A"
determinations for the Raleigh USGS office. The 7-day 10-year low flow (7Q10) is the
governing stream criteria for wastewater point source discharges for flow acceptance.
Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A.
�+ BEA Project No. 171006
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Riverview Development
3

OR
am .
Mr. Weaver replied via e-mail that there were two existing stations nearby on the
�•► French Broad River. The USGS operates continuous -record stream gauging stations
on the French Broad River, including one upstream at Asheville (station id 03451500,
drainage area 945 sq mi) and one downstream near Marshall (station id 03453500,
drainage area 1332 sq mi). A low -flow analysis (based on records through March
2006) for the 7Q10 discharge at each of these stations indicates the low -flow yield is
0.45 and 0.39 cfsm, respectively.
Mr. Weaver went on to state that the site is closer to the Asheville gauging station, so it
would be reasonable to lean towards use of the 7Q10 yield from this station (0.45
cfsm) while recognizing that some change in low -flow characteristics between the two
gauging stations appears to exist. Applying the yield of 0.45 cfsm to the drainage area
(1050 sgmi) of the site results in a 7Q10 flow estimate of about 470 cfs (303,768,900
gpd) that can be considered applicable to this site. Given the design flow for the
Riverview Development plans is 50,000 gpd, less than 0.02% of the 7Q10 flow, stream
flow does not appear to be a prohibitive factor.
MR
Therefore, based upon the preliminary investigation, it appears there are no flow or
a„ water quality restrictions on the French Broad River that would immediately prohibit
discharge of domestic wastewater with a standard level of treatment to surface waters.
Ow
am
W"
a"
Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A.
me BEA Project No. 171006
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Riverview Development
4

Xn
P" 3.0 Technical Evaluation of Alternatives
P"
3.1 Connection to Existing Waste Treatment Plant
Figure 4 shows a map of the two closest existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
The most feasible connection to an existing waste treatment plant or municipal system
would be to the Buncombe County Municipal Sewer District (MSD) treatment plant
located approximately 4.75 miles from the subject site. There are no connections to
MSD's collection system any closer than the plant itself. This potential connection
location is a wastewater treatment plant serving the metropolitan sewerage district of
Buncombe County (NPDES Permit No. NCO024911). This facility is permitted for 40
MGD. The route to the MSD Buncombe County WWTF has approximately 205 ft of
elevation gain from the low elevation of the proposed site, so a pump station and force
main construction would be required to connect to this system. MSD has been
approached about permitting an extension of their sewer system from the subject site
to their collection system and they have stated they would not permit a new pump
station and force main from the subject site location to their plant. Additionally, the NC
Department of Transportation does not typically allow privately owned force mains in
the state right-of-way running parallel to the road for any significant length. Only
perpendicular crossings are routinely allowed.
The next closest wastewater treatment facility is the town of Marshall WWTF
min (NC0021733). The facility is located approximately 11.5 miles down stream from the
subject site. Pump stations and force mains would also be required if the sewer line
VM were to follow the Old Marshall Highway (US 25/70) to the Marshall system.
It is the conclusion of BEA that the connection to an existing WWTF or municipal
collection system is not economically feasible nor permittable.
4"
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Riverview Development
Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A.
ow BEA Project No. 171006
5

MR
3.2 Individual or Group Septic Systems
+� The proposed development includes 160 units on 50.72 acres. The average lot size is
approximately 1 /4 acre or less, and the homes are two to three bedrooms. General
guidelines by health departments suggest a minimum of 1/2 acre lots for an individual
primary septic system and repair area. The initial development plan was to cluster the
modular units and have them served by a common on -site septic system. This was
investigated initially with a preliminary soil assessment by Catena Group of Raleigh,
NC. The Catena group identified over 10 acres of suitable and/or provisionally suitable
soils based upon a limited number of borings. The report indicated a high clay content
in the soils, which was reflected in a low soil loading rate, but there was no discussion
of soil plasticity. The Catena Group returned to the site to perform a permit level
investigation and attempt to find suitable soils for a cluster of 10 units. The County
denied this application. The denial letter and Catena Group report are provided as
Attachment B.
rout
Upon approval of the development plans by Buncombe County, a North Carolina
Registered Soil Scientist from Brooks & Medlock Engineering (currently Brooks
Engineering Associates) performed a Soils Evaluation on remaining portions of the
site. Upon investigating all representative areas of the 50 acres site, sufficient
drainfield area for six modular units was found and permitted. No other suitable areas
�.,
are identified. The report identifies A and B horizon soils have a high clay content that
were initially identified as "expansive". This was confirmed by laboratory testing as the
soils had a high cation exchange capacity (CEC). Upon investigation of the entire
site, sufficient drainfield area was found for six units with a combined design flow of
1,050 gpd. These units have been permitted by the Buncombe County Environmental
Health Department (EHD). The EHD has inspected soil pits across the remaining
portions of the site and found the soil conditions unsuitable for any type of
conventional or innovative subsurface on -site wastewater systems. The Brooks
Engineering Associates soils report letter summarizing the findings is provided in
Attachment C. Given the expansive clay in the upper soil horizons, the project soil
scientist has determined that the site is unsuitable for either subsurface or surface
application of treated wastewater.
Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A.
120 BEA Project No. 171006
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Riverview Development
N.

No
aw
If it was determined that adjacent property owners have suitable soil conditions (which
has not been ascertained), enough property would have to be acquired to sustain the
remaining 146 unpermitted units (43,800 gpd). For a community system, the
remaining 43,800 gpd would require 16.76 acres for primary and repair drainfield area
for a drip disposal system with a 0.15 gpd/ft2 LTAR (see Attachment D for
calculations). There is no available space on the proposed site with suitable or
provisionally suitable soil conditions. All of the acreage needed for a drip system
would have to be acquired from adjacent property owners. Additionally, any system
over 3,000 gpd has to prove sufficient "conveyance capacity," or lateral hydraulic
conveyance. The probable shallow condition of the confining layer, identified as a
depth to bedrock and an impermeable plastic soil layer, make the conveyance capacity
very low, which would likely further reduce the capacity of the acquired land to
"' accommodate the necessary design flow.
Therefore, the soil conditions render a large on -site septic system as unfeasible for the
proposed project. At a minimum, an additional 16.76 acres (plus acreage for setbacks
and constructability) would have to be purchased for a community drip system
permitted under the 15A NCAC 18A .1900 regulations. The additional land purchase
�., option is evaluated in subsequent sections.
3.3 Land Application & Reuse
A full investigation of the feasibility of a land application system typically encompasses
the following evaluations:
1. Soils Evaluation (to determine saturated hydraulic conductivity rates);
2. Agronomist Evaluation (to determine nutrient balance);
3. Hydrogeologic Evaluation (to determine water table and lateral flow); and
�► 4. Water Balance Evaluation (to determine storage requirements).
00 The irrigation rate is derived from soil saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements
and a water balance based upon regional rain and evapotranspiration and storage
PM provided. Based upon other regional projects, an irrigation rate of 1 inch per week
(0.089 gpd/ft2) is an assumed reasonable irrigation rate that will not necessitate
Am restrictions based upon hydrologic or nutrient loading. If standard setbacks for a drip
Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A.
OR BEA Project No. 171006
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Riverview Development
7

oft
awt
irrigation system (non -reuse quality effluent) are utilized, 11.3 acres would be required
�+ for the disposal area and an additional 3.2 acres (14.5 acres total) would be required
to accommodate setbacks. If the WWTF can provide "reuse" quality effluent, these
�., setbacks could be essentially eliminated by virtue of the NCAC 18A 2T .0900
regulations, resulting in only the11.3 wetted acres required. The soil scientist report
has identified no area suitable for land application. Also, under this type of approval a
wet weather storage pond, typically sized for 30 days of wet weather storage (1.5
million gallons) must be sited to comply with the 18A 2T .0900 regulations, which
would be very difficult to site on the steep site terrain. Also, an additional pond sized
for five days of storage (250,000 gallons) would have to be provided to accommodate
"upset" conditions.
Again, the basic land requirements result in this disposal option as being unfeasible for
the proposed 160 unit development. At a minimum, an additional 11.3 acres would
have to be purchased for the disposal area and an additional two acres would be
required for the necessary storage ponds under the 15A NCAC 18A 2T .0900
�► requirements. The additional land purchase option is evaluated in subsequent
sections.
OW
MR
No
FM
Am
Acauiring Additional Property for Disposal
Adjacent property owners on the east include Leland G. Baggett III (10.44 acres, Deed
Book 2612/, page 112); Robert Markman (10.44 acres, Deed Book 3195, page 100);
and Karen Hartman (10.44 acres, Deed Book 2426, page 267); to the north Deering —
Hester LLC (47.51 acres, Deed Book 2287, page 776); and on the west Gary J. and
Leisa B. Roberts (67.19 acres, Deed book 1926, page 298) and Earl D. and Louise M.
Bailey (28.9 acres, Deed book 903, page 173). These are the only tracts in the
immediate vicinity with enough acreage to potentially accommodate a septic or land
application system. The adjoining property owners are shown on the attached "Site
Layout" map (Figure 1).
Each of these property owners were contacted for possible land acquisition by French
Broad River Group of North Carolina representatives. No positive response was
received from any of the neighboring land owners.
Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A.
"p BEA Project No. 171006
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Riverview Development
8

