HomeMy WebLinkAbout012825 agenda packetHarnett County Board of Commissioners
Page | 1
WORK SESSION AGENDA
Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2025
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Location: Commissioners Meeting Room Harnett County Resource Center & Library 455 McKinney Parkway, Lillington
1. Call to order – Chairman Matt Nicol
2. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation – Vice Chairman Bill Morris
3. Discuss a request to establish a fee for QuantiFeron Tuberculosis Blood Test; Ainsley Johnson, Health Director
4. Discuss a request to award the Dunn-Erwin Landfill Expansion Project Construction Contract; Chad Beane, Solid Waste Director
5. Discuss fee schedule for Public Utilities; Seann Byrd, Interim Harnett Regional Water Director
6. Economic Development Quarterly Update; Stephen Barrington, Economic Development Director
7. Financial Mid-Year Update; Kimberly Honeycutt, Finance Officer
8. Review applications to serve on Boards and Committees.
9. County Manager’s Report – Brent Trout, County Manager
• February 3, 2025 Regular Meeting Agenda Review
• Upcoming meetings and invitations
10. Closed Session
11. Adjourn
CONDUCT OF THE JANUARY 28, 2025 MEETING
A livestream of the meeting will be on the Harnett County Government’s YouTube Channel
at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU7mTF6HTD65x_98EhAMeMg/featured.
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 1
\\lecfile\department\Admin\Clerk to the Board docs\AGENDAS\2025\012825 ws\3.1 BOC 020325 86480 QUANTIFERON
TB TEST.docx Page 1 of 1
Board Meeting
Agenda Item
MEETING DATE: February 3, 2025
TO: HARNETT COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SUBJECT: Establish Fee for QuantiFeron Tuberculosis Blood Test
REQUESTED BY: Ainsley Johnson, Health Director
REQUEST:
At the January 16, 2025 meeting, the Board of Health approved QuantiFeron
tuberculosis blood test fee as follows:
CPT CODE DESCRIPTION RATE
86480 QuantiFeron TB Blood Test $80
The Health Department has seen an increase in QuantiFeron TB Gold blood testing for
patients and would like to set a flat fee for this service. We have collaborated with our
NC Tuberculosis nurse consultant and LabCorp to establish the rate of $80. This rate
includes the cost of the blood test and the venipuncture.
FINANCE OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION:
COUNTY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
Item 3
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 2
\\lecfile\department\Admin\Clerk to the Board docs\AGENDAS\2025\012825 ws\4.1 Agenda item landfill expansion
project.docx Page 1 of 1
Board Meeting
Agenda Item
MEETING DATE: February 3, 2025
TO: HARNETT COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SUBJECT: Award of Dunn-Erwin Landfill Expansion Project Construction Contract
REQUESTED BY: Chad Beane, Solid Waste Director
REQUEST:
This is a formal request for the Board to award the Dunn-Erwin C&D Landfill
Expansion construction contract to Lockamy's Grading, Inc. from Angier, NC in the
amount of $317,000. Proper procurement measures were taken and the bid was held on
Thursday, December 12, 2024. Four bids were received at that time. Attached is the
ceritified bid tab showing the results of the bid for your review. Please place this item
on the agenda for the next available meeting.
FINANCE OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION:
COUNTY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
Item 4
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 3
DUNN-ERWIN C & D LANDFILL EXPANSION
BID TAB
DUE DECEMBER 12, 2024 AT 2:00
CONTRACTOR PROPOSED PRICE
Shamrock Construction & Remediation, LLC $321,000.00
Lorman, Inc. $405,272.00
Triangle Grading & Paving, Inc. $354,833.50
Lockamy’s Grading $317,000.00
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 4
HARNETT REGIONAL WATER
W A T E R & W A S T E W AT E R S Y S T E M
D E V E L O P M E N T F E E S T U D Y – MAY 2 0 2 3
Item 5
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 5
407.872.2467 | fax: 888-326-6864 | 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1550, Orlando, Florida 32801 | www.willdan.com
May 18, 2023
Steve Ward, Director
Harnett Regional Water
PO Box 1119
700 McKinney Parkway
Lillington, NC 27546
Subject: Water and Wastewater System Development Fee Study - 2023
Dear Mr. Ward,
WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES (“Willdan”) is pleased to submit to Harnett Regional Water
("HRW") the Water and Wastewater System Development Fee Study report (the "Report") for
your consideration. We have completed the analyses for the review and development of water and
wastewater system development fees and have summarized the results herein.
GENERAL
System Development Fees (“SDF” or “SDFs”) and other comparable charges are often
referred to by various terms including impact fees, capacity fees, system expansion fees,
availability fees, connection fees, capacity reservation charges, facility fees, capital
connection charges or other such terminology. In general, an SDF is a one-time charge
implemented to recover (in whole or part) the costs associated with capital investments made
by a utility system to make service available to future users of the system. Such capital costs
include the construction of facilities as well as engineering, surveys, land, financing, legal
and administrative costs. It has become customary practice for water and wastewater utility
systems to implement SDFs (or other similar charges) to establish a supplemental source of
funding for future capital projects. This practice helps to mitigate the need for existing
customers to pay for system expansions entirely through increased user rates.
CRITERIA FOR SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT FEES
CAPACITY FEES
The purpose of a SDF is to assign, to the extent practical, growth-related capital costs to those
customers responsible for such additional costs. To the extent that new population growth imposes
identifiable additional capital costs to municipal services, equity and prudent financial practice
necessitate the assignment of such costs to those customers or system users responsible for the
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 6
HARNETT REGIONAL WATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY PAGE 2
Willdan Financial Services
additional costs rather than the existing user base. Generally, this practice has been labeled as
“growth paying for growth” without placing the full cost burden on existing users.
It is important to note that an SDF is different than an assessment or tax. A special assessment is
predicated upon an estimated increment in value to the property assessed by virtue of the
improvement being constructed in the vicinity of the property. Further, the assessment must be
directly and reasonably related to the benefit of which the property receives. SDFs are not directly
related to the value of the improvement to the property but rather to the usage of the facilities
required by the property. Until the property is put to use (i.e., developed), there is no burden placed
upon the servicing facilities and the land use may be entirely unrelated to the value of the
assessment basis of the underlying land. With respect to a comparison to taxes, SDFs are
distinguishable primarily in the direct relationship between the amount charged and the measurable
quantity of public facilities required. In the case of taxation, there is no requirement that the
payment be in proportion to the quantity of public services consumed, and funds received by a
municipality from taxes can be expended for any legitimate public purpose.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Court Proceedings - General
Generally, courts throughout the United States have found that capacity-related fees associated
with new customer connections to utility systems are legal as long as they meet a Rational Nexus
Test. In accordance with common court rulings, the rational nexus test requires that certain
conditions be met in order to have a valid capacity-related fee. Typically, the court decisions have
found that such fees are valid if the following standards are met:
1. The required payment should primarily benefit those who must pay it because they receive
a special benefit or service as a result of improvements made with the proceeds.
2. Proceeds from the required SDF payments are dedicated solely to the capital improvement
projects (i.e., proceeds are not placed in a general fund to be spent on ongoing expenses
and maintenance, which characterizes a tax, but are set aside in a restricted reserve fund).
3. The revenue generated by the required payment should not exceed the cost of capital
improvements to the system; and
4. The required payments are imposed uniformly and equitably on all new customers based
on their anticipated usage (i.e., a relationship between the fees paid and the benefits
received).
