Washington officials know fixing drainage problems in the city will be a costly task, possibly around $20 million.

During its meeting Monday, the City Council discussed an update of two drainage studies — one presented in September 2007 and one presented in February 2009 — that identified drainage problems and recommended projects to solve those problems. The update was prepared by Rivers & Associates, which determined what it would cost to complete the projects identified in the previous studies.

On Monday, the council’s discussion focused on how to pay for the recommended projects and the best way to complete the projects. Frankie Buck, the city’s public-works director, said the $20 million figure is a “liberal” estimate of cost of the proposed projects. Buck said doing the projects in phases would be more affordable for the city.

“I think it points out to me, and it should point out to all of us, that we can’t address and solve the problems of flooding in the city of Washington by putting $200,000 a year against a $20 million project. If you put a half a million dollars a year, we’re still 20 years down the road,” Councilman Doug Mercer said. “I think it’s time to make the decision to go borrow the monies and do the job. Get it done and then people will not have the flooding issues we have today, and we can go on down the road and do what we need to do in other areas.”

Buck said the decision to do the recommended projects in phases at a $10 million level, a $5 million level or other levels is one the council must make, not him.

“I do think we need to look at the source of revenue,” City Manager Bobby Roberson said. “I think the public-works director is correct. I understand there is a problem, and I agree with Councilman Mercer $200,000 (is not much). However, I think on the other side we need to look at the revenue stream and see where we are. As you well know, this is an extremely difficult budget this year. If you’re going to move into stormwater (projects) and you’re going to find a revenue source, you’ve got to increase something along the way to meet our obligations. If we’re going to head in that direction, we need to work with the finance director and talk about revenue streams in order to accomplish the goal. You cant’ say it’s going to cost this amount of money and not address how you’re going to fund it.”

Roberson added: “We’ve got to find a funding source to make it happen.”

Mercer said if city residents want the drainage problems addressed, that’s what the city should do. “We’re never going to solve the problems of flooding in the city of Washington unless we put together a big package and do the job and get it done,” he said.

Roberson agreed with Mercer, but reiterated the need to find the money to fix the problem. “If you want to up the taxes in order to cover the debt, that’s a option you can consider,” he said.

“And that’s the reason that I suggested earlier that it be put to a bond (referendum), a vote of the people and that the people understand that if we borrow this money here’s what it’s going to do to the tax rate for the next 20 years,” Mercer said. “That’s the question. Are the citizens willing to spend the money to solve the flooding issue or do we continue to put a drop in the bucket and patch one hole and there are 45 more holes to be patched?”

Councilman Richard Brooks said he favors doing drainage projects in phases and identifying revenue sources to pay for the projects. Brooks said he wants, if possible, to avoid incurring a lot of debt to fix the drainage problems.

Mayor Mac Hodges expressed concern that city residents who live outside the areas where drainage problems occur regularly would not support the city issuing bonds to solve drainage problems.

Council member William Pitt said the city must address drainage issues as soon as possible. Failure to do so likely would result in people considering moving to Washington from doing so because they would think the city does not care for its residents, he said.

Although the city began making drainage improvements in the Jack’s Creek basin about 12 years ago, city officials acknowledged those improvements, made in phases as money become available, need to be expanded and expedited.

 

BACKGROUND

An update of two previous drainage studies indicates completing projects included in those studies would cost the city approximately $20 million.

That update is scheduled to be discussed during the City Council’s meeting today, according to the tentative agenda for that meeting.

The two previous studies — September 2007 and February 2009 — were reviewed by Rivers & Associates, hired by the city to determine what it likely would cost to complete unfinished project identified in the two studies.

“Although this is a very rough model for escalation of the construction cost estimates, it is based upon the best information available without completely re-preparing the cost estimates from the original study,” reads a memorandum from Rivers & Associated to Frankie Buck, the city’s public-works director.

The 2009 study estimates the cost for drainage improvements in a section of the Jack’s Creek Basin at $4.9 million, according to a memorandum from Buck to the mayor and City Council.

An area of major concern includes the Brown Street-East 12^th Street area near Tayloe’s Hospital Pharmacy. The study, performed by Rivers & Associates, calls for a series of box culverts along Willow and Simmons streets. That culvert system would enter Jack’s Creek upstream of Park Drive, according to the memorandum. The benefit of the culvert system would be avoiding disturbance of neighboring backyards west of Simmons Street.

According to the update, one option for the Brown Street-East 12^th Street area would cost about $7.9 million, and a second option would cost an estimated $7.1 million.

Another area of concern is upstream from Eighth Street. Improvements from Eighth Street to Oak Drive, including installment of a box culvert at John Small Avenue (U.S. Highway 264), would cost an estimated $5.2 million, according to the study performed in 2007. Because U.S. 64 is a federal highway, the North Carolina Department of Transportation is responsible for installing the box culvert, according to city officials.

The Jack’s Creek study area project would cost an estimated $8.1 million to complete, according to the update. The work identified in the Airport Canal study area carries a projected cost of $4.3 million to complete.

Although the city began making drainage improvements in the Jack’s Creek basin about 12 years ago, city officials acknowledged those improvements, made in phases as money become available, need to be expanded and expedited. During a council meeting in September 2016, Councilman Doug Mercer said doing drainage projects in phases does not do much to solve the problem. “I think it’s time for us to bite the bullet. If we need a $10 million or $15 million project, let’s put together a bond issue, ask the people to vote on it. If the people say they want to correct the problem, we borrow the money and fix it. It’s time to quit kicking the can down the road,” Mercer said then.

The city’s proposed budget for the 2017-2018 fiscal year, which begins July1, includes $200,000 to address drainage issues.

At the council’s retreat in February, Mercer said, “It’s a matter of how much farther back upstream can we afford this year. We started here. We moved to here. How much can we finance this year? Regrettably, we’re putting $150,000 to $200,000 a year into a $10-million project. I made the statement one time that 50 years from now we’ll complete what we said we needed to do this year, and we’ll have a completely new set of problems. We need to go ahead and bite the bullet and decided how we’re going to finance it and do what we need to do.”