Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Supply topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County seeks intermediate water options while modeling long‑term Lower Neuse project
Summary
Staff and consultants updated commissioners on a multi‑jurisdictional water supply study; options under analysis include buying interim capacity from Raleigh and partnerships with neighboring counties while a large Lower Neuse project moves toward final financial modeling and Local Government Commission review.
JD Solman updated the Johnston County Board of Commissioners on July 21 on progress in a multi‑year water supply study that is examining both a long‑term Lower Neuse water treatment project and shorter‑term, intermediate options to manage growth.
Solman said the county is working with Clayton as a roughly 50‑50 partner on a major project sized to meet build‑out needs but that financial modeling and governance remain incomplete. “Affordability is really what we're trying to drive at,” Solman said. He told commissioners the team needs to complete the financial model, with participation from county and Clayton consultants, and then pursue Local Government Commission (LGC) concurrence for the large project.
Solman said the long‑term project estimate in the current financial model has increased to about $770 million. As interim alternatives, staff are studying purchases of treated water from the city of Raleigh—options discussed include 2 MGD via Old U.S. 70 or 4 MGD via Pool Road—or expanded purchases from Wilson, Harnett, Dunn or Goldsboro. Solman said Raleigh’s capacity charges appeared more favorable in early comparisons; he also said recent legislation on inter‑basin transfers (IBTs) has eased some prior restrictions and broadened intermediate options.
Commissioners and staff discussed how intermediate purchases would affect rates, system development fees and timing. County staff said the system‑development‑fee analysis the county uses for capital planning is based on a 20‑year planning period; under current negotiations, short‑term purchases from Raleigh were not included in that 20‑year fee calculation but could be added if agreements change. A staff member explained that charging less than the full recommended system development fee in the near term would reduce cash on hand and likely require more borrowing, with rate impacts later.
Solman said the team will continue financial modeling with county and Clayton consultants and meet with financial advisors, including Davenport, and expects additional financial analysis results in coming months. He recommended pursuing and modeling intermediate purchases (for example, up to 6 MGD from Raleigh in different delivery schemes) while continuing to refine the long‑term Lower Neuse financing and governance options for LGC review.
Commissioners asked for modeled rate impacts of intermediate options; Solman and staff confirmed the intent to show both water‑only and combined water‑and‑sewer bill effects and to convert percentage changes into dollars per customer in future model runs. No formal decisions were made at the meeting; staff said follow‑up consultant meetings were scheduled and additional briefings to commissioners will follow.