PM
This option was thoroughly investigated. It was determined there was no reasonable
potential for sufficient additional land acquisition to accommodate a land absorption
disposal option. However, a PVCA is provided in Section 4.0 assuming land was
available.
3.4 Direct Discharge to Surface Waters
As discussed in Section 2, discharge to surface waters is found to be a technically
viable option as the initial evaluation has revealed the following conditions.
• The French Broad River has no zero -flow restrictions per 15A NCAC
213.0206 (d)(2).
♦ The French Broad River has a classification as a Class B river.
�► • This section of the French Broad River is not designated as impaired
stream and has no designated TMDLs.
• This section of the French Broad River has no presence of endangered
species.
FM • The French Broad River Basin Plan does not restrict additional point
source discharge per the existing plan.
r"
3.5 Combination of Alternatives
Neither the subsurface disposal or land application alternatives are viable for the
development due to unsuitable soil conditions. A combination of discharge and land
application or subsurface disposal could be effective if there were a neighboring
property for sale with suitable soil conditions, but this is not the case.
Therefore, the only feasible option left for the development is a discharge permit. In
accordance with the intent of the 1972 Clean Water Act and 15A NCAC 2H.0105
requirements, the lack of suitable soils and long distances to existing wastewater
treatment facilities has left the issuance of a discharge permit as truly a "last resort"
option for the project.
FW
MR
Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A.
No BEA Project No. 171006
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Riverview Development

am
"q
R" 4.0 Economic Evaluation of Alternatives
OR
The Present Value of Costs Analysis (PVCA) for each disposal option is provided as
F, Attachment E. The analysis analyzes the economic feasibility of each of the
wastewater treatment options based upon the best available information. A Return on
am Investment is calculated for the project without any consideration for wastewater
treatment/disposal, and then the Return on Investment is calculated for each of the
wastewater options. Not only are options determined to be practical and obtainable
analyzed, but also options determined not practical and obtainable (such as adjacent
land purchase) are analyzed. The Engineers Opinion of Cost for the development
ism infrastructure is provided as Attachment E. The infrastructure Opinion of Cost is
utilized to demonstrate the base cost per unit and to provide a basis for the calculation
of the Return on Investment with each wastewater disposal option scenario.
The cost basis for the subdivision infrastructure costs is provided as Attachment E.
The infrastructure costs are based upon professional experience and data collected on
previous regional projects. As all of the infrastructure cost would be incurred in the
initial year of the development, they are all considered initial costs and therefore have
no time value discounting and are not included in the Present Value analysis.
The developers intend to purchase the modular cabin units and sell the finished
product. The average sales price per modular unit is based upon the developer's
market research in the rural north Buncombe County area. The projected sales price
for each unit is $160,000, with a projected Return on Investment of 34%. This is
shown in the first PVCA analysis (Establishment of Development Costs without Sewer
Treatment and Disposal) provided in Attachment D. This depicts a cost of each
modular unit of $64,700.
A return on investment of less than 25% is typically unacceptable for any land
MP development company, given the risks of site development. Any returns shown to be
less than this would result in the project being scrapped and losses would be incurred
a+ on the initial investment to date.
Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A.
am BEA Project No. 171006
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Riverview Development
10

FM
am
4. 1 Connection to Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant
The two nearest sewer connections are the MSD Buncombe County WWTF and the
Town of Marshall WWTF. In the instance that either MSD Buncombe County or Town
of Marshall WWTF would allow connection to their system (which has been discussed
as not currently feasible), an economic evaluation is provided for the cost to connect
Riverview Development to each system.
The cost for gravity sewer collection in the Riverview Condominium Development is
not included in the PVCA for each disposal option, but it is included in the general
infrastructure costs for the development as the collection system would have to be
implemented with any of the wastewater options.
The references utilized for the cost basis are as follows:
♦ The price for gravity sewer line is based upon professional experience and
data collected on previous regional projects. This data shows the average
cost for 8-inch sewer line installation is $61.50/foot. This price includes
surveying, engineering, materials and labor. The sewer line installation
would have to be in the road and would require re -surfacing the entire
stretch of road. Given the difficulty associated with installing the sewer
line on the Old Marshall Highway, a line installation price of $101.5/ft is
utilized for analysis along with a road repair and overlay cost of $50/ft, for
a total $151.50/ft. This is consistent with pricing on similar recent projects
engineered and supervised by BEA.
• The price for pump stations is based upon professional experience where
BEA has engineered similar pump stations to NC state standards. The
$130,000 price includes a diesel backup power generator.
♦ The price for pressure sewer line installation ($55/ft.) is based upon
FM regional data from Buncombe County MSD. This price includes
surveying, engineering, materials and labor, but not road or asphalt repair.
Old Marshall Highway (US 25/70) is an exceedingly narrow road with
minimal road shoulder, large rock cut banks, and steep banks down to the
French Broad River. The force main installation would have to be in the
Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A.
on BEA Project No. 171006
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Riverview Development
11

road and would require re -surfacing the entire stretch of road. Given the
difficulty associated with installing the force main on the Old Marshall
Highway, a line installation price of $95/ft is utilized for analysis along with
a road repair and overlay cost of $50/ft, for a total $145/ft. This is
consistent with pricing on similar recent projects engineered and
supervised by BEA.
• The costs for easements and legal fees to obtain access are unknown.
This is logistically incomprehensible which is why this scenario is deemed
not feasible. However, given that DWQ wants BEA to analyze this
scenario, the costs of legal fees and easements can not be ignored as this
cost will be significant. Our cost estimate, based upon professional
experience, is $10,000 per individual property owner that will be impacted.
Connection to Town of Marshall WWTF
As the operation and maintenance of the WWTF would be performed by the current
owner and are of no expense to French Broad River Group of North Carolina, these
costs are not included in the Present Value analysis. Sewage rates would be charged
directly to the Riverview Condominium homeowners. However, it is assumed that the
operation and maintenance of the pump stations and force main to connect to the
treatment plant would be assumed by the Riverview developer or the Homeowners
Association. The route for the sewer extension analyzed is that shown on Figure 4 with
approximately 2.9 miles (15,312 ft) of force main and 8.6 miles (45,408 ft) of gravity
sewer following the Old Marshall Highway.
The results of the PVCA show that the project loses money which would render it not
an economically viable option. Additionally, the permitting for the required force main
would not likely be permissible by the NCDOT making this option not feasible due to
regulatory issues. The PVCA for this option is provided in Attachment E.
Connection to MSD Buncombe County WWTF
As the operation and maintenance of the system would be performed by MSD
Buncombe County, they are of no O&M expense to French Broad River Group of
North Carolina, and are not included in the Present Value analysis. MSD Buncombe
County would bill the homeowners in Riverview Condominium directly. Pump stations
Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A.
BEA Project No. 171006
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Riverview Development
12

FM
would be required to connect to this system. The route for the sewer extension
am analyzed is that shown on Figure 3 with approximately 4.75 miles (25,080 ft) of force
main following the Old Marshall Highway.
MR
The results of the PVCA demonstrate that the project has a Return on Investment of
FM 20.15 % which would render it an economically unviable option. The PVCA for this
option is provided in Attachment E.
W"
4.2 Individual or Group Septic Systems
ma Individual and community septic systems are discussed in Section 3.2. Individual
septic systems are determined to be not a technically feasible option. A community
septic system is an option only with the purchase of additional neighboring property.
While no neighboring properties are available, this option is evaluated for economic
feasibility. The purchase price of $50,000 per acre is determined from local real estate
comparisons for recent large tract purchases. It is determined in Section 3.2 that a
minimum of 17 acres of land is required for disposal plus additional acreage for set-
backs and constructability. Assuming property could be purchased, the Baggett tract
(10.4 acres) and the Markman tract (10.4 acres) would provide a total of 20.8 acres.
Smaller tracts are chosen for analysis as these are determined to be the most
obtainable.
The results of the PVCA analysis demonstrate a Return on Investment of 23.08 %
which renders the project as not economically viable. As mentioned in Section 3.2,
none of the identified adjacent parcels are for sale. In addition, these adjacent
properties are likely to also have unsuitable soil conditions making this disposal option
not technically feasible.
No
M
Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A.
�► BEA Project No. 171006
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Riverview Development
13