In general, most courts have found that it is reasonable for utility systems to take steps to ensure
that there are adequate funds for capital projects, and to set aside collected fees in a special account
for that purpose. Additionally, new customers are treated alike in that all must pay a fee based on
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 7
HARNETT REGIONAL WATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY PAGE 3
Willdan Financial Services
anticipated usage and/or potential demand. Finally, courts have reasoned that it is rational for a
utility system to prepare to pay for future capital projects and, while imposing a capacity -related
fee may not be the only way to raise such funds, it is a reasonable and legitimate method of
accruing funds.
Court Proceedings – North Carolina
In 1990, a precedent was set in the State of North Carolina in a decision by the United States Court
of Appeals, Fourth District for the case of Shell Island Investment v. Town of Wrightsville Beach
North Carolina (900 F.2d 255), regarding the right of the Town of Wrightsville Beach to impose
utility system impact fees to fund the expansion of the water and sewer facilities. The Court of
Appeals upheld the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina that the Town of Wrightsville Beach had “authority to impose impact and tap fees under
the Public Enterprise statute and that no specific enabling legislation is necessary.”
Pursuant to the ruling of the District Court and the Court of Appeals, it was concluded that “despite
the absence of any express authorization in the Public Enterprise Statute for municipalities to
establish or increase utility fees in order to offset future capital improvements to their sewer and
water infrastructures, general authority to do so is implicit in relevant state law, limited only by
the requirement that any discrimination among users be not based on arbitrary or unreasonable
classifications.”
Court Proceedings – Town of Carthage Case
On April 8, 2016, in the case of Quality Built Homes, Inc. v. Town of Carthage, (766 S.E. 2d 897)
the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that the Town of Carthage possessed authority to charge
“impact fees” for water and sewer services. However, on August 16, 2016, the North Carolina
Supreme Court reversed the North Carolina Court of Appeals’ decision and held that the Town did
not possess authority to charge impact fees for water and sewer services. Although there were
many different factors influencing this decision, the result generated a significant amount of
confusion and concern for governmental utility systems within the State.
House Bill 436
In 2017, the General Assembly of North Carolina enacted House Bill 436, which included a
general statute under Section 1, Chapter 162A, Article 8 for the development of “System
Development Fees” (herein referred to as “Chapter 162A”) that impacts all governmental entities
in North Carolina who currently assess fees for the recovery of capital costs associated with new
development and system growth. As defined in Chapter 162A, a system development fee is a charge
or assessment for service imposed with respect to new development to fund costs of capital
improvements necessitated by and attributable to such new development, to recoup costs of existing
facilities which serve such new development, or a combination of those costs. Based on requirements
of Chapter 162A, the calculation of the SDFs, must employ generally accepted accounting,
engineering, and planning methodologies. Defined methodologies include the buy-in method,
incremental or marginal cost method, and combined cost method. A brief description of each of
these methods as defined in American Water Works Association Manual M1 is provided below.
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 8
HARNETT REGIONAL WATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY PAGE 4
Willdan Financial Services
o Buy-in Method. Based on the value of the existing system’s capacity. Under this
method, new development “buys” a proportionate share of capacity at the cost
(value) of the existing facilities.
o Incremental/Marginal Cost Method. Based on the value or cost to expand the
existing system’s capacity. This method assigns to new development the
incremental cost of future system expansion needed to serve new development.
o Combined Cost Method. Based on blended value of both the existing and expanded
system capacity. This method uses a combination of the buy-in and
incremental/marginal cost methods.
Chapter 162A allows a governmental unit to utilize any of the three methods described above
depending on the availability of information from the governmental unit, i.e., a detailed listing of
asset data (buy-in method) or a five to twenty-year capital improvement plan (incremental
method). The combined method includes both existing assets and future capital projects required
to serve growth. Based on the direction of staff, the analysis developed herein for calculation of
the SDFs utilizes the buy-in method.
Chapter 162A states that an SDF shall be calculated based on a written analysis, which may
constitute or be included in a capital plan, that:
1. Is prepared by a financial professional or a licensed professional engineer qualified by
experience and training or education to employ generally accepted accounting, engineering,
and planning methodologies to calculate system development fees for public water and sewer
systems.
2. Documents in reasonable detail the facts and data used in the analysis and their sufficiency and
reliability.
3. Employs generally accepted accounting, engineering, and planning methodologies, including
the buy-in, incremental cost or marginal cost, and combined cost methods for each service,
setting forth appropriate analysis as to the consideration and selection of a method appropriate
to the circumstances and adapted as necessary to satisfy all requirements of this Article.
4. Documents and demonstrates the reliable application of the methodologies to the facts and
data, including all reasoning, analysis, and interim calculations underlying each identifiable
component of the system development fee and the aggregate thereof.
5. Identifies all assumptions and limiting conditions affecting the analysis and demonstrates that
they do not materially undermine the reliability of conclusions reached.
6. Calculates a final system development fee per service unit of new development and includes
an equivalency or conversion table for use in determining the fees applicable for various
categories of demand.
7. Covers a planning horizon of not less than 5 years nor more than 20 years.
8. Is adopted by resolution or ordinance of the local governmental unit in accordance with G.S.
162A-209.
9. Uses the gallons per day per service unit that the local governmental unit applies to its
water or sewer system engineering or planning purposes for water or sewer, as appropriate,
in calculating the system development fee. (2017-138, s. 1; 2018-34, s. 1(a); 2021-76, s.
2.)
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 9
HARNETT REGIONAL WATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY PAGE 5
Willdan Financial Services
Further, Chapter 162A includes certain other minimum requirements as follows:
1. A system development fee shall not exceed that calculated based on the system development
fee analysis.
2. Credits must be included no matter which methodology is used. A more detailed discussion
on the applicable credits will be included in later sections of this Report.
3. A construction or contribution credit shall be given with respect to new development such that
the governmental unit will credit the value of costs in excess of a development’s proportionate
share of connecting facilities required to be oversized for the use of others outside the
development.
As such, this Report is intended to address the legal requirements set forth above to develop fees
in accordance with Chapter 162A.
ADOPTION AND PERIODIC
REVIEW OF SDF ANALYSIS
Upon completion of the SDF analysis, Chapter 162A sets forth certain criteria regarding the
adoption and periodic review of SDFs. These include the following:
1. For not less than 45 days prior to consideration for adoption of the SDF analysis, the
governmental unit shall post the analysis on its website a nd solicit and furnish a means to
submit written comments which shall be considered by the preparer for possible modifications
or revisions to the analysis.
2. Following expiration of the 45 days posting period, the governing body shall conduct a public
hearing prior to considering adopting the analysis with any modifications.
3. The governmental unit shall publish the SDFs in its annual budget, rate plan or ordinance.
Further, the SDF analysis shall be updated at least every five years.
EXISTING SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT FEES
HRW currently imposes SDFs on new customers requiring water and/or wastewater utility service.
The current fees are $2,000 and $2,500 per residential dwelling unit, for water and wastewater,
respectively. For new, nonresidential/commercial customers, the fee is based on the SDF per
residential dwelling unit and calculated on an equivalency basis. It is understood that the current
fees and fee structure are in accordance with the Chapter 162A requirements. Since it has been
almost 5 years from the time the existing fees were adopted, to remain in compliance with Chapter
162A, it is time for the fees to be updated.
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 10
HARNETT REGIONAL WATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY PAGE 6
Willdan Financial Services
EXISTING TAP FEES
HRW currently imposes tap fees to new customers connecting to the water and wastewater
systems. However, it is important to note that such connection-related fees are different than the
SDFs developed and proposed herein. The distinguishing characteristic is that the tap fees are
established for the purpose of recovering the costs associated with performing the customer service
act of physically making a new system connection (i.e., meter, labor, equipment, vehicles, etc.)
