01 May Open Meeting: April 27
Questions and Answers
Below is a list of questions and comments submitted prior to and during the meeting. Questions that were received before the meeting are numbered Pre #1 through Pre #32. Questions submitted during the meeting using the Q&A function are numbered in the order they were entered during the meeting. In tnis listing they have been re-ordered sometimes to combine questions addressing essentially the same topic. In some cases, where a participant registered a comment, no response is provided.
|Questions Submitted Prior to the Meeting
|1 – Did you check the financial condition of Kris Bass Engineering. Dunn & Bradstreet states it “ has 2 total employees across all of its locations and generates $183,708 in sales which is less than the cost for concept 3. Can they absorb cost overruns?
|We did not verify their finances. However, Kiris Bass is an engineering firm. They will not be the construction firm.
We have not started contract discussions with the firm that will do the work. So, we do not know if we will be contracting with Kris Bass or the company doing the construction.
All construction contracts have clauses that the estimate is based upon known factors and if some unknown factor arises that the contractor is not liable for these. The important thing is to account for as much of the condition of the property that is known.
|2 – Isn’t “Doing nothing” also an option?
|Yes, continuing with our annual dredging is an option.
|3 – Is $240,000 the most concept 3 will cost including all contingencies and will it proceed if a matching grant cannot be obtained?
|No, we will not proceed without a grant.
|4 – What guarantee is there that the thalwags and pools in concept 3 will not fill with silt and have to be cleared periodically at a cost of more than $500/year?
|There are no guarantees. So, this is a possibility.
|1 – How much does it cost to maintain the small pond at the intersection of Village Way and Creekwood and the two ponds in Camden Park?
|Fitch Creations manages those ponds and we do not have cost information from them.
However, those ponds do not have the sediment problem that Beechmast Pond has. It is this problem that has driven the study.
|2 – How much of the sand that washes into Beechmast Pond comes naturally from our land and how much comes from upstream, perhaps from all the building around Briar Chapel?
|Per the study that Kris Bass performed, almost all, if not all, comes from within our community.
That said, we do have contributing problems of water runoff from adjacent properties.
|3 – Did we have to dredge before BC and the CCCC area was destroyed and built up?
|Yes, dredging began with the widening of 15-501.
|4 – If they have any responsibility, shouldn’t we be aggressively working with them to assume some/all financial responsibility for dredging?
|We were able to obtain some funding from the DOT associated with the widening of 15-501. However, the DOT did not have to comply with the erosion control requirements that BC was held do. Since BC has been compliant, then there are no grounds to say that they are financially responsible.
|1 – Did the consultant address the potential for a wetlands creating an ideal mosquito habitat?
|During the presentation from Kris Bass they did mention that mosquitoes can be a problem in the wetlands option. We were told that controlling the flora would help mitigate the mosquito problem.
|2 – Over 20 years (which is the expected lifespan of most current residents), #1 is the least expensive option, yet all information provided since the last meeting seems to be pushing #3 (everything listed on the “Plan for April Open Meeting” pertains to Option 3). Doesn’t this have to go a vote of membership before a decision is made?
|A vote of the membership is not required per the FHA by-laws. The FHA Board is empowered to make this decision.
The actual payback timeframe is closer to 16 years between option 1 and 3.
|3 – If Option #3 was chosen due to cost, what if a grant is not obtained? Can we then change our approach at that point in time?
|If a grant is not available, then other solutions will be evaluated.
|4 – If we did go with #3, would the Board issue a solicitation for bids, or would Kris Bass do the work? If the latter, I see a potential COI with the recommendations.
|Kris Bass is not the construction company, but you have a valid point. We will work with Kris Bass to ensure that they request multiple bids.
|There are many government based attempts to deal with upstream pollution, which was one of the Boards Concerns about the pond.
The “Polluter Pays” law – HB 506 which is currently in the Rules Committee to be discussed, before going to the NC House. Hopefully a bill like that will eventually pass.