OR
4.3 Land Application
Individual and group land application systems are determined to not be technically
feasible without additional land purchase. Section 3.3 identifies an additional minimum
of 14.5 acres would be required for disposal and setbacks. Assuming property could
be purchased, the Baggett tract (10.4 acres), the Markman tract (10.4 acres), and the
Hartman tract (10.4 acres), a total of 31.2 acres, would accommodate the land
requirements.
The on -site collection and pump system are again the same for any of the treatment
options and this cost is not included in the PVCA, but is considered in the return on
investment analysis. The general infrastructure costs for the collection system in the
development would have to be implemented with any of the wastewater options, with
the exception of individual septic systems, and the cost is the same with each option,
except where otherwise noted.
Treatment of the effluent is to be performed by an extended air package plant system
capable of meeting secondary treatment standards. The package plant effluent is
then distributed to a drip irrigation system located on the Baggett, Markman, and
FOR Hartman tracts. The drip system will have to be dosed by an additional pump station
and have a disc filtration and monitoring system.
I"
FM
no
9W
The cost references utilized for the PVCA are as follows:
• The price for the extended air package plant system is based upon vendor
pricing and includes materials, installation labor, and engineering.
• The price for the land application drip system is based upon vendor pricing
and includes materials, labor and engineering.
• Operation and maintenance costs are based upon professional
experience, except for electrical costs which are based upon vendor
recommendations.
The results show the PVCA demonstrate a 13.07% Return on Investment, rendering
this option as economically not viable. Given that no additional neighboring acreage is
available, this disposal option is rendered not technically feasible.
Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A.
M+ BEA Project No. 171006
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Riverview Development
14

MR
MR
4.4 Reuse
The technical assessment in Section 3.3 determined a minimum of 11.3 acres would
be required for a reuse system and an additional 2 acres for storage ponds. Given
that no additional acreage is available, this analysis assumes that the two smallest
adjacent properties can be purchased for disposal and storage ponds. Assuming
property could be purchased, the Baggett tract (10.4 acres) and the Markman tract
(10.4 acres) would provide a total of 20.8 acres.
The reuse system is similar to the land application system, with the exception that the
treatment plant must achieve tertiary treatment limits. By achieving tertiary treatment
limits, the setbacks are greatly reduced thus reducing the amount of additional land
that must be acquired. The treatment plant effluent is to be dosed by a pump station
to a standard irrigation system with drip irrigation lines located on the additional tracts
adjacent to the Riverview Condominium Development. The proposed treatment
technology is a package plant by Purestream ES, LLC. The proposed plant is a
Biologically Engineered Single Sludge Treatment (BESST) technology plant. This
patented process utilizes sludge blanket clarification. The technology is capable of
attaining tertiary treatment limits with special features. The system has a dual
PR treatment train to allow for duplicity in the system and provide backup treatment in an
emergency situation. This also allows for phasing in of the system by being able to
Q0 utilize only half of the system while homes are coming on line. Equalization basins are
provided at the front of both treatment trains to smooth out "slugs" of wastewater
P" entering the system and reducing system shock. The PVCA (Attachment E) provides
for an extra equalization tank and tertiary treatment filter to meet strict discharge limits.
The references utilized for the PVCA are as follows:
♦ The price for the BESST system is based upon vendor pricing and
includes, materials, labor, engineering, and backup power.
♦ The price for the drip irrigation system is based upon vendor price
estimates and includes materials, labor and engineering.
♦ Operation and maintenance costs are based upon professional
FW experience, except for electrical costs which are based upon vendor
recommendations.
No
Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A.
am BEA Project No. 171006
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Riverview Development
15

The results show the PVCA demonstrate that the project has a Return on Investment
of 14.02 % and is not an economically viable option. As no additional land is available
for purchase, this option is not deemed technically viable either.
4.5 Direct Discharge to Surface Waters
This alternative is identified as technically viable and is analyzed for economic
feasibility. The Present Value of Costs Analysis is provided as Attachment E.
MR The surface discharge system is similar to the reuse system, with the exception that
the treatment plant effluent is discharged rather than land applied. This eliminates the
F+ need for additional pumping and the irrigation system, and additional land acquisition.
F" The proposed treatment technology is a package plant by Purestream ES, LLC. The
proposed plant is a Biologically Engineered Single Sludge Treatment (BESST)
FM technology plant. This patented process utilizes sludge blanket clarification. The
technology is capable of attaining tertiary treatment limits with special features. The
system has a dual treatment train to allow for duplicity in the system and provide
backup treatment in an emergency situation. This also allows for phasing in of the
system by being able to utilize only half of the system while homes are coming on line.
Equalization basins are provided at the front of both treatment trains to smooth out
"slugs" of wastewater entering the system and reducing system shock. A brochure for
this technology is attached. The PVCA provides for an extra equalization tank and
tertiary treatment filter to meet strict discharge limits.
The references utilized for the PVCA are as follows:
IM ♦ The price for the BESST system is based upon vendor pricing and
includes, materials, labor, engineering, and backup power.
IM ♦ The price for the land application sprinkler system is based upon vendor
price estimates and includes materials, labor and engineering.
,M ♦ Operation and maintenance costs are based upon professional
experience, except for electrical costs which are based upon vendor
Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A.
fm BEA Project No. 171006
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Riverview Development
16

W%
am
MR
rMn
f2in
PM
FMq
F,
OM
FMW
M4
OW
MR
recommendations. (Electrical costs for the BESST system are less than
that of the extended air system as blower and pump sizes are decreased).
The results of the PVCA demonstrate this disposal option to be economically viable
with a 28.78% Return on Investment.
4.6 Combinations of Alternatives
As all soil disposal options require the purchase of additional land, which is not
available, and likely to have the same poor soil characteristics as the Riverview
Condominium property, no combinations of alternatives are deemed technically or
economically feasible.
Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A.
BEA Project No. 171006
17
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Riverview Development

FIGURES

11U
No
--" IJSXLiL' KL =N I IIVJYMJINI
C
103
Tr
PROJECT SUMMARY
Total Project Area
50.72 tAC.
PIN No.
9723.04.53-9341
Existing Zoning
NONE
Proposed Zoning
None
Proposed No. Units
160 Condominium Units
Max. Building Height
3Y
Township
French Broad
Water
Individual Well/Community
Water Supply Watershed
N/A
Sewer
Individual Septic/Community
Length of Private Roads
7022.13 LF
Disturbed Area
11.76 Ac.
- No portion of this Site is within the IW floodplain.
LEGEND
I7-1 800x ¢ HOME SnE
i
PROJECTED SECRIC AREA
PROJECTED WATERWELL FARM AREAS
'_ERING LLC
P9 7G. PG 120
4-746178
:HTIAINA-ART
b ENG.
OC' eo
v ¢ to
s o c
O z
d k�
s�OON9
DEVELOPMENT NOTES:
1. EACH CONDOMINIUM UNIT SHALL BE PROVIDED A LIMITED USE EASEMENT
THAT WILL SURROUND THE UNIT ITSELF ALONG WITH THE PARKING PAD,
SIDEWALK AND DECKS THAT SERVE EACH INDIVIDUAL UNIT. LIMITS OF THE
LIMITED USE EASEMENTWILL BE DETERMINED BASED UPON THE
g
E
z
g;
a
COMPLETED LIMITS OF THE ITEMS NOTED AND MAY DEPEND ON THE
.^.
TOPOGRAPHIC LAY OF THE LAND AT EACH UNIT AND THE MEANS OF
INGRESS AND EGRESS AT EACLi UNIT.
2. EACH CONDOMINIUM UNIT WILL PROVIDED WITH PRIVATE WATER AND
SEPTIC SERVICE AOIIEVED THOUGH EITHER AN INDIVIDUAL WELL AND
SEPTIC DRAINFIELD OR A SHARED WELL AND SEPTIC DRAINFIELD AS
ALLOWED BY LOCAL AND STATE DEVELOPMENTS CODES AND ORDINANCES.
t7
of
?
We
zz
°c
W
W
mY
Oz
oa�
cc
mW
a
Z
C
E
0
C
C
a
o n
U
m
N m C
Z
CL
h
P
� 7
>
o 'o 2
F- E
pC Op m
Z
3 T
LL_
z
EL
O L
pJ
0
W
> -
wm
W
0
U
C
Z
Q _
PROGRESS DRAWINGS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION o Q c (_) d
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY o n a
o` r P
25 1 26 27 2E 29 30 31 32 33 34

