Jones County reviews competing water and sewer priorities, funding options in March 4 work session

At a March 4 work session, Jones County staff briefed the Board of Commissioners on a broad set of water and sewer projects and funding options, highlighting aging infrastructure in several neighborhoods, constraints tied to grant program boundaries and the tradeoffs of raising customer rates.

County staff described immediate maintenance needs including replacement of two troublesome lift stations in the River North area, a remaining 6,000–7,000 feet (and additional segments) of sanitary sewer that staff say still requires rehabilitation, and separate neighborhood problems tied to community septic systems in the Cole Drive/Shelby Court area that have led to multiple condemned units. Staff also walked the board through planned water projects: the elevated tank being fabricated for the Light Tie area, Graham Road Phase 2 construction, a new well site at Masseyville and proposed booster‑station and meter upgrades.

The briefers said Jones County has a limited amount of unrestricted bond funds — roughly $2,000,000 on hand — and separate pots of program money that carry location or scope restrictions. Staff noted leftover GEFA clean‑water funds from a prior industrial park contract, federal COVID ARPA restrictions that require spending within previously submitted project areas, and potential Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) match opportunities for selected neighborhoods. They told commissioners that larger projects would require borrowing, grants or inter‑county partnerships.

Why it matters: aging sewer mains and lift stations are producing recurring service failures and, in places, public‑health consequences. County staff repeatedly flagged River North and the Cole Drive/Shelby Court cluster as areas where short‑term fixes are expensive and long‑term solutions would require major capital investment or special‑tax‑district borrowing.

Key project details and concerns

- River North lift stations and sewer rehab: Staff described persistent pump failures at two River North lift stations (identified as Station 2/Wimbledon and Station 3/Eagle) and extensive infiltration on the collection system. The county has already completed roughly 3,815 linear feet of rehab and said another significant portion — “probably in the 6,000–7,000 foot length” plus several thousand feet on the east side — remains. Contractors told staff some segments are in very poor condition, including a manhole found in a creek.

- Cole Drive/Shelby Court septic cluster: County staff reported that a community sewer arrangement serving several homes in the Hampton Lakes/Cole Drive area was never connected to the county system; some homes rely on drain fields or aging septic systems. Staff said the county now owns the property where the shared system sits and that “several” lots appear condemned or uninhabitable because the community septic is failing. Fixing the problem would likely require relocating or rebuilding the small grinder/pump station and connecting affected homes to a conventional sewer system; staff proposed pursuing design work and later bringing a bid package, and asked whether the board wanted them to move forward.

- Grizzleville/Grizzlyville plant and other treatment work: Staff estimated that replacing the Grizzleville plant could be tens of millions of dollars (staff cited an estimate in the range of $45,000,000 for a new plant in the area), plus smaller equipment upgrades elsewhere (chemical feed, clear‑well modifications). They flagged smaller plant upgrades at Henderson Road and noted that some treatment work is comparatively modest (feed pumps, minor upgrades) while other items are major capital investments.

- Roadway and easement challenges on Highway 49 and other mains: Staff described persistent easement and utility‑coordination problems on Highway 49 projects, including numerous underground fiber and phone cables in the desired bore path, a wetland/fill area that required heavy equipment, and a private landowner who has not granted a 40‑by‑40 foot access easement. Board members discussed negotiations with a corporate landowner (referred to by staff as Vulcan/Martin Marietta) and the prospect of a condemnation letter if negotiations stall; staff said they would pursue more outreach before condemnation.

- Costs and unit prices discussed: Staff provided several contractor price examples: current county waterline installation pricing roughly $153 per linear foot for straightforward installation, and much higher prices (examples of $300 per foot) for deep cuts or difficult gravity sewer work. Staff used a three‑mile waterline example to illustrate that even relatively short corridors can run into the low‑millions in construction costs before pavement, drainage or restoration are included.

Funding, regional options and next steps

Staff laid out funding sources and constraints: leftover GEFA (state) clean‑water funds that must be used for sewer‑related eligible work, bond funds estimated at about $2,000,000 that are more flexible, CDBG potential awards (roughly $1,000,000 every other year but requiring local match and often insufficient to cover full project cost), and COVID ARPA funds that staff said must remain within previously defined project areas. Staff also described pursuing congressional directed spending and recommended continuing conversations with neighboring Wilkinson and Twiggs counties about shared water development in areas with existing wells and production capacity.

Commissioners pressed staff on rate increases to cover long‑term debt service and operations; staff summarized that any rate action would need to balance affordability for county customers with the need to fund projects that expand capacity and bring new customer revenue (for example, commercial or industrial users).

Direction from the board and staff assignments

Commissioners generally authorized staff to pursue design work for the Cole Drive/Shelby Court tie‑in and to further discuss River North options with the special tax district and residents, seek additional outreach to the corporate property owner on Highway 49, and obtain updated cost estimates for selected projects (Ruby Drive, Henderson Road, Sun Valley, Grizzleville, and others). Staff said they would return with designs, updated cost estimates and possible funding approaches for a future work session.

No formal policy vote or final appropriations occurred during the work session; commissioners set follow‑up homework, including further outreach to potential funders and continued negotiation with private easement holders.

Ending

Staff scheduled follow‑up work and said they would assemble cost models for the projects the board prioritizes and run rate impacts. Commissioners agreed to reconvene for another work session to review designs, updated cost estimates and potential funding packages.