SDFs, on the other hand, are established for the purpose of recovering the major capital costs
incurred in making water and wastewater utility services available to the public. The proposed
fees designed herein are intended to be in addition to the existing tap fees. As such, it is proposed
that the existing tap fees continue to be imposed. It should be noted that, for the purpose of the
Report, the existing tap fees are assumed to recover the costs associated with these items. A review
of these fees in relation to actual costs incurred is beyond the scope of this Report.
EXISTING CAPITAL
FACILITIES
In considering the recovery of existing asset costs under the buy-in method, the general concept is
that new customers “buy” a proportionate share of system capacity at the value of the existing
facilities. It is important to note that while this methodology is labeled as buy-in, payment of an
SDF does not transfer any ownership of the assets to the customer. Rather, such payment provides
access to capacity at a status equal to that of existing customers of the system.
While there are different methods that can be used to establish a value to the existing facilities, a
common approach is to value the existing assets at a replacement cost amount. According to the
replacement cost method, the existing system components are valued at the estimated current cost
of replacing the facilities. The analysis developed herein uses an approach referred to as
Replacement Cost New Less Depreciation (RCNLD). Applying the RCNLD method, the original
costs are escalated to current dollars by means of construction cost indices, and then the result is
adjusted down for the accumulated depreciation, which is also adjusted by the construction cost
indices. This approach results in a replacement cost valuation that reflects the remaining
depreciable life of the facilities.
In performing the RCNLD analysis, HRW provided a detailed listing of the current water and
wastewater system facilities (the “Asset Listing”). The Asset Listing contained the original cost,
the date placed in service and the accumulated depreciation for each asset. The replacement cost
of each asset is estimated by using construction cost indices information contained in the Handy-
Whitman Index of Public Utility Construction Costs for the South Atlantic Region. The Handy-
Whitman Index calculates the cost trends for different types of utility construction, including water
systems. The published indices are used by regulatory bodies, operating entities, utility systems,
service companies, valuation experts and insurance companies. The Handy-Whitman Index values
are widely used to trend earlier valuations and original cost records to estimate replacement cost
at prices prevailing at a certain date or to the present. While many general construction cost
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 11
HARNETT REGIONAL WATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY PAGE 7
Willdan Financial Services
indexes are published, the Handy-Whitman Index is used in this analysis because it is specifically
tailored to the utility industry.
After the replacement cost is calculated for each individual asset item, the adjusted accumulated
depreciation is deducted for each asset item. The result is the RCNLD. The asset data and
applicable recoverable cost allocations are provided in Exhibit 1 at the end of this Report. The
existing capital facilities and RCNLD calculations are summarized in Table 1.
For SDF analyses, the existing assets are categorized based on the major components of
Treatment and Transmission. The treatment category includes the treatment plant facilities
(water and wastewater) and accompanying supply and storage facilities (water only), as well as
wastewater effluent disposal facilities. The transmission/collection category consists of major
water mains, water pumping facilities, sewer lift stations and collection lines. Since the localized
distribution and collection facilities are generally contributed by developers or funded from other
sources (i.e., assessments, direct customer payments, etc.), these facilities are not included for
recovery through the SDFs. Additionally, a cost limit or threshold has been set at $100,000 as a
condition of inclusion of the asset items in the SDF calculation. The cost limit assumes that any
asset item that costs less than the limit amount is not a major facility that provides a system -wide
benefit. A final adjustment was made to exclude certain asset items that were identified as projects
that only restored existing capacity rather than provided system upgrades or additional system
capacity. The existing recoverable water and wastewater capital asset cost allocations included in
the analysis are summarized in Table 2.
Total Utility Assets:
Land 1,125,507$ 1,125,507$ 0$ 1,125,507$
Plant, Distribution, And Collection Systems 466,121,896 1,004,585,708 (374,252,893) 630,332,815
Buildings And Building Improvements 14,801,751 23,862,369 (5,125,758) 18,736,611
Furniture, Fixtures, And Equipment 4,133,678 6,834,014 (6,755,826) 78,188
Vehicles 3,553,086 3,553,085 (3,381,749) 171,336
Total 489,735,918$ 1,039,960,683$ (389,516,226)$ 650,444,457$
TABLE 1
RCNLD OF EXISTING UTILITY ASSETS
Description Original Cost Replacement
Cost New
Accumulated
Depreciation RCNLD
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 12
HARNETT REGIONAL WATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY PAGE 8
Willdan Financial Services
DEBT SERVICE CREDIT
It is common practice for utilities to fund major capital improvements and expansion projects with
debt (i.e., bond issues). Typically, debt service payments associated with bond issues are
recovered through the monthly user rates and charges applied to all system customers, as well as
from other available revenue sources (including SDFs). To mitigate the potential for new
customers to pay twice for capital facilities (i.e., paying an SDF for facilities that may have been
debt funded, and then paying for debt service in their monthly user rates), the SDF analysis
developed herein includes a debt service credit to the existing facilities (buy-in method). The
credit on the existing facilities is equal to the outstanding principal remaining on all utility related
debt. The debt service credit amount for the existing facilities is allocated between water and
wastewater based on information provided by staff related to the capital projects that were funded
from proceeds of each individual debt instrument. A summary of the recoverable capital facilities
as adjusted for the applicable credit is provided in Table 3.
Water Wastewater Total
Total Recoverable Assets:
Land 452,764$ 452,764$ 905,528$
Plant, Distribution, And Collection Systems 312,114,769 222,426,043 534,540,812
Buildings And Building Improvements 0 18,643,889 18,643,889
Furniture, Fixtures, And Equipment 0 0 0
Vehicles 0 0 0
Total 312,567,533$ 241,522,696$ 554,090,229$
Allocation of Recoverable Assets:
Treatment Facilities 223,366,052$ 117,282,287$ 340,648,339$
Transmission Facilities 89,201,481 124,240,409 213,441,890
Total 312,567,533$ 241,522,696$ 554,090,229$
TABLE 2
ALLOCATION OF EXISTING RECOVERABLE FACILITIES
Description RCNLD Included for Recovery
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 13
HARNETT REGIONAL WATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY PAGE 9
Willdan Financial Services
SYSTEM CAPACITIES
As previously addressed, the purpose of the SDF is to have new customers pay for their
proportionate share of system capacity. This concept implies that the fee is based on a unit cost of
capacity. To apply a fee based on the unit cost of capacity, it is necessary to identify the capacities
of the facilities for which cost recovery is assigned. As such, the methodology applied herein
relies upon identifying the water and wastewater treatment capacities as well as estimating the
capacities of the major transmission facilities. Due to the regulatory and design requirements for
water and wastewater treatment plants, the capacity of treatment facilities is generally well
documented. However, the volumetric capacity of the major transmission facilities is often more
difficult to determine. For this reason, in performing an analysis of this nature, the assumed
capacity of the transmission facilities is commonly based on a factor of the associated treatment
capacities. In developing the estimated amount of capacity for each respective category, the
analysis relies on information provided by utility staff and included in master planning documents,
as well as assumptions based on common industry standards.