Topo USAI, 5.0
DabuseeLormeea bopo W. �� 0
04009 OeLorrne. Topo USM15.0. 0 400 B00 1700 1500 7000
w Eeloime com MN(52'V) Data Isom 14-0
Scale as shown.
Note: Extracted from Delorme TopoUSA digital geographic data.
SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2

1, oaok E
Topo USAE•5.0
u
� u L
1
PROPOSED WWTPI
1
N35.70925 DEGREES
W82.62157 DEGREES
-
1
�
S
Data use subject to license. ® 0
07004 DeLonme. Tapo USMlS o. 0 100 200 300 400 500
wvnv.tlelorme.cotme.com MN (5.8'VV) Dab Zoom 15-7
Scale as shown.
Note: Extracted from Delorme TopoUSA digital geographic data.
DISCHARGE MAP
FIGURE 3

r,
Topo UUSSk_.664
T r%`mk
4 _
i
• 30 T01NI I OF MARS
HA
N35° 47.680' "" " r
ape'
W82- 41.964' ( p
7
7'' 1
DISTANCE TO NC0021733;
_.. - 11.45 miles
� PROPOSED RIVERVIEW MNTP
vJ1\I3 42.598 r
(y/(
i 1 l DISTANCE TO NCO024911 V
Y ° �� ' 4.75 miles e
0(.
v
Data use subject to license. }
© 7004 Del-raneLorrne. Topo USP@i 5.0. �` m
0 1 2 3
w�ay.tlelorme.com MN (5 9- W) Data Zoom 10.6
Scale as shown.
Note: Extracted from Delorme TopoUSA digital geographic data.
NEIGHBORING DISCHARGE FACILITIES MAP
FIGURE 4

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW FORM

ON
Attachment A. Local Government Review Form
General Statute Overview: North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 (c)(G) allows input from local governments in the issuance
Oft of NPDES Permits for non -municipal domestic wastewater treatment facilities. Specifically, the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) may not act on an application for a new non -municipal domestic wastewater discharge facility until it has
received a written statement from each city and county government having jurisdiction over any part of the lands on which the
00 proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be located. The written statement shall document whether the city or county has a
zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect and (if such an ordinance is in effect) whether the proposed facility is consistent with the
ordinance. The EMC shall not approve a permit application for any facility which a city or county has determined to be
inconsistent with zoning or subdivision ordinances unless the approval of such application is determined to have statewide
me significance and is in the best interest of the State.
Instructions to the Applicant: Prior to submitting an application for a NPDES Permit for a proposed facility, the applicant
shall request that both the nearby city and county government complete this form. The applicant must:
■ Submit a copy of the permit application (with a written request for this form to be completed) to the clerk of the city and
the county by certified mail, return receipt requested.
■ If either (or both) local government(s) fails) to mail the completed form, as evidenced by the postmark on the certified
raat mail card(s), within 15 days after receiving and signing for the certified mail, the applicant may submit the application to
the NPDES Unit.
■ As evidence to the Commission that the local governments) failed to respond within 15 days, the applicant shall submit a
copy of the certified mail card along with a notarized letter stating that the local government(s) failed to respond within the
15-day period.
Instructions to the Local Government: The nearby city and/or county government which may have or has jurisdiction over
any part of the land on which the proposed facility or its appurtenances are to be located is required to complete and return this
form to the applicant within 15 days of receipt. The form must be signed and notarized.
Name of local government n �. ` F're h c l 6ro a d 8i Vey rd o GrT►�-- Cif 1.� �'i
(City/County)
," Does the city/county have jurisdiction over any part of the land on which the proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be
located? Yes [j] No [ ] If no, please sign this form, have it notarized, and return it to the applicant.
Does the city/county have in effect a zoning or subdivision ordinance? Yes] No [ ]
ON
If there is a zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect, is the plan for the proposed facility consistent with the ordinance? Yes [�]�
No [ ]
Date ZSignature
(City Manage/County ager)
State of . County of
On this day of personally appeared before me, the said
name to me known and known to me to be the person described in
and who executed the foregoing document and he (or she) acknowledged that he (or she) executed the same and being duly sworn
by me, made oath that the statements in the foregoing document are true.
My Commission expires .(Signature of Notary Public)
Notary Public (Official Seal)
O
EAA Guidance Document Version: June 23, 2005

4Q
me
o
ATTACHMENT B
DENIAL LETTER FROM BUNCOMBE COUNTY
ow ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
W*
aft
Ila
V--Zl
go
ow

Sep.14. 2007 3:42PM No.0197 P. 3
Buncombe County Government
Buncombe County Health Center
35 Woodfin Street
Asheville, NC 28801
.August 28, 2007
Amicon Development Group
r 3800 S. Ocean Drive, Suite 228
Hollywood, FL 33019
Dr. Vicki Ittel, Health Director
P: [phone] F: [phone]
[e-mail]
"' Re: Application for Improvement/Authorization to Construct for RiverView Condominiums
Parcel Identification No. 9723-04-53-9341
The Buncombe County Health Center, Environmental Health Division on July 2, 2007 evaluated
the above -referenced property at the site designated on the plat/site plan that accompanied your
application. According to your application the site is to serve 10 park models with a design
wastewater flow of 1,750 gallons per day. The evaluation was done in accordance with the laws
and rules governing wastewater systems in North Carolina General Statute 130A-333 and related
statutes and Title 15A, Subchapter 18A, of the North Carolina Administrative Code, Rule .1900
and related rules.
Based on the criteria set out in Title I SA, Subchapter 18A, of the North Carolina Administrative
Code, Rules .1940 through .1948, the evaluation indicated that the site, as defined as soil area 1
in a report by The Cantena Group dated May 23, 2007, is UNSUITABLE for a ground
" absorption sewage system. Therefore, your request for an authorization to construct is DENIED.
The site is unsuitable based on the following:
me
Unsuitable soil topography and/or landscape position (Rule .1940)
X Unsuitable soil characteristics (structure or clay mineralogy) (Rule
Unsuitable soil wetness condition (Rule .1942)
Unsuitable soil depth (Rule .1943)
Presence of restrictive horizon (Rule .1944)
Insufficient space for septic system and repair area (Rule .1945)
Unsuitable for meeting required setbacks (Rule .1950)
Other (Rule .1946)
1941)
The site evaluation included consideration of possible site modifications, and modified, innovative
or alternative systems. However, the Buncombe County Health Center has determined that none of
the above options will overcome the conditions on this site (soil area 1). A possible option might be
a system designed to dispose of sewage to another area of suitable soil or off -site to additional
r property
www. buncombecounN.ora
The County of Buncombe does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, handicap, or disability.

om Sep.14. 2007 3:42PM No.0197 P. 4
(2)
A site classified as UNSUITABLE may be classified as PROVISIONALLY SUITABLE if
written documentation is provided that meets the requirements of Rule .1948(d). A copy of this
role is enclosed. You may hire a consultant to assist you if you wish to try to develop a plan under
which your site could be reclassified as PROVISIONALLY SUITABLE.
You have a right to an informal review of this decision. You may request an informal review by the
soil scientist or environmental health supervisor at the Buncombe County Health Center. You may
.� also request an informal review by the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
regional soil specialist. A request for informal review by the regional soil specialist must be made
in writing to the Buncombe County Health Center.
You also have a right to a formal appeal of this decision. To pursue a formal appeal, you must file a
petition for a contested case hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. To get a copy of a petition form, you may write the Office of
Administrative Hearings or call the office at [phone] or from the OAH web site at
www.oah.state.nc.us/form.htm. The petition for a contested case hearing must be filed in
accordance with the provision of North Carolina General Statutes 130A-24 and 150B-23 and all
other applicable provisions of Chapter 150B. N.C. General Statute 130A-335 (g) provides that your
hearing would be held in the county where your property is located.
Please note: If you wish to pursue a formal appeal, you must file the petition form with the Office
of Administrative Hearings wrrBIW 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS LETTER. The date
of this letter is August 28, 2007. Meeting the 30-day deadline is critical to your right to a formal
appeal. Beginning a formal appeal within 30 days will not interfere with any informal review that
you might request. Do not wait for the outcome of any informal review if you wish to file a formal
appeal.
If you file a petition for a contested case hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings, you
are required by law (N.C. General Statute 150B-23) to send a copy of your petition to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Send the copy to: Office of General
Counsel, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 1601 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1601. Do NOT send the copy of the petition to the Buncombe County Health
Center. Sending a copy of your petition to the Buncombe County Health Center will NOT satisfy
the legal requirement in N.C. General Statute 150B-23 that you send a copy to the Office of General _
Counsel, NCDENR.
cmir You may call or write the local health center if you need any additional information or assistance.
PA
Sincerely,
Stanley Crownover, Ph.D.
Environmental Health Soil Scientist
Enc: (Copy of Rule .1948)

