ROAD/DAM REPAIR UPDATES

The purpose of this month’s newsletter is to provide the community with a progress report on the road/dam project.

​

Background: At its first meeting on December 1, 2025, the current board had three engineering proposals for the repair of the road/dam. The engineering proposal is the first major step of the repair process and consists of multiple tasks. Some of these tasks include, but are not limited to the following:

​

• Land survey

• Geotech survey

• Hydraulic and hydrologic modeling

• Engineering design
   

These engineering plans were obtained during the previous board’s tenure. The proposals were from Garner Engineering (Garner), Alpha & Omega Group (A&O), and S&ME, Inc. (S&ME). Of the three proposals, only the S&ME proposal would bring the dam into compliance with state requirements.

​

At the December meeting, the board decided to ask Garner and A&O to revise their proposals to also bring the dam into compliance with state requirements. Stan Akien, Regional Director of the NC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), recommended this change in the event the dam is ever upgraded to a high-hazard classification.

​

The request for revised proposals was sent to Garner and A&O in early December.

​

Recent events: In the January 5th meeting, the board was informed that we should be expecting the revised proposal from A&O within a day or so, but though Garner had been contacted at least one additional time, Garner had not replied to the request. The board authorized the formation of a Dam Committee consisting of two board members and two community members who had expressed interest in serving.

​

On January 6, the A&O revised proposal was received, and the S&ME and A&O proposals were distributed electronically to the board members.

​

On Sunday, January 11, the Dam Committee had its first meeting. Committee members are Larry Moore (Board President), Erica Zoller (Board Secretary), and community members Caroline Kennedy and Bill Carpenter. The two proposals (A&O and S&ME) were given to the members. Background and current status, much like what is included in this newsletter, were discussed. The committee decided to have the Board Secretary send one final email to Garner, informing the company that we were beginning the final decision process and that if they wanted to be considered for the project, we would need a revised proposal by January 21, 2026.

​

Meanwhile, the committee members were asked to read and study the proposals to determine what they had in common and what distinguished them, as well as the total cost payable to the engineering firms.

​

Some of the more obvious differences include the following:

• A&O outsources many of the data-gathering tasks required for the engineering plan creation. These outsourced tasks include land survey, outsourced to Ed Holmes and Associates (Holmes), and Geotechnical and subsurface investigation, outsourced to ECS Southeast, LLC (ECS).

• S&ME retains these services in-house.

• S&ME’s proposal includes the creation of an Emergency Action Plan (EAP).

• When contacted, A&O indicated that they will include the creation of an EAP for an additional $2500.

• A&O estimates that the engineering plan creation, including multiple tests, surveys, actual plan creation, and state review and approval, could take approximately 24 weeks from the time the contract is awarded to them.

• S&ME states that they should be able to begin the geotechnical investigation within four weeks of receiving written authorization and that engineering analysis and design services are an additional 8 to 12 weeks. An estimate of state approval time is not addressed in the S&ME proposal.
   

Obviously, there is a cost difference to the BLPOA. Initial review of the two proposals shows the following figures:
 

A&O fee                   $76,100

ECS fee                     $24,900

Total A&O fee         $101,000

 

S&ME fee                 $144,950
 

Two things to understand: these two proposals are not identical. They contain multiple differences. Understanding those differences, negotiating potential changes to the proposals, and determining how those changes affect the bottom line is the initial task for the Dam Committee. A&O's inclusion of the EAP has been addressed as indicated above, but it is necessary to understand the additional differences.

​

The other thing to remember is that the engineering proposal creation, which includes multiple types of surveys and tests, is only the first part of this project. Once the engineering plans are created, a construction firm will be contracted to do the actual repair. Both engineering firms estimate at least six months for the construction phase.

The Dam Committee is scheduled to meet again on Sunday, February 1, to discuss the findings and, hopefully, make a recommendation to the entire board. The board’s next meeting is scheduled for Monday, February 2. Watch your email for a new update in February.

 

In related news, the board approved moving a sizeable portion of the FEMA funds from the regular account to multiple Certificates of Deposits. First Citizens Bank offers a five-month CD with an APY of 3.36%. The investment transferred $750,000 into three $250,000 CDs. Each $250,000 investment will mature in mid-June and is projected to produce over $3400 in interest income, for a total of more than $10,200 in additional funds for the road/dam project.  At maturity, we will have the option to move some or all of the funds back into the FEMA account or reinvest all or part in new CDs. This investment still leaves more than $571,000 in the FEMA account available for expenses incurred before mid-June, such as the engineering contract award.