Water Treatment
HRW owns and operates the Harnett Regional Water Treatment Plant with a total design capacity
of 42.00 MGD (million gallons per day). While the permitted flow capacity is provided in terms
of the maximum daily flow amount, the development and application of SDFs are based on average
flow requirements. As such, it is necessary to convert the maximum daily flow (MDF) capacity
to an estimated average daily flow (ADF) capacity. Pursuant to general industry standards and
Water Wastewater Total
Existing Facilities:
Treatment Facilities 223,366,052$ 117,282,287$ 340,648,339$
Transmission Facilities 89,201,481 124,240,409 213,441,890
Subtotal 312,567,533$ 241,522,696$ 554,090,229$
Less Debt Principal Balance:
Treatment Facilities (8,097,408)$ (12,152,438)$ (20,249,846)$
Transmission Facilities (3,233,978) (12,873,176) (16,107,154)
Subtotal (11,331,386)$ (25,025,614)$ (36,357,000)$
Combined Recoverable Costs:
Treatment Facilities 215,268,644$ 105,129,849$ 320,398,493$
Transmission Facilities 85,967,503 111,367,233 197,334,736
Total 301,236,147$ 216,497,082$ 517,733,229$
Description
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF NET RECOVERABLE FACILITIES
Recoverable Facilities
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 14
HARNETT REGIONAL WATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY PAGE 10
Willdan Financial Services
discussions with staff, it is assumed herein that the rated MDF is approximately 1.5 times the
available capacity on an ADF basis. Applying this factor to the rated capacity for the water
treatment plant and other water supply sources results in an average daily flow capacity of 28.00
MGD. An additional adjustment is made based on the assumed amount of unaccounted-for water
(i.e., system flushing and backwashing, testing, line loss, etc.). The unaccounted-for water reduces
the amount of capacity available to existing and future customers. Based on information provided
by staff, the analysis performed herein assumes an average unaccounted-for water factor of 14.0%
to adjust for the unaccounted-for water flows at the treatment plant. This final adjustment results
in an estimated average daily treatment plant capacity of 24.080 MGD.
Water Transmission
Unlike the treatment facilities, the capacity information for major transmission facilities is very
difficult to determine and quantify. Such transmission capacity estimates are typically not even
developed in engineering documents such as master plans or Consulting Engineer’s Reports.
Based on discussions with staff, it is assumed that the transmission facilities can provide average
water flow at least equal to 2.00 times the average day treatment capacity, resulting in 56.000
MGD. In addition, similar to the methodology utilized for water treatment, an adjustment is made
for unaccounted-for water. This final adjustment results in an estimated average daily treatment
plant capacity of 48.160 MGD.
Wastewater Treatment
Due to the regulatory and design requirements for wastewater treatment plants, the capacity of
treatment facilities is generally well documented. The wastewater treatment facilities are designed
and permitted in accordance with published hydraulic standards adopted by Section 15A NCAC
02T .0114 of the North Carolina Administrative Code regulations. HRW owns and operates the
North Harnett and South Harnett Wastewater Treatment Plants with permitted capacities of 7.50
and 15.00 MGD, respectively, totaling 22.50 MGD of existing treatment capacity.
Unlike the application for water, due to the nature of the operations, the wastewater treatment
capacity is permitted at average daily flow levels. As such, it is not necessary to convert the
capacity. However, as with the unaccounted-for flows in the water system, wastewater systems
are impacted by inflow and infiltration (I&I) into the wastewater collection facilities. The impact
of I&I reduces the level of capacity that is available for use by existing and future system
customers. Pursuant to discussions with staff, the wastewater treatment capacity is adjusted for an
assumed I&I impact of 20.0%, resulting in an adjusted average daily treatment capacity of 18.000
MGD.
Wastewater Transmission
Like the discussion provided above for the determination of water transmission capacity, it is
difficult to identify the capacity of the wastewater transmission facilities. Although an exact
capacity number is difficult to determine, for the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that the
wastewater trunk lines and pumping facilities are designed to provide capacity at least equal to the
permitted plant capacities, or 22.500 MGD. As with the adjustment made to the wastewater
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 15
HARNETT REGIONAL WATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY PAGE 11
Willdan Financial Services
treatment capacity, the transmission capacity is adjusted for an assumed I&I impact of 20.0%,
resulting in an adjusted average daily treatment capacity of 18.000 MGD.
DEVELOPMENT OF SDFs
The methodology utilized herein for developing the water and wastewater SDFs relies upon the
cost of major system facilities as well as the existing system capacities to calculate an estimated
cost per unit (gallon) of capacity. Based on this methodology, it is estimated that the water facility
costs are $10.73 per gallon of water capacity (combined treatment and transmission).
Additionally, it is estimated that the wastewater facility costs are $12.03 per gallon of wastewater
capacity.
In developing the SDFs, the unit costs per gallon of capacity are applied to a common Level of
Service (LOS) standard to establish the applicable fee per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU). For
purposes of applying the LOS, an ERU is representative of a single-family residential dwelling
unit receiving water service from a 5/8 x 3/4-inch metered connection and discharging normal
domestic-strength wastewater through a comparably sized sewer connection. Based on common
industry standards for the development and application of capacity-related charges, a typical
residential water connection is generally assumed to require average service availability in the
range of 350 to 450 gallons per day (gpd) of system capacity. The State of North Carolina (the
“State”) has established flow standards for purposes of planning and engineering design. In
accordance with daily water flow capacity design standards defined in the North Carolina
Administrative Codes (15A NCAC 18C .0409), the level of service requirement for a residential
connection is 400 gallons per day (gpd). Based on HRW's existing planning methodology, it is
assumed that 1 ERU requires a standard level of service of 360 gpd of water system capacity.
Similar to the water system, the SDFs for wastewater are to be applied on an equivalent residential
unit (ERU) basis such that 1 ERU is equal to the estimated capacity requirements for a typical
single family residential connection with a 5/8-inch X 3/4-inch water meter. In accordance with
wastewater flow design standards adopted by the State and defined by the North Carolina
Administrative Codes (15A NCAC 02T .0114), the level of service requirement is based on 120
gallons of capacity per day per bedroom for a residential home. This analysis assumes an average
of 3 bedrooms per new home constructed. Applying the State's flow standard to the average
number of bedrooms, it is assumed that 1 ERU requires a standard level of service of 360 gpd of
wastewater system capacity.
Applying the average day LOS amounts to the estimated unit costs per gallon of capacity and
adjusting for the applicable debt service credits results in the proposed water and wastewater SDFs
of $3,850 and $4,320, respectively, for a typical single-family residential connection (i.e., per
ERU). The development of the proposed water and wastewater SDFs is detailed in Exhibits 2 and
3, respectively. A summary of the existing and proposed SDFs for a typical new residential
connection is provided in Table 4.
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 16
HARNETT REGIONAL WATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY PAGE 12
Willdan Financial Services
APPLICATION OF SDFs
An ERU provides a standard unit of measure such that fees for connections with larger than
average demand requirements can be calculated on an equivalency basis. One ERU is equal to the
average anticipated flow for a single-family dwelling. New connections with greater water
requirements have the potential of placing more demand on the system (i.e., require more capacity)
and are assessed ERU factors accordingly. Under HRW’s current methodology, ERU factors for
new non-residential connections are determined by comparing the average daily usage/flow
requirement to the daily LOS requirements per ERU as previously addressed.
It is not suggested that HRW change its current methodology for calculating the SDFs applied to
non-residential customers. However, this Report gives consideration to a potentially more
administratively efficient fee structure. It is common practice in the utility industry to charge
capacity-related fees based upon the size of the water meter. The concept is that the meter size is
directly correlated to the potential demand a customer can place on the system. With a meter-
based fee structure, one ERU is equal to the average anticipated flow for a single-family dwelling
unit with a standard 5/8 x 3/4-inch water meter. New connections with larger water meters have
the potential of placing more demand on the system (i.e., require more capacity) and are assessed
ERU factors accordingly. The methodology for incrementing the fees for larger connection sizes
is based on standardized demand criteria established by the American Water Works Association
Existing Calculated Difference
System Development Fees:
Water 2,000$ 3,850$ 1,850$
Wastewater 2,500 4,320 1,820
Total 4,500$ 8,170$ 3,670$
TABLE 4
COMPARISON OF SDFs PER ERU
Description System Development Fee Per ERU
Water Wastewater Total
Proposed/Calculated 3,850$ 4,320$ 8,170$
TABLE 5
PROPOSED/CALCULATED SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEES
Description System Development Fee Per ERU
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 17
HARNETT REGIONAL WATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY PAGE 13
Willdan Financial Services
(AWWA) and the Water Environment Federation (WEF) pursuant to the size of the water meter.