Sep, 14. 2007 3:42PM No. 0197 P. 5
am
.1948 SITE CLASSIFICATION
(a) Sites classified as SUITABLE may be utilized for a ground absorption sewage
w+
treatment and disposal system consistent with these Rules. A suitable
classification generally indicates soil and site conditions favorable for the
operation of a ground absorption sewage treatment and disposal system or have
�►
slight limitations that are readily overcome by proper design and installation.
(b) Sites classified as PROVISIONALLY SUITABLE may be utilized for a ground
absorption sewage treatment and disposal system consistent with these Rules but
have moderate limitations. Sites classified Provisionally Suitable require some
modifications and careful planning, design, and installation in order for a ground
absorption sewage treatment and disposal system to function satisfactorily.
(c) Sites classified UNSUITABLE have severe limitations for the installation and use
of a properly functioning ground absorption sewage treatment and disposal
system. An improvement permit shall not be issued for a site which is classified
as UNSUITABLE. However, where a site is UNSUITABLE, it may be
reclassified PROVISIONALLY SUITABLE if a special investigation indicates
that a modified or alternative system can be installed in accordance with Rules
.1956 or .1957 of this Section.
(d) A site classified as UNSUITABLE may be used for a ground absorption sewage
treatment and disposal system specifically identified in Mules .1955, .1956, or
.1957 of this Section or a system approved under Rule .1969 if written
documentation, including engineering, hydro geologic, geologic or soil studies,
indicates to the local health department that the proposed system can be expected
to function satisfactorily. Such sites shall be reclassified as PROVISIONALLY
SUITABLE if the local health department determines that the substantiating data
indicate that:
(1) a ground absorption system can be installed so that the effluent
will be non-pathogenic, non-infectious, non -toxic, and non-
hazardous;
(2) the effluent will not contaminate groundwater or surface water;
and
(3) the effluent will not be exposed on the ground surface or be
discharged to surface waters where it could come in contact with
people, animals, or vectors.
The State shall review the substantiating data if requested by the local health
department.
I"
OR

ATTACHMENT C
BIVIE SOILS REPORT

MW
go
July 23, 2007
SME
BROOKS & MEDLOCK
ENGINEERING. PLLC
00
Mr. Ross Adickman
Amicon Development Group
3800 South Ocean Drive
Hollywood, FL 33019
+a Dear Mr. Adickman,
On February 2, 79,123,205 21 and 23, 2007, John Allison, Allen Hayes, Walker Ferguson, Jacob
Isleib and Andrew Henderson of Brooks & Medlock Engineering (BME) conducted a detailed
soils investigation on an approximate 52-acre tract located off NC Hwy 251 (Riverside Drive) in
Alexander, Buncombe County, North Carolina. The purpose of the investigation was to
determine soil suitability for on -site wastewater disposal (septic) systems for 160 park model
units. Each unit is rated for 150 gallons of wastewater per day for a total of 24,000 gallons of
wastewater per day.
P�
Fieldwork was conducted using the following tools and methods. The areas set aside for the
detailed soils investigation are identified on the engineered site plan by BME. A total of 62 test
pits were laid out on 50-foot north/south offset grid pattern using GPS. The pits were dug by a
backhoe. Detailed soil profile descriptions were done using standard field methods. Suunto
clinometers were used to measure soil slope.
Recommendations are based on, but not limited to, observations made and data collected on
topography, landscape position, parent material, underlying geology, and soil characteristics.
Soil characteristics include, but are not limited to, depth to a seasonal high water table (SHWT),
depth to a restrictive horizon, total soil depth, soil horizonation, soil structure, soil color, clay
mineralogy, bulk density, consistence, plasticity, stone content, and percent sand, silt, clay, and
mica. They follow the guidelines set forth in the North Carolina Laws and Rules for Sewage
Treatment and Disposal Systems, laws amended effective December 19, 2001, and rules
amended effective June 1, 2006, and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, NCAC 1 SA,
Subchapter 2T, Waste Not Discharged To Surface Waters, amended September 1, 2006.
Grading which occurs subsequent to this fieldwork renders the soil investigation in the graded
area null and void.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Based on the project design, BME found the soils unsuitable for any surface or subsurface
wastewater disposal system. The primary limitation is expansive clay mineralogy. Field tests
suggested expansive clays, and subsequent lab tests on selected soil samples throughout the
oft
17 A.RLINGTON STREET - AsHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801 - [phone] - FAx [phone]

2
00 f
study area proved it. Based on these findings, expansive clays characterize the soils on this
property. Other limitations include shallow depth to weathered bedrock in various pits, and
shallow depth to a seasonal high water table in various pits. Finally, several pits exhibited
unsuitable prismatic soil structure. The high water table and prismatic soil structure were noted
�w primarily in pits on the lower portions of the landscape.
The best option, given the project design, is pretreatment of the wastewater prior to surface water
an discharge into the French Broad River which is adjacent to the property. A permit for this type
of system may be obtained through the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
�► Sincerely,
'' M ,
aQ��q �) S�-
00
f"
W. Allen Hayes, Jr., LSS
References:
SOIL ScjF��
HAYFS, �'AJ
S� a v�
\F1023
°FNoan{
1. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Health,
qw On -Site Wastewater Section. 1998. Laws and Rules for Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems, section
.1956(6). P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC, 27611-7687.
2. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Health,
On -Site Wastewater Section. 1996. Procedures and Information Required for Approval of Large Subsurface
Wastewater Systems. P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC, 27611-7687.
as 3. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management. 1996. Administrative Code Section: 15A NCAC 2H . 0200 — Waste Not Discharged to Surface
Waters. Environmental Management Commission, Raleigh, NC.
OR 4. National Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center. 1998. Field Book for Describing and
Sampling Soils. United States Department of Agriculture. Lincoln, Nebraska.
f"
010
M

ATTACHMENT D
PRESENT VALUE COST ANALYSIS

A"
RIVERVIEW DEVELOPMENT
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NC
Present Value Cost Analysis of Feasible Alternatives
.., ESTABLISHMENT OF DEVELOPMENT COSTS WITHOUT SEWER TREATMENT & DISPOSAL
Subdivision Infrastructure Costs (refer to Engineering Opinion of Cost)
Item Units No. Units Cost/Unit Cost
an Total Grading & Erosion Control
Total Storm Drainage
Curb/gutter/flatwork
,o Total Asphalt Paving
Water & Sewer System
Lighting, Landscape, Common Amenities
aw, Modular units ($64,700 ea. X 160)
Construction Management (2%)
Engineering & Surveying (6%)
FM Contingency (10%)
Land Acquisition Costs
From Closing in 2005 acres
Present Value of Acquisition Cost (since 1997 @ EPA disc. rate)
Total Costs without wastewater treatment & disposal
Number of Units
Cost/Unit
Anticipated Unit price based on market value
Return on Investment without wastewater treatment & disposal
No
an
no
wM
am
am
Pak
subtotal
50.72 $19,322
$758,823
$29,581
$203,750
$332,177
$1,106,876
$683,000
$10,352,000
$269,324.00
$807,972.00
$1,373,553.00
$15,917,056
$980,000
$1,037,575
$16, 954, 631
160
$105,966
$160, 000
33.77%
No Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A. p. 1 of 7