Good for pond pollution recovery if it comes from outside Fearrington.
Bad for homeowners whose septic systems fail and have to clean up quickly.
|1 – How about hooking up all the septic homes to the new sewer system to protect the pond?
|While is sounds great, achieving this is very difficult and expensive. There is no easy way to extend sewer lines in this area. Picking a low point to take advantage of gravity flows would require massive destruction of our flora. The only viable path is to dig up our streets and place the lines there. As you will remember this was one of our objections to the BC FV wastewater solution. Also, with this option homes lower than the street would need to install pumps to pump the wastewater up to the street level.
|2 – How are the historical district homes septic system integrities verified, is this only up to the homeowner?
|It is the responsibility of the landowner to maintain their septic systems.
|3 – I notice in high water and rain periods there is more white foam in the creek i presume that is from phosphate in septic systems and from fertilized lawns ?
|We are not aware of this problem. This is something that would need to be investigated.
It is very unlikely that this problem is from the septic systems. Could be something naturally occurring in our area.
|4 – If that House Bill 506 or one similar to it became law, would the septic owners need insurance to cover the integrity of their drainfields and septic tanks?
|Each landowner would need to make the decision on this issue that is appropriate for them.
|5 – Can one actually get pollution insurance for the pond?
|We would have to research this.
|6 – Option 2 ( Wetland ) , will the sediment filtering drain at the dam, be removed for this option, or stay as is ?
|If a wetlands is the preferred solution, we will seek more information on how this is to be constructed.
|7 – Would it be possible to make a hybrid of Plan 1 & 2 where the existing sediment filtering drain at the dam is removed ?
|We need better information on your thoughts on this approach.
Kris Bass proposed three different solutions. I am confident that if there was a hybrid solution that they would have included that as well.
|8 – Could the existing drain be replaced by something similar to the cascade and tail race, that comes into play at the current ponds’ exit at the dam with Plan 3?
|If option 3 is the preferred choice, we will work with Kris Bass on the implementation plan and this would be a topic of discussion.
|9 – With the previous comment in mind, could we narrow the pond, and take the dredged sediment, and parts of the partially deconstructed dam to fill in parts of the pond near the road, to have a wetland in between the road and the now narrower pond. This would allow more sediment to flow downstream perhaps, and let us start in on dealing with a small wetland. I suppose this step could be a partial build toward plan 3, which could be built out some date in the future, if folks still want more of a stream than a pond. As well, if this approach could be taken, can we remove the sediment drain and have a nice waterfall at the tailrace below the exit of the pond. That would be a nice water feature with the bridge over the creek at that end of the pond / wetland. Either way, if folks opt for Plan 2 or 3, could we name the new area, Beachmast Park.
|We absolutely can name the area Beechmast Park if either 2 or 3 is chosen.
Your suggestion appears to be similar to your hybrid suggestion above. I think that if option 3 is chosen and there is not a grant available, that your suggestion might be a means to migrate towards an alternative approach.
|10 – Next question then, if we opt for plan 2 or 3, and call this area, Beechmast Park, who will be responsible for maintaining the wetland area. This is much more area than trails folks generally work with, and the garden club folks are pretty busy at Jenny Park. There will be plants and walking trails through there that will need work, especially in the first few years.
|The FHA will be responsible for maintaining this area, like they are responsible for maintaining the pond now.
Yes, flora and paths would be in the solution.
|11 – Does the consultants proposal provide any initial maintenance for the new wetland after they pay for the initial build out.
|No, there are no provisions for the consultant or construction firm to perform any maintenance after buildout.
|1 – If 50% funding is not awarded after the two year application process, what will happen? Can the residents vote again to approve or disapprove the allocation of the full cost ($240,000) of Concept 3 which could be higher in two years?
|If option 3 is chosen and no grant is available, then the Board will have to decide what will be done. Since membership on the Board will change if this happens, it would be a decision that the then current Board will have to make.
|2 – In the last meeting, it was stated (in answering a resident’s question) that the ongoing maintenance costs were not part of the estimate for Concept 3. Besides the $3000 to apply for two grants, what are the estimates for the additional costs that are not in the Kris Bass Concept proposal:
* cost to build a new walkway/paths when the dam is removed?