Utilizing the AWWA/WEF demand criteria, the applicable ERU factors for larger water meters
are based on the incremental increase in potential demand as compared to the standard meter size.
If HRW chooses to go this direction, the meter-based fees displayed below utilize the
AWWA/WEF meter equivalency methodology. Since wastewater flow is generally a direct
function of water flow, applying the water and wastewater SDFs based upon the size of the water
meter is equitable, administratively efficient, and consistent with industry standards. The
applicable meter-based fees are summarized in Table 6.
In situations where the application of the meter-based fees will result in the collection of fees
significantly different than the potential demand requirement of a new customer requesting service,
a special calculation methodology may be applied at the discretion of HRW’s Utility Department.
For such situations, it is important for the utility to have the flexibility to utilize an ER U
methodology for individual accounts based on specific capacity requirements. This alternative
methodology is to apply the calculated unit costs per gallon of capacity as provided in Exhibits 2
and 3 times the capacity requirement for the customer. This type of situation will be uncommon
and will typically only involve larger commercial and industrial connections. It is anticipated that,
in such situations, HRW will require certified engineering documentation defining the capacity
utilization needs for the new customer.
Based on information provided by staff, the SDFs that will be presented to the Board of
Commissioners for adoption will be lower than the fees calculated in this Report. The fees that
will be proposed by staff are provided in Table 7.
Water Wastewater Total
Meter Size:
5/8 x 3/4 Inch 1.00 3,850$ 4,320$ 8,170$
1.0 Inch 2.50 9,625$ 10,800$ 20,425$
1.5 Inch 5.00 19,250$ 21,600$ 40,850$
2.0 Inch 8.00 30,800$ 34,560$ 65,360$
3.0 Inch 16.00 61,600$ 69,120$ 130,720$
4.0 Inch 25.00 96,250$ 108,000$ 204,250$
6.0 Inch 50.00 192,500$ 216,000$ 408,500$
8.0 Inch 80.00 308,000$ 345,600$ 653,600$
(1)Meter-size equivalency factors established by the AWWA and identified in
AWWA Standards C700,M1 and M22. Such factors are commonly applied
consistently for both water and wastewater fee calculations.
TABLE 6
METER-BASED SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEES
Description Calculated Max Fees By Meter SizeMeter
Factor (1)
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 18
HARNETT REGIONAL WATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY PAGE 14
Willdan Financial Services
COMPARISON WITH
NEIGHBORING UTILITIES
To provide HRW with additional insight regarding the development and application of the SDFs,
a comparison is often included to show the level of such fees as imposed by several other utility
systems in North Carolina. The comparison would typically show the capacity-related fees for a
new residential water and wastewater connection that receives service (from the subject utility or
other local provider) through a standard residential-sized water meter (representative of 1 ERU)
calculated under the existing and proposed fees of HRW, and those of the other utility systems.
However, given the current timing requirements of Chapter 162A, and the fact that numerous
utility systems in the State are in the process of performing fee studies comparable to the one
addressed in this Report, including a neighboring utility comparison at this time will provide
somewhat meaningless information. If HRW would like to get a better idea of how its SDFs
compare to other systems, it is suggested that such a comparison be performed after July 1, 2023.
GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS
AND CONSIDERATIONS
In the preparation of this Report, certain information has been used and relied upon that was
provided to Willdan by other entities. Such information includes, but is not limited to, audited
financial statements, annual operating budgets, capital information, asset listings, cost data, system
Water Wastewater Total
Meter Size:
5/8 x 3/4 Inch 1.00 3,000$ 4,000$ 7,000$
1.0 Inch 2.50 7,500$ 10,000$ 17,500$
1.5 Inch 5.00 15,000$ 20,000$ 35,000$
2.0 Inch 8.00 24,000$ 32,000$ 56,000$
3.0 Inch 16.00 48,000$ 64,000$ 112,000$
4.0 Inch 25.00 75,000$ 100,000$ 175,000$
6.0 Inch 50.00 150,000$ 200,000$ 350,000$
8.0 Inch 80.00 240,000$ 320,000$ 560,000$
(1)Meter-size equivalency factors established by the AWWA and identified in
AWWA Standards C700,M1 and M22. Such factors are commonly applied
consistently for both water and wastewater fee calculations.
TABLE 7
METER-BASED SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEES
Description Meter
Factor (1)
Proposed/Calculated Fees By Meter Size
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 19
HARNETT REGIONAL WATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY PAGE 15
Willdan Financial Services
capacities, fee schedules for other utilities, and other information provided during the study. While
the sources and applicable information are believed to be reliable, no independent verification of
the information has been made and no assurances are offered with respect to the accuracy of the
applicable information. To the extent that information used to develop the assumptions applied in
the Report differs from actual results, the analyses developed herein could be impacted
accordingly.
CONCLUSIONS
This study has found a need for HRW to maintain a mechanism for recovering the capital costs
associated with system growth and expansion. Based on the reviews, analyses and assumptions
provided herein, it is concluded that:
1. The application of capital recovery fees for new system connections is becoming more
common for public utility systems in North Carolina. As growth continues to impact
the region, and as state and federal funding programs are reduced or eliminated, it is
prudent management practice to adopt mechanisms to recover capital costs incurred by
the utility for making service available to future customers.
2. Through Chapter 162A, the North Carolina legislature has found that it is prudent to
require new customers to bear a portion of the costs of current capacity and future
expansions their presence will demand. It should be noted that Willdan is not
attempting to issue a legal opinion regarding Chapter 162A or any court proceedings
leading to the enactment of Chapter 162A. The summary discussion of the bill and any
prior court rulings is intended for informational purposes only. Any questions
regarding the legal considerations provided herein should be directed to HRW’s legal
counsel.
3. The SDFs developed herein are equitable and provide for reasonable recovery of the
capital costs associated with providing service to new customers.
4. The SDFs proposed herein are developed in accordance with the requirements of
Chapter 162A and utilize methodologies that are consistent with industry standards.
5. The water and wastewater LOS standards proposed herein for establishing an ERU
basis are based on flow standards utilized by HRW for system planning and design
purposes and are consistent with common industry standards.
6. HRW currently imposes tap fees and other related operational charges for new
customer connections. Since these other charges are intended to recover operating
costs for providing incident-specific services, the SDFs developed herein will have no
effect on the level or application methodology for these other connection-related fees.
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 20
HARNETT REGIONAL WATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY PAGE 16
Willdan Financial Services
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the reviews, analyses and assumptions discussed herein, as well as the resulting
conclusions provided above, it is respectfully recommended that HRW:
1. Adopt the proposed SDFs and application methodology as developed in this Report;
2. Enact the proposed SDFs to become effective on July 1, 2023 or other such date as
determined appropriate by the Board of Commissioners of Harnett County; and
3. Readdress the SDF study within the next 5 years, or at such times as future capital
budgets are developed and additional capital costs are incurred that may result in
material adjustments to the SDF as adopted.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to HRW in this matter. In addition, we would like
to thank you and the other members of HRW staff for the valuable assistance and cooperation
provided during the preparation of the Report. We look forward to working with you on future
projects and continuing a successful professional relationship.