I Connection to Existing Sewer System Option - Buncombe County MSD
Item Units No. Units Cost/Unit Cost
Construction
Installation of Gravity Sewer Line - Offsite
feet
0
$151.5
$0
Installation of Force main Late
feet
25080
$110
$2,758,800
Installation of Pump Stations
each
2
$225,000
$450,000
Underground Road boring
per crossing
4
$9,000
$36,000
subtotal
$3,244,800
Easements & Legal fees
Attorney fees for private easements
per
20
$10,000
$200,000
Fee to MSD for 5 years O&M of pump stations (MSD policy)
per PS
2
$100,000
$200,000
Annual Finance Charge ("Carry") @ 6.5% of land costs
per year
$63,700.00
(during planning and construction of sewer extension)
Operation & Maintenance (Pump Stations)
Contract O&M (included above)
$0.00
Electricity & Parts (included above)
$0.00
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS FOR SEWER EXTENSION SCENARIO
Present Value (PV) = Co + Zn Ctl(1+r)
where: Co = Initial Costs in present year
C, = costs incurred in time t
t = time period after present year
n = ending year of facility life
r = current EPA discount rate
5.875%
Incremental
Total
Year
Expenditure
Cash
PV
PV
0
Original Land Acquisition & Development Costs
$16,954,631
$16,954,631
$16,954,631
1
Easements, Engineering (60/6), legal costs, fees to MSD
$594,688
$561,689
$17,516,320
2
50% of construction + annual land carry
$1,686,100
$1,504,168
$19,020,488
3
50% of construction + annual land carry
$1,686,100
$1,420,702
$20,441,190
4
O&M
$0
$0
$20,441,190
5
O&M
$0
$0
$20,441,190
6
O&M
$0
$0
$20,441,190
7
O&M
$0
$0
$20,441,190
8
O&M
$0
$0
$20,4411190
9
O&M
$0
S0
$20,441,190
10
O&M
$0
$0
$20,441,190
Return on Investment Analysis
Total Development Costs with PV of wastewater treatment
& disposal
$20,441,190
Number of lots
160
Cost/lot
$127, 757.44
Price/lot
$160, 000.00
Return on Investment
20.15%
Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A. p. 2 of 7

lI Connection to Existing Sewer System Option - Marshall WWTF
Item Units No. Units Cost/Unit Cost
Construction
Installation of Gravity Sewer Line - Offsite
feet
45408
$151.5
$6,879,312
Installation of Force main Line
feet
15312
$110
$1,684,320
Installation of Pump Stations
each
6
$130,000
$780,000
Underground Road boring
per crossing
4
$7,000
$28,000
subtotal
$9,371,632
Easements & Legal fees
per
1
$10,000
$10,000
Annual Finance Charge ("Carry") @ 6.5% of land costs
per year
$63,700.00
(during planning and construction of sewer extension)
Operation & Maintenance (Pump Stations)
Contract O&M
$60,000.00
Electricity & Parts
$24,000.00
subtotal
$84,000
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS FOR SEWER EXTENSION SCENARIO
Present Value (PV) = Cc + En Ct/(1+r)t
where: Co = Initial Costs in present year
Ct = costs incurred in time t
t = time period after present year
n = ending year of facility life
r = current EPA discount rate
5.875%
Incremental
Total
Year
Expenditure
Cash
PV
PV
0
Original Land Acquisition & Development Costs
$16,954,631
$16,954,631
$16,954,631
1
Easements & legal costs + Engineering (8% construction)
$759,731
$717,573
$17,672,204
2
50% of construction + annual land carry
$4,749,516
$4,237,039
$21,909,244
3
50% of construction + annual land carry
$4,749,516
$4,001,926
$25,911,170
4
O&M
$84,000
$66,851
$25,978,021
5
O&M
$84,000
$63,141
$26,041,162
6
O&M
$84,000
$59,637
$26,100,799
7
O&M
$84,000
$56,328
$26,157,127
8
O&M
$84,000
$53,202
$26,210,330
9
O&M
$84,000
$50,250
$26,260,580
10
O&M
$84,000
$47,462
$26,308,042
Return on Investment Analysis
Total Development Costs with PV of wastewater treatment & disposal
$26,308,042
Number of lots
160
Cost/lot
$164,425.26
Price/lot
$160, 000.00
Return on Investment
-Z77%
Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A. p. 3 of 7

W
III Community Septic System Option
No
Item
Units
No. Units
Cost/Unit
Cost
Land Acquisition
Initial Purchase (Baggett Tract)
acres
10.4
$50,000
$520,000
W
Initial Purchase (Markman Tract)
acres
10.4
$50,000
$520,000
Subtotal
$1,040,000
Construction
50,000 gpd WWTP
per
1
$275,000
$275,000
Alta
Pump station for gravity collection system
per
1
$100,000
$125,000
Drip system controls & dosing system
per
1
S35,000
$125,000
Transfer piping to drip drainSelds
&
3,500
$18
$63,000
Irrigation line and heads
lin. ft.
166,666
$2.50
$416,665
psi
Subtotal
$1,004,665
Annual Operation & Maintenance
Recommended operator checks
per visit
365
$150
$54,750
Laboratory
per visit
48
$100
$4,800
Pump outs
per visit
2
$400
$800
Electrical
per month
12
$500
$6,000
Subtotal
$66,350
riq
5 Year Capital Improvements
Pump & line repairs
Estimate
1
$15,000
$15,000
Salvage Value (20% of original cost)
S200,933
art
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS FOR LAND APPLICATION SCENARIO
Present Value (PV) G Co + Za C4(1+r)t
where: Co - Initial Costs in present year
psi
Ct = costs incurred in time t
t a time period after present year
n @ ending year of facility life
r = current EPA discount rate
5.875%
Incremental
Year Expenditure
Cash
PV
0 Original Land Acquisition & Development Costs
$16,954,631
$16,954,631
0 Engineering (8% construction) & Land Acquisition
$1,120,373
$1,120,373
1 System Construction
$1,004,665
$948,916
on
2 O&M
$66,350
$59,191
3 O&M
$66,350
$55,906
4 O&M
$66,350
$52,804
5 O&M
$66,350
$49,874
6 O&M & Capital Improvements
$81,350
$57,756
no
7 O&M
$66,350
$44,493
8 O&M
$66,350
$42,024
9 O&M
$66,350
$39,692
10 O&M
$66,350
$37,489
11 O&M & Capital Improvements
$81,350
$43,414
No
12 O&M
$66,350
$33,444
13 O&M
$66,350
$31,588
14 O&M
$66,350
$29,835
15 O&M
$66,350
$28,180
ON
16 O&M & Capital Improvements
$81,350
$32,633
17 O&M
$66,350
$25,139
18 O&M
$66,350
$23,744
19 O&M
$66,350
$22,427
20 O&M - Salvage Value
-$134,583
-S42,966
ON
Present Value Cost
$19,690,588
Return on Investment Analysis
t Total Development Costs with PV of wastewater treatment & disposal $19,690,588
Number of lots 160
Cost/lot $123,066.18
Price/lot ,$160, 000
A Return on Investment 23.08%
so Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A. p. 4 of 7

PMR
IV Land Application Option
Item
Units
No. Units
Cost/Unit
Cost
Land Acquisition
Initial Purchase (Baggett Tract)
acres
10.4
S50,000
S520,000
Initial Purchase (Marlonan Tract)
acres
10.4
S50,000
S520,000
Initial Purchase (Hartman Tract)
acres
10.4
S50,000
S520,000
Subtotal
S1,560,000
Construction
a�
50,000 gpd WWTP
per
1
$275,000
S275,000
Addl Equalization
per
1
$35,000
S35,000
5-day and 30 day storage tanks
gal
1750000
SIX
S2,187,500
Addl pump station for collection system
ea.
1
S125,000.00
S125,000
Irrigation Controls & Pumping system
per
1
S35,000
S35,000
PM
Transfer piping to in irrigation fields
&
3,500
S18
$63,000
Irrigation line and heads
lin. &
140,449
S2.50
S351,123
Subtotal
S3,071,613
#o
Annual Operation & Maintenance
Recommended operator checks
per visit
365
S 150
S54,750
Laboratory
per visit
12
$850
S10,200
Pump outs
per visit
2
$400
$800
Electrical
per month
12
$500
S6,000
No
Subtotal
S71,750
5 Year Capital Improvements
Pump & line repairs
Estimate
1
S15,000
$15,000
ttrrl
Salvage Value (20% of original cost)
$614,325
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS FOR LAND APPLICATION SCENARIO
tam
Present Value (PV) c Co + Za Ctl(1+r)t
where: Co - Initial Costs in present year
Ct = costs incurred in time t
t = time period after present year
�q
n = ending year of facility life
r = current EPA discount rate
5.875%
Incremental
Year Expenditure
Cash
PV
0 Original Land Acquisition & Development Costs
$16,954,631
$16,954.631
�q
0 Engineering (8% construction) & Land Acquisition
$1,805,730
S1,805,730
1 System Construction
$3,071,623
S2,901,178
2 O&M
S71,750
$64,008
3 O&M
S71,750
$60,456
4 O&M
$71,750
$57,102
t�R
5 O&M
$71,750
$53,933
6 O&M & Capital Improvements
$86,750
$61,590
7 O&M
$71,750
S48,114
8 O&M
$71,750
S45,444
9 O&M
$71,750
S42,922
10 O&M
$71,750
$40,540
11 O&M & Capital Improvements
S86,750
$46,296
12 O&M
S71,750
S36,166
13 O&M
S71,750
$34,159
14 O&M
S71,750
$32,264
15 O&M
$71,750
$30,473
16 O&M & Capital Improvements
$86,750
$34,800
17 O&M
S71,750
$27,185
18 O&M
$71,750
S25,677
19 O&M
$71,750
S24,252
A�
20 O&M - Salvage Value
-$542,575
-$173,217
Present Value Cost
$22,253,702
no Return on Investment Analysis
Total Development Costs with PV of wastewater treatment & disposal $22, 253, 702
Number of lots 160
Cost/lot S139,085.64
no Price/1ot $160,000
Return on Investment 13.07%
a" Brooks Engineering Associates, PA. p. 5 of 7