*annual landscaping costs (mowing, new plants/trees etc) to maintain and enhance the
beauty of the area?
*will funds be used to save the fish/frogs and relocate to other habitats?
|In NC it is not permitted to relocate wildlife without a permit. Frogs, fish and turtles will migrate down the stream when the pond is drained.
Landscaping the area will be included in the initial construction and buildout.
It was mentioned in the previous meeting that on-going landscaping expenses were not included in the cost projections. However, maintenance of the water area of whichever solution was included.
|1 – In the wetland option, water level is lowered 2 ft: a) is this accomplished by lowering the height of outflow structure? b) will the berm height be lowered accordingly? c) will the pipe leaving wetland to achieve 9 ft drop to creek level improve condition of bankings downstream of berm?
|If the wetlands is the preferred solution, then the design would need to be done on how this is achieved. At this point it is unknown exactly how this will be accomplished.
|2 – How do grant opportunities compare for wetland vs. stream restoration option?
|We have been told that grant opportunities are available for both. We were also informed that funding levers differ drastically. Restoring to a stream is the highest level of funding grant.
|3 – As the Bass Report explains, removal of the berm will cause the stream to regain its much lower natural elevation by carving out the current ground level that is well above the natural stream level due to decades of sediment build up. It’s very difficult to read the vertical scale of the graph showing the bank elevation but it looks to be about 4 ft higher than the stream. How will this bank be stabilized and will it be safe to have a walking trail nearby the stream or must it remain where currently located, quite south of the stream bed?
|The actual design would be determined once a decision is made on which solution is to be implemented. So, at this time we cannot answer this.
However, the Board supports the approach that a group of residents will be involved in the design and implementation of the solution.
|I am interested in what studies have been done to understand the impact of the elimination of Beechmast Pond on the wildlife that make there home there. I see many turtles, birds, and an occasional swimming mammal (not sure if muskrat, otter, or beaver).
|There have been no studies performed on the impact to wildlife.
|My husband and I have lived in Fearrington Village for twenty years. We are at 110 Creekwood. The trail that leads to the Beechmast Pond is just yards from our home. One of the delights I hold dear is my almost daily trips to sit by the pond. If you have not experienced the tranquility this special place offers I beg you to visit before making the decision to turn the pond into wetlands that will become a home for mistletoes and snakes.
|Leslie & Jim Palmer
|The pond is much enjoyed by my Creekwood neighbors whose homes back up to it. Stocked with fish when we first moved here, the pond has been a Fearrington destination for a generation of delighted grandchildren. I have to wonder why the need to make a change. Is it purely a financial issue? Is it a waste water run off issue? The pond and dam have not had any flooding problems since the filters were last cleaned. I know, as mentioned, I am there almost daily. While the stream offers a better option than the wetlands, I have to question how necessary it is to destroy this peaceful setting.
|Leslie & Jim Palmer
|Questions and Comments During the Meeting
|How many residents are on this webinar?
|A total of 152 individuals logged in at on time. Of course, a number of couples will have viewed the webinar together, so this is an underestimate of the number of participants. GP
|Are solar panels allowed in Fearrington? I don’t see it addressed in handbook but perhaps I missed it. Many calls received lately.
|Solar panels may be installed in Fearrington Village and in Camden Park with approval of the relevant Board. They need to be black, and placed in an appropriate location on the roof. Please note that you are not be permitted to remove healthy trees to improve sunlight.
|What were all the survey crews doing lately? They seem to be from the DOT and others a private firm. Were they surveying the roads?