Respectfully Yours,
WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES.
Daryll B. Parker
Principal
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 21
EXHIBITS 1-4
SUPPORTING OUTPUT FOR THE
WATER & WASTEWATER SDF STUDY
WATER & WASTEWATER SDF STUDY FOR
HARNETT REGIONAL WATER
Prepared by Willdan Financial Services
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 22
Exhibit 1
System Development Fee Analysis
Existing Capital Costs Recoverable From SDFs
Water & Wastewater Systems
WATER SYSTEM ASSETS
Water Assets by Category:
1 Land 642,107$ 642,107$ 0$ 642,107$
2 Plant, distribution, and collection sys.255,105,923 636,332,517 (255,228,384) 381,104,133
3 Buildings and building improvements 88,616 240,608 (195,954) 44,654
4 Furniture, fixtures, and equipment 2,019,684 3,329,106 (3,290,012) 39,094
5 Vehicles 1,740,812 1,740,811 (1,655,143) 85,668
6 Total 259,597,142$ 642,285,149$ (260,369,493)$ 381,915,656$
Adjusted For Assumed Cost Limit ($):
7 Land 452,764$ 452,764$ 0$ 452,764$
8 Plant, distribution, and collection sys.193,048,913 494,776,152 (182,661,383) 312,114,769
9 Buildings and building improvements 0 0 0 0
10 Furniture, fixtures, and equipment 444,849 568,385 (568,385) 0
11 Vehicles 258,099 258,100 (255,847) 2,253
12 Total 194,204,625$ 496,055,401$ (183,485,615)$ 312,569,786$
WASTEWATER SYSTEM ASSETS
Wastewater Assets by Category:
13 Land 483,400$ 483,400$ 0$ 483,400$
14 Plant, distribution, and collection sys.211,015,973 368,253,191 (119,024,509) 249,228,682
15 Buildings and building improvements 14,713,135 23,621,761 (4,929,804) 18,691,957
16 Furniture, fixtures, and equipment 2,113,994 3,504,908 (3,465,814) 39,094
17 Vehicles 1,812,274 1,812,274 (1,726,606) 85,668
18 Total 230,138,776$ 397,675,534$ (129,146,733)$ 268,528,801$
Adjusted For Assumed Cost Limit ($):
19 Land 452,764$ 452,764$ 0$ 452,764$
20 Plant, distribution, and collection sys.184,565,333 307,103,548 (84,677,505) 222,426,043
21 Buildings and building improvements 14,595,384 23,332,657 (4,688,768) 18,643,889
22 Furniture, fixtures, and equipment 444,849 568,385 (568,385) 0
23 Vehicles 258,099 258,100 (255,847) 2,253 0
24 Total 200,316,429$ 331,715,454$ (90,190,505)$ 241,524,949$
Line Description Original Cost Replacement
Cost New RCNLDAccumulated
Depreciation
Willdan Financial Services Page 18 of 28
5/18/2023
Harnett Regional Water - SDF Study - V3.xlsx
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 23
Exhibit 1
System Development Fee Analysis
Existing Capital Costs Recoverable From SDFs
Water & Wastewater Systems
Line Description Original Cost Replacement
Cost New RCNLDAccumulated
Depreciation
TOTAL SYSTEM ASSETS
Total Assets by Category:
25 Land 1,125,507$ 1,125,507$ 0$ 1,125,507$
26 Plant, distribution, and collection sys.466,121,896 1,004,585,708 (374,252,893) 630,332,815
27 Buildings and building improvements 14,801,751 23,862,369 (5,125,758) 18,736,611
28 Furniture, fixtures, and equipment 4,133,678 6,834,014 (6,755,826) 78,188
29 Vehicles 3,553,086 3,553,085 (3,381,749) 171,336
30 Total 489,735,918$ 1,039,960,683$ (389,516,226)$ 650,444,457$
Adjusted For Assumed Cost Limit ($):
31 Land 905,528$ 905,528$ 0$ 905,528$
32 Plant, distribution, and collection sys.377,614,246 801,879,700 (267,338,888) 534,540,812
33 Buildings and building improvements 14,595,384 23,332,657 (4,688,768) 18,643,889
34 Furniture, fixtures, and equipment 889,698 1,136,770 (1,136,770) 0
35 Vehicles 516,198 516,200 (511,694) 4,506
36 Total 394,521,054$ 827,770,855$ (273,676,120)$ 554,094,735$
Recoverable Allocation - Water (%):
37 Land 100%
38 Plant, distribution, and collection sys.100%
39 Buildings and building improvements 100%
40 Furniture, fixtures, and equipment 0%
41 Vehicles 0%
Recoverable Allocation - Wastewater (%):
42 Land 100%
43 Plant, distribution, and collection sys.100%
44 Buildings and building improvements 100%
45 Furniture, fixtures, and equipment 0%
46 Vehicles 0%
Willdan Financial Services Page 19 of 28
5/18/2023
Harnett Regional Water - SDF Study - V3.xlsx
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 24
Exhibit 1
System Development Fee Analysis
Existing Capital Costs Recoverable From SDFs
Water & Wastewater Systems
Line Description Original Cost Replacement
Cost New RCNLDAccumulated
Depreciation
System Allocation - Water ($):
47 Land 452,764$
48 Plant, distribution, and collection sys.312,114,769
49 Buildings and building improvements 0
50 Furniture, fixtures, and equipment 0
51 Vehicles 0
52 Total 312,567,533$
System Allocation - Wastewater ($):
53 Land 452,764$
54 Plant, distribution, and collection sys.222,426,043
55 Buildings and building improvements 18,643,889
56 Furniture, fixtures, and equipment 0
57 Vehicles 0
58 Total 241,522,696$
59 Grand Total Recoverable Assets 554,090,229$
COMPONENT ALLOCATION
Total Recoverable Water Facilities:
60 Treatment Facilities 71.46%223,366,052$
61 Transmission Facilities 28.54%89,201,481
62 Subtotal 100.00%312,567,533$
Total Recoverable Wastewater Facilities:
63 Treatment Facilities 48.56%117,282,287$
64 Transmission Facilities 51.44%124,240,409
65 Subtotal 100.00%241,522,696$
Combined Recoverable Facilities:
66 Treatment Facilities 61.48%340,648,339$
67 Transmission Facilities 38.52%213,441,890
68 Total 100.00%554,090,229$
Willdan Financial Services Page 20 of 28
5/18/2023
Harnett Regional Water - SDF Study - V3.xlsx
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 25
Exhibit 1
System Development Fee Analysis
Existing Capital Costs Recoverable From SDFs
Water & Wastewater Systems
Line Description Original Cost Replacement
Cost New RCNLDAccumulated
Depreciation
COMPARISON TO TOTAL
69 Total Utility Assets 650,444,457$
70 Combined Recoverable Assets 554,090,229$
Difference (Assets Excluded From Recovery):
71 Excluded From Recovery ($)96,354,228$
72 Excluded From Recovery (%)14.81%
DEBT SERVICE CREDIT
73 Outstanding Debt Principal 36,357,000$
Allocation Percentage:
74 Water 31.17%
75 Wastewater 68.83%
Allocated Debt Service Credit:
76 Water 11,331,386$
77 Wastewater 25,025,614
78 Total 36,357,000$
Component Allocation - Water:
79 Treatment Facilities 71.46%8,097,408$
80 Transmission Facilities 28.54%3,233,978 -$
81 Total 100.00%11,331,386$
Component Allocation - Wastewater:
82 Treatment Facilities 48.56%12,152,438$
83 Transmission Facilities 51.44%12,873,176 -$
84 Total 100.00%25,025,614$
Willdan Financial Services Page 21 of 28
5/18/2023
Harnett Regional Water - SDF Study - V3.xlsx
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 26
Exhibit 2
System Development Fee Analysis
Calculation of System Development Fee Per ERU
Water System
Line Description Total
Existing Facilities:
1 Treatment Facilities 223,366,052$
2 Transmission Facilities 89,201,481
3 Subtotal 312,567,533$ (1)
Less Debt Service Principal:
4 Treatment Facilities (8,097,408)$