om
am %.
V Reuse Option
00
Item
Units
No. Units
Cost/Unit
Cost
Land Acquisition
Initial Purchase (Baggett Tract)
acres
10.4
$50,000
$520,000
Initial Purchase (Markman Tract)
acres
10.4
$50,000
$520,000
0"
subtotal
$1,040,000
Construction
50,000 gpd WWI? w/ Nutrient Removal
per
1
$345,000
$345,000
Add9 Equalization
per
1
$35,000
$35,000
5-day and 30 day storage tanks
gal
1750000
$1.25
$2,187,500
rm
Tertiary Treatment add-ons
per
1
$28,000
$28,000
System enclosure & landscaping
per
1
$85,000
$85,000
Addl pump station far irrigation
per
1
$100,000
$100,000
Transfer piping to irrigation fields
ft.
3,500
$18
$63,000
am
Irrigation line
lin. ft.
140,449
$2.50
$351,123
Subtotal
$3,194, 623
Annual Operation & Maintenance
Required operator checks
per visit
365
$150
$54,750
to
Laboratory
per visit
12
$850
$10,200
Pump outs
per visit
2
$400
$800
Electrical
per month
12
$500
$6,000
Subtotal
$71,750
an
5 Year Capital Improvements
Pump & line repairs
Estimate
1
$25,000
$25,000
no
Salvage Value (20% of original cost)
$188,825
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS FOR REUSE SCENARIO
a�
Present Value (PV) = Co + Zn Ctl(1+r)t
where: Co = Initial Costs in present year
Ct = costs incurred in time t
t = time period after present year
aM
n = ending year of facility life
r = current EPA discount rate
5.875%
Incremental
Year Expenditure
Cash
PV
0 Original Land Acquisition & Development Costs
$16,954,631
$16,954,631
am
0 Engineering & Land Acquisition
$1,295,570
$1,295,570
1 System Construction
$3,194,623
$3,017,353
2 O&M
$71,750
$64,008
3 O&M
$71,750
$60,456
4 O&M
$71,750
$57,102
5 O&M
$71,750
$53,933
6 O&M & Capital Improvements
$96,750
$68,690
7 O&M
$71,750
$48,114
8 O&M
$71,750
$45,444
9 0&M
$71,750
$42,922
as
10 O&M
$71,750
$40,540
11 O&M & Capital Improvements
$96,750
$51,633
12 O&M
$71,750
$36,166
13 O&M
$71,750
$34,159
14 O&M
$71,750
$32,264
15 O&M
$71,750
$30,473
16 O&M & Capital Improvements
$96,750
$38,811
17 O&M
$71,750
$27,185
18 O&M
$71,750
$25,677
A
19 O&M
$71,750
$24,252
20 O&M - Salvage Value
-$117,075
-$37,376
Present Value Cost
$22,012,006
aas
Return on Investment Analysis
Total Development Costs with PV of wastewater treatment
& disposal
S22,012,006
Number of lots
160
Cost/lot
$137,S75.04
am
Price/lot
S160,000
Return on Investment
14.02%
OR
Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A.
p. 8
of 7

a
VI Discharge to Surface Waters
Item
Units
No. Units
Cost/Unit
Cost
Construction
50,000 gpd PurestreamTm WWTP
per
1
$275,000
$275,000
Add'1 Equalization & storage tankage
per
2
$35,000
$70,000
Construction, including enclosure
per
1
$85,000
$85,000
Subtotal
$430,000
ow
Annual Operation & Maintenance
Required operator checks
per visit
365
$75
$27,375
Laboratory
per visit
12
$850
$10,200
Pump outs
per visit
6
$400
$2,400
Electrical
per month
1
$4,500
$4,500
Subtotal
$44,475
5 Year Capital Improvements
Pump & line repairs
Estimate
1
$15,000
$15,000
Salvage Value (20% of original cost)
$86,000
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS FOR SCENARIO SEWER EXTENSION SCENARIO
Present Value (PV) = Co + y C4(1+r)
where: Co = Initial Costs in present year
C, = costs incurred in time t
t = time period after present year
n = ending year of facility life
r = current EPA discount rate
5.875%
'.a
Incremental
Year Expenditure
Cash
PV
0 System Installation
$430,000
$430,000
1 O&M
$44,475
$44,475
�}
2 O&M
$44,475
$44,475
3 O&M
$44,475
$44,475
4 O&M
$44,475
$44,475
5 O&M & Capital Improvements
$59,475
$59,475
�a
6 O&M
$44,475
$44,475
7 O&M
$44,475
$44,475
8 O&M
$44,475
$44,475
9 O&M
$44,475
$44,475
10 O&M & Capital Improvements
$59,475
$59,475
11 O&M
$44,475
$44,475
12 O&M
$44,475
$44,475
13 O&M
$44,475
$44,475
a■q
14 O&M
$44,475
$44,475
15 O&M & Capital Improvements
$59,475
$59,475
16 O&M
$44,475
$44,475
17 O&M
$44,475
$44,475
MIR
18 O&M
$44,475
$44,475
19 O&M
$44,475
$44,475
20 O&M - Salvage Value
-$41,525
-$41,525
Present Value Cost
$1,278,500
Return on Investment Analysis
+*•�
Total Development Costs with PV of wastewater treatment & disposal
$18,233,131
Number of lots
160
Cost/lot
$113,957.07
Price/lot
$160, 000
+�
Return on Investment
28.78%
"M
Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A.
p. 7 of 7

ATTACHMENT E
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF COST
n
Fool

Riverview Condominium Development - MasterlDevelopment Plan Phase Cpinlon of Cost BME Project#
171006
QTY UNIT
PRICE/UNIT
EXTENDED
EARTHWORK- GRADING
CLEARING & GRUBBING
33 ACR
$1,800.00
$59,400.00
DEMOLITION
CURB AND GUTTER
0 LF
$2.50
$0.00
ASPHALT PAVING
0 BY
$1.00
$0.00
BUILDING/BUILDING PAD
0 LS
$7,500.00
$0.00
STORM DRAINAGE PIPE/CB's
0 LF
$0.00
$0.00
EXCAVATION
CUT AND FILL
87500CY
$3.00
$262,500.00
BORROW FILL
0 CY
$6.00
$0.00
STRIP TS & PLACE ON SITE
26620 CY
$2.00
$53,240.00
FINEGRADING
121000 SY
$0.30
$36,300.00
LAKE IMPROVEMENTS
2 LS
$20,000.00
$40,000.00
STAKING/FIELD ENGINEERING
1 LS
$12,000.00
$12,000.00
SUBTOTAL GRADING
$463,440.00
QTY UNIT
PRICE/UNIT
EXTENDED
EROSION CONTROL
--- ------------------------------
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
---------- ----
-----------
- -------=-------
WASHED STONE
90 TN
$25.00
$2,250.00
FILTER FABRIC
222 SY
$2.00
$444.00
SILT FENCE
12021 LF
$3.00
$36,063.00
INLET PROTECTION @ C.B.
0 EA
$175.00
$0.00
„n
DIVERSION DITCHES
15000 LF
$3.20
$48,000.00
CHECK DAMS
481 EA
$150.00
$72,126.00
.�
SEDIMENT TRAPS
4 EA
$6,000.00
$24,000.00
DETENTION BASINS
3 EA
$20,000.00
$60.000.00
MAINTENANCE
1 LS
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
GRASSING -TEMPORARY
25.00 ACR
$1,500.00
$37,500.00
SUBTOTAL EROSION CONTROL $295,383.00
TOTAL GRADING $758,823.00
M 1