5 Transmission Facilities (3,233,978)
6 Subtotal (11,331,386)$ (2)
Net Recoverable Existing Facilities:
7 Treatment Facilities 215,268,644$
8 Transmission Facilities 85,967,503
9 Total 301,236,147$
Treatment Capacity:
10 Harnett Regional WTP 42.000
11 Total Treatment Capacity 42.000
Average Day Capacity Adjustment:
12 Treatment Capacity Based on Max/Avg Day Factor 1.50 28.000
13 Unaccounted-For Water Capacity Adjustment 14.0%(3)
14 Estimated Treatment Capacity 24.080
Estimated Transmission System Capacity:
15 Estimated Treatment Capacity 28.000
16 Transmission-to-Treatment Capacity Factor 2.00
17 Assumed Existing Transmission Capacity 56.000 (4)
18 Unaccounted-For Water Capacity Adjustment 14.0%(4)
19 Estimated Transmission Capacity 48.160
Available System Capacity (MGD)
Recoverable Capital Facilities
Willdan Financial Services Page 22 of 28
5/18/2023
Harnett Regional Water - SDF Study - V3.xlsxHCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 27
Exhibit 2
System Development Fee Analysis
Calculation of System Development Fee Per ERU
Water System
Line Description Total
Estimated Cost Per Gallon of Capacity:
20 Treatment ($/Gallon)8.94$
21 Transmission ($/Gallon)1.79
22 Total Cost Per Gallon of Capacity 10.73$
23 Assumed Standard Level of Service Per ERU (GPD of Capacity)360 (5)
Calculation of SDF Per ERU:
24 Treatment Facilities 3,218$
25 Transmission Facilities 644
26 Combined Cost 3,862$
Adjusted Fee - Treatment:
27 Calculated Fee Per ERU 3,218$
28 Less Rounding Adjustment (8)
29 Adjusted Fee 3,210$
Credit Adjusted Fee - Transmission:
30 Calculated Fee Per ERU 644$
31 Less Rounding Adjustment (4)
32 Adjusted Fee 640$
Proposed SDF Per ERU (Rounded):
33 Treatment Facilities 3,210$
34 Transmission Facilities 640
35 Combined Cost 3,850$
Calculation of Fee Per ERU
Estimated Cost Per Gallon of Capacity
Willdan Financial Services Page 23 of 28
5/18/2023
Harnett Regional Water - SDF Study - V3.xlsxHCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 28
Exhibit 2
System Development Fee Analysis
Calculation of System Development Fee Per ERU
Water System
Line Description Total
Notes:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)The system development fees are to be applied on an equivalent residential unit (ERU) basis such
that 1 ERU is equal to the estimated capacity requirements for a typical single family residential
connection with a 5/8-inch X 3/4-inch water meter.In accordance with daily water flow capacity
design standards adopted by the State of North Carolina and defined the North Carolina
Administrative Codes (15A NCAC 18C .0409), the level of service requirement for a residential
connection is 400 gallons per day (gpd). Based on the utility's existing planning methodology,it is
assumed that 1 ERU requires a standard level of service of 360 gpd of water system capacity.
Based upon discussions with staff, most of the facilities included for cost recovery in this analysis
were funded with debt.In an effort to account for the facility costs that may be recovered from
user rates as part of the normal budgetary process, a debt service credit is applied to the applicable
fee calculation. The credit is equal to outstanding principal amount on existing utility-related
debt. The principal balance is allocated between water and wastewater as provided in Exhibit 1.
See Exhibit 1 for the development of existing asset costs identified for capital recovery.
It is assumed that the existing transmission facilities are capable of providing average water flow
at least 2.00-times the estimated average treatment capacity.In addition, similar to the
methodology utilized for water treatment,an adjustment is made for unaccounted-for water.
Based on information provided by staff, this analysis assumes losses of 14.0%.
The estimated average daily flow capacity assumes an MDF-to-ADF ratio of 1.50 times.An
additional adjustment is made for assumed unaccounted-for water flows (e.g. line losses)in the
system. Based on information provided by staff, this analysis assumes losses of 14.0%.
Willdan Financial Services Page 24 of 28
5/18/2023
Harnett Regional Water - SDF Study - V3.xlsxHCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 29
Exhibit 3
System Development Fee Analysis
Calculation of System Development Fee Per ERU
Wastewater System
Line Description Total
Existing Facilities:
1 Treatment Facilities 117,282,287$
2 Transmission Facilities 124,240,409
3 Subtotal 241,522,696$ (1)
Less Debt Service Principal:
4 Treatment Facilities (12,152,438)$
5 Transmission Facilities (12,873,176)
6 Subtotal (25,025,614)$ (2)
Net Recoverable Existing Facilities:
7 Treatment Facilities 105,129,849$
8 Transmission Facilities 111,367,233
9 Total 216,497,082$
Existing Treatment Capacity:
10 North Harnett WWTP 7.500
11 South Harnett WWTP 15.000
12 Total Existing Treatment Capacity 22.500
Treatment Capacity:
13 Average Day Treatment Capacity (MGD)22.500
14 I&I Capacity Adjustment 20.0%(3)
15 Adjusted Average Day Treatment Capacity 18.000
Estimated Transmission System Capacity:
16 Transmission-to-Treatment Capacity Factor 1.00
17 Assumed Gross Transmission Capacity 22.500 (4)
18 I&I Capacity Adjustment 20.0%
19 Estimated Transmission Capacity 18.000 (3)
Recoverable Capital Facilities
Available System Capacity (MGD)
Willdan Financial Services Page 25 of 28
5/18/2023
Harnett Regional Water - SDF Study - V3.xlsxHCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 30
Exhibit 3
System Development Fee Analysis
Calculation of System Development Fee Per ERU
Wastewater System
Line Description Total
Estimated Cost Per Gallon of Capacity:
20 Treatment ($/Gallon)5.84$
21 Transmission ($/Gallon)6.19
22 Total Cost Per Gallon of Capacity 12.03$
23 Assumed Standard Level of Service Per ERU (GPD of Capacity)360 (5)
Calculation of SDF Per ERU:
24 Treatment Facilities 2,102$
25 Transmission Facilities 2,228
26 Combined Cost 4,330$
Adjusted Fee - Treatment:
27 Calculated Fee Per ERU 2,102$
28 Less Rounding Adjustment (2)
29 Adjusted Fee 2,100$
Credit Adjusted Fee - Transmission:
30 Calculated Fee Per ERU 2,228$
31 Less Rounding Adjustment (8)
32 Adjusted Fee 2,220$
Proposed SDF Per ERU (Rounded):
33 Treatment Facilities 2,100$
34 Transmission Facilities 2,220
35 Combined Cost 4,320$
Estimated Cost Per Gallon of Capacity
Calculation of Fee Per ERU
Willdan Financial Services Page 26 of 28
5/18/2023
Harnett Regional Water - SDF Study - V3.xlsxHCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 31
Exhibit 3
System Development Fee Analysis
Calculation of System Development Fee Per ERU
Wastewater System
Line Description Total
Notes:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
It is assumed that the wastewater trunk lines and pumping facilities are designed to provide
capacity at least 1.50-times the permitted capacity of the treatment plant.