• Riverview Condominium Development - Master/Development Plan Phase Opinlon of Cost
BME Project#
-
171006
CITY UNIT
PRICE/UNIT EXTENDED
STORM DRAINAGE
PIPE
12" RCP
0 LF
$20.00
$0.00
15" RCP
302 LF
$22.00
$6,644.00
18" RCP
235 LF
$24.00
$5,640,00
24" RCP
120 LF
$30.00
$3,600.00
30" RCP
0 LF
$38.00
$0.00
36" RCP
0 LF
$48.00
$0.00
42" RCP
0 LF
$60.00
$0.00
48" RCP
60 LF
$74.00
$4.440.00
54" RCP
0 LF
$0.00
$0.00
60" RCP
0 LF
$0.00
$0.00
66" RCP
0 LF
$0.00
$0.00
72" RCP
0 LF
$0.00
$0.00
1q
FES 12"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
FES 15'
0 EA
$450.00
$0.00
FES 18"
10 EA
$500.00
$5,000.00
FES 24"
2 EA
$600.00
$1,200.00
FES 30"
0 EA
$700.00
$0.00
FES 48"
4 EA
$750.00
$3,000.00
HW 12"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 15'
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 18"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 24"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 30"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 36"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 42"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 48"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 54"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 60"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 66"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 72"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
CONCRETE COLLARS
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
_
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
RIP RAP
1 TN
$30.00
$30.00
WASHED STONE
1 TN
$25.00
$25.00
..�
FILTER FABRIC
1 SY
$2.00
$2.00
SD PIPE SUBTOTAL
$29,581.00
M
M 2

- Rlvervlew Condom/nlum Development - Master/Development Plan Phase Opinion
of Cost BME Project#
!
171006
CATCH BASINS
CURB INLET C.B.
0 EA
$1,500.00
$0.00
0-6'
0 VF
OVER 6'
0 VF
$0.00
$0.00
CONCRETE SLAB
0 EA
$150.00
$0.00
DROP INLET C.B.
0 EA
$1,350.00
$0.00
0-6'
0 VF
OVER 6'
0 VF
$0.00
$0.00
.�
CONCRETE SLAB
0 EA
$150.00
$0,00
OPEN THROAT C.B.
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
0-6'
0 VF
..
OVER 6'
0 VF
$0.00
$0.00
CONCRETE SLAB
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
MANHOLE C.B.
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
0-6'
0 VF
OVER 6'
0 VF
$0.00
$0.00
CONCRETE SLAB
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
TIE-IN TO EXISTING C.B.
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
SUBTOTAL SD STRUCTURES
$0.00
TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE
$29,581.00
I
QTY UNIT
PRICE/UNIT
EXTENDED
CONCRETE
----
-----------
- ---------------
CURB & GUTTER
18" C & G
0 LF
$10.00
$0.00
24" C & G
15000 LF
$12.00
$180,000.00
.�
30" C & G
0 LF
$15.00
$0.00
18" ROLLED C & G
0 LF
$9.00
$0.00
24" ROLLED C & G
0 LF
$11.00
$0.00
30" ROLLED C & G
0 LF
$14.00
$0.00
6" VERT. CONC. CURB (MEDIAN)
500 LF
$9.00
$4.500.00
STONE UNDER CURB & GUTTER
1200 TON
$16.00
$19,200.00
CONCRETE ENTRANCES
0 SY
$30.00
$0.00
CURB CUT
0 LF
$4.00
$0.00
ASPHALT PATCHING
0 TN
$125.00
$0.00
DRIVEWAY PERMIT FROM NCDOT
1 EA
$50.00
$50.00
SIDEWALKS
0 SY
$35.00
$0.00
STONE UNDER CONCRETE
0 TON
$16.00
$0.00
n
TOTAL CONCRETE
$203,750.00
..
3

• Riverview Condominium Development - Master/Development Plan Phase Opinion
of Cost BME Project#
171006
DEPTH(IN)
QTY UNIT
PRICE/UNIT
EXTENDED
ASPHALT PAVING
HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT
0 SY
ABC STONE
8 0 TN
$15.00
$0.00
_
H-BINDER
2 0 TN
$36.00
$0.00
I-2
2 0 TN
$38.00
$0.00
�.
SUBTOTAL HD ASPHALT
$0.00
LIGHT DUTY ASPHALT
20416 SY
ABC STONE
8 8983 TN
$16.00
$143,728.64
H-BINDER
2 2245.76 TN
$36.00
$80,847.36
1-2
2 2144 TN
$48.00
$102,896.64
SUBTOTAL LD ASPHALT
$327,472.64
ASPHALT CURB
0 LF
$0.00
$0.00
STONE PARKING (0 SY)
8 0 TN
$14.00
$0.00
MISC. STONE (0 SY)
0 0 TN
$0.00
$0.00
STRIPING- SEALER- FINISHINGS ($100.00 MINIMUM)
STRIPING
7656 LF
$0.35
$2,679.60
ARROWS
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
STOP STRIPES/SIGNS
15 EA
$135.00
$2,025.00
12" LETTERS
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HANDICAP SYMBOLS
0 EA
$8.00
$0.00
HANDICAP SIGNS
ON POST
0 EA
$200.00
$0.00
SIGN ON WALL
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
2 SIGNS ON 1 POST
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
WHEEL STOPS/BUMPER BLOCKS
0 EA
$30.00
$0.00
SEALER
0 SY
$0.00
$0.00
SUBTOTAL STRIPING
$4,704.60
TOTAL ASPHALT PAVING $332,177.24
M
M 4

Riverview Condom/plum Development - Master/Development Plan Phase Cpinlon of Cost BME Project#
171006
QTY UNIT
PRICE/UNIT
EXTENDED
UTILITIES
-------------------------------------------
WATER
----
-----------
-----------
----------------
- ---------------
3/4" DOMESTIC SERVICE (TAP ONLY
160 EA
$225.00
$36,000.00
1" DOMESTIC SERVICE
0 LF
$13.00
$0.00
1-1/2" DOMESTIC SERVICE
0 LF
$15.00
$0.00
i
3" FIRE LINE
0 LF
$14.00
$0.00
4" WATER/FIRE LINE
0 LF
$16.00
$0.00
6" WATER/FIRE LINE
7656 LF
$32.00
$244,992.00
8" WATER LINE
0 LF
$38.00
$0.00
i
10" WATER LINE
0 LF
$26.00
$0.00
12" WATER LINE
0 LF
$35.00
$0.00
FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY
26EA
$2,000.00
$51,040.00
i
BLOW -OFF ASSEMBLY
0 EA
$1,500.00
$0.00
20 WELLS WITH STEEL CASING TO 50
20 LS
$8,000.00
$160,000.00
BORE & JACK
0 LF
$200.00
$0.00
i
SUBTOTAL WATER
$492,032.00
SANITARY SEWER
4" LATERAL (TAP ONLY TO RIM
8000 EA
$18.00
$144,000.00
.�
8" GRAVITY SYSTEM W/ MANHOLES
7656 LF
$61.50
$470,844.00
SUBTOTAL SANITARY SEWER
$614,844.00
i
TOTAL UTILITIES
$1,106.876.00
i
i
i
i
.. 5

RivervlewCondominlum Development - Master/Development Plan Phase Opinion of Cost
1::
LIGHTING/LANDSCAPE ALLOWANCE
AMENITIES (CLUBHOUSE, ETC.)
GATEHOUSE/GATES
FRENCH DRAINS (DRAINAGE/CLEAN-UP)
PROJECT SUBTOTAL
PARK MODEL UNIT COST
PARK MODEL SITE CONSTRUCTION
SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (OH
ENGINEERING/SURVEYING SERVICES
PROJECT CONTINGENCY
GRAND TOTAL
Project Cost per Square Foot
Project Cost per Acre
Project Cast per Park Model
(Est. Residential SF @ 2500SF/lot.)
1 EA
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
1 EA
$500,000.00
$500,000.00
1 EA
$75.000.00
$75,000.00
1 EA
$8,000.00
$8,000.00
$13,466,207.24
160 EA
$ 50,000.00
$8,000.000.00
160
$ 14,700.00
$ 2,352,000.00
2%
$269,324.14
6%
$807,972.43
10%
(MASTER/DEV.)
$1,373,553.14
$15,917,056.96
240,000 SF
$66.32
50.72 AC
$313,822.10
160 UNITS
$99,481.61
BME Project#
171006
,. 6