Similar to the water system, the system development fees for wastewater are to be applied on an
equivalent residential unit (ERU) basis such that 1 ERU is equal to the estimated capacity
requirements for a typical single family residential connection with a 5/8-inch X 3/4-inch water
meter.In accordance with wastewater flow design standards adopted by the State of North
Carolina and defined the North Carolina Administrative Codes (15A NCAC 02T .0114), the level
of service requirement is based on 120 gallons of capacity per day per bedroom for a residential
home, resulting in 360 gallons of capacity per day for a three bedroom residential home.
Similar to the line loss adjustment for water, the wastewater system capacity is reduced by the
impacts of system inflow and infiltration (I&I). The assumed I&I adjustment is based on
discussions with staff.
Based upon discussions with staff, most of the facilities included for cost recovery in this analysis
were funded with debt.In an effort to account for the facility costs that may be recovered from
user rates as part of the normal budgetary process, a debt service credit is applied to the applicable
fee calculation. The credit is equal to outstanding principal amount on existing utility-related debt.
The principal balance is allocated between water and wastewater as provided in Exhibit 1.
See Exhibit 1 for the development of existing asset costs identified for capital recovery.
Willdan Financial Services Page 27 of 28
5/18/2023
Harnett Regional Water - SDF Study - V3.xlsxHCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 32
Exhibit 4
System Development Fee Analysis
Summary of Proposed System Development Fees
Water & Wastewater Systems
Water Wastewater
FEE COMPARISON
Meter Size:
1 Existing 1.00 2,000$ 2,500$ 4,500$
2 Proposed/Calculated 1.00 3,850$ 4,320$ 8,170$
3 Difference 1.00 1,850$ 1,820$ 3,670$
METER-BASED OPTION (1)
Meter Size:
4 5/8 x 3/4 Inch 1.00 3,850$ 4,320$ 8,170$
5 1.0 Inch 2.50 9,625$ 10,800$ 20,425$
6 1.5 Inch 5.00 19,250$ 21,600$ 40,850$
7 2.0 Inch 8.00 30,800$ 34,560$ 65,360$
8 3.0 Inch 16.00 61,600$ 69,120$ 130,720$
9 4.0 Inch 25.00 96,250$ 108,000$ 204,250$
10 6.0 Inch 50.00 192,500$ 216,000$ 408,500$
11 8.0 Inch 80.00 308,000$ 345,600$ 653,600$
OPTIONAL ACTUAL FLOW BASIS (2)
Charge Per Gallon of Capacity (GPD):
12 Treatment Facilities 8.94$ 5.84$ 14.78$
13 Transmission Facilities 1.79 6.19 7.98 14
Cost Per GPD 10.73$ 12.03$ 22.76$
Notes:
(1)
(2)In situations where the meter-based fees will result in the collection of fees significantly different
than the potential demand requirement, a special fee calculation methodology may be applied based
on the unit cost of capacity and the estimated daily capacity needs of the new connection. The
estimated capacity needs will be based on the amount determined by the utility's engineering staff to
be appropriate.
Line Description
The proposed capacity fees are based on the calculated fee per ERU as applied to the respective ERU
factor. The proposed ERU factors for the capacity fees are based on meter equivalency factors
established by the AWWA.
ERU
Factor
Combined
Fee
Fees by System
Willdan Financial Services Page 28 of 28
5/18/2023
Harnett Regional Water - SDF Study - V3.xlsxHCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 33
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 34
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 35
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 36
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 37
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 38
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 39
Quarterly Economic Development Update
October – December 2024
ACTIVE PROJECTS
Active Projects is current and falls outside the months shown for the report.
Projects Total Investment ($) Jobs
22 754.6M 1,891
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
Direct Connection:
Site Consultant, Real Estate Broker, EDPNC Business Developer or Recruiter
Project Inquiries
Project Inquiries / RFI’s Responses Submitted Submitted (%)
34 12 35.29%
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
Direct Connection:
Property Owners, Private Sector Developers/Builders, Economic Development Property
Development Ally
Industrial Product Inventory
Buildings Sites Ready Sites
4 5 4
Site Identification Site Readiness
In-progress: Early conversations with three
property owners – 830 acres between the
three properties
In-progress: Completion of Due Diligence on
a 243 +- acre site in Lillington
Item 6
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 40
Site Development Shell / Spec Building
In-progress: Clearing and grading project at
Edgerton Industrial Park
In-progress: Samet is in the planning and
design phase for Building 1, a 162,000 SF
Class A industrial building, with a projected
completion timeframe of Q4 2025
ENGAGEMENT + LEARNING
Engagement activities are varied and with multiple audiences.
Engagement + Learning
Prospect Visit Site Consultant /
Broker
Developer / Investor Property Owner
2 5 7 4
Existing Company Business Partner Community /
Regional Event
Professional
Development
2 19 7 6
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT – HOT TOPICS
1. Harnett 95 – property closed (October 2024)
2. MidPort 95 – property closed (December 2024)
3. KriGen – bought out by Dynamic Biologics
4. ILC Dover – Ingersoll Rand
5. Marketing Best Practice
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 41
FEBRUARY 3, 2025 APPOINTMENTS NEEDED
HARNETT COUNTY COMMISSION FOR WOMEN AND YOUTH We currently have five (5) member vacancies on this Board. There is one vacancy in District 1, two vacancies in District 3, one vacancy in District 4, and one vacancy in District 5. Pursuant Jo the bylaws, "The HCCWY will consist of no more than 10 citizens appointed by Hamett County
Board of Commissioners. Two members shall be appointed from each of the five Commissioners' districts.
Individuals that work in Hamett County, but are not residents of Hamett County shall be eligible for
nomination of membership to the HCCWY as a representative of the district in which they work. "Melanie Stewart would like to be considered for reappointment. She is currently serves as a District 4 member. (Application attached) We have received an application from Laura Barney. She would like to be considered for appointment. She resides in District 3. (Application attached) We have received an application from Rebecca Achilli. She would like to be considered for appointment. She resides in District 4. (Application attached) We have received an application from Nicole Turner. She would like to be considered for appointment. She resides in District 4. (Application attached) [HARNETT COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT We currently have four ( 4) alternate member vacancies on this Board. Pursuant to the bylaws, "The Harnett County Board of Adjustment shall consist of five members and six
alternates. All Board of Adjustment members and alternates shall be residents of Hamett County. Each County
Commissioner District shall have at least one representative (Member or Alternate) whenever possible and
ex.cept to the ex.tent otherwise required by law, on the Board of Adjustment. "Mr. Jamey Sharlow would like to resign from this Board. He is relocating making him ineligible to continue to serve. We have received an application from Carolyn Williams. She would like to be considered for appointment. She resides in District 1. If appointed, the appointment would be for an alternate member. (Application attached) We have received an application from Robert Cole. He would like to be considered for appointment. He resides in District 4. If appointed, the appointment would be for an alternate member. (Application attached) We have received an application from Chantel Paoni. She would like to be considered for appointment. She resides in District 4. If appointed, the appointment would be for an alternate member. (Application attached) We have received an application from R.H. Byrd, Jr. He would like to be considered for appointment. He resides in District I . If appointed, the appointment would be for an alternate member. (Application attached)
Item 8
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 42
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 43
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 44
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 45
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 46
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 47
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 48
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 49
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 50
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 51
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 52
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 53
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 54
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 55
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 56
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 57
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 58
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 59
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 60
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 61
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 62
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 63
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 64
HCBOC 012825 ws Pg. 65