|The only thing we know is that NCDOT is planning to rebuild 15/501 from Chatham Park to the Chatham line at Walmart. The planed date for start of construction is 2027. The only planned construction in the near future would be new entrances and outlets on 15/501 if the project across from Harris Teeter is ever built.
|Questions Concerning Beechmast Pond
|Has there been a study to understand the impact of all the animals that live in and around the pond? There are lots of birds and turtles that live around the pond. I have also seen a number of swimming mammels there.
|There have been no studies performed on the impact to wildlife.
|I too would like to know the impact on animals living in and surrounding the Beechmast Pond. Has there been a study done on this? Thanks.
|There have been no studies performed on the impact to wildlife.
|I too would like to know the impact on animals living in and surrounding the Beechmast Pond. Can a study be commissioned (this really seems like a no-brainer…please!!)?
|There have been no studies performed on the impact to wildlife.
|The plat says sediment and erosion control pond. I can send the record. Beech mast Pond.Plat book 23, page 95, entered in Chatham County Registry, August 1, 1978, 11:30 am. Copy is a bit splotchy, but those appear to be the numbers. Sedimentation and erosion control pond.
| While there might be a plat indicating this as a sediment control pond, the county and state are not managing the pond as such.
Sediment ponds are dry ponds. They fill up after a rainfall, allow the sediment to settle to the bottom and then slowly drain completely dry. There are requirements for annual inspections and maintenance of such ponds.
Sediment ponds are not attractive. There are two sediment ponds in FV, one beside Rutherford and the other at the end of Burke Place. I encourage anyone to look at these ponds before you suggest making Beechmast into a sediment pond.
|Plat book 23, page 95, entered in Chatham County Registry, August 1, 1978, 11:30 am. Copy is a bit splotchy, but those appear to be the numbers. Sedimentation and erosion control pond.
|Kris Bass Co at stated at their meeting that they did not know the depth of the pond so how do we know it is only 5 feet? And, why didn’t they take measurements of the depth?
|Kris Bass did perform a study on the water capacity of the current pond, so they must have measured the depth.
We previously sent an email to Kris Bass stating that our measurements indicate that the pond is between 2.5 and 5 feet deep. The response we received from Kris Bass was: “These measurements concur with measurements we took during our site visit.”
|What proportion of the cost of implementing Concept 3 is for modifying the dam/spillway vs. for restoring the stream?
|We have no information on how the costs are divided between specific construction activities.
|In option 3 where does the sediment go when it leaves the property. What is the storm draining for a heavy rain?
|The sediment flows down Bush Creek.
|If wetlands, would the mosquitoes be worse around here
|Not sure if mosquitoes would be worse than we currently have. We were told that the way to control mosquitoes in wetlands is to control the flora. Cattails are the worse!
|These are all expensive in cash and for the environment and wildlife but the savings only kick in after around 20-25 years. Why are we eager to change the pond at all?
|We are not eager to change the pond. However, we are examining the costs to our homeowners and Beechmast pond is a large expense. So, the study was performed as an expense mitigation effort to keep our annual dues low.
The payback period of each alternative approach to the pond does differ. Option 1, enlarged forebay, has a payback of around 6 years. For Option 3, restore to a stream, has a payback period of around 9 years later, with a matching grant.
|In Kris Bass proposal, it said that dredging would be every 5 yrs. Why does this proposal say it is $12,000 for dredging?
|You are correct, the dredging does occur every five years. The expense to dredge after five years is $15,000 which is pro-rated at $3,000 annually.
Our wording was not clear, but the cost projections and graphs reflect a $3,000 annual expense associated with option 1.
|In a corporate setting it would be unacceptable to only have a reply from one vendor
|We agree and will ask Kris Bass to have multiple sources for the construction.
|What was the reason why the pond was originally built?
|This has not been determined. It is not clear if the original intent was as a temporary structure, a permanent sediment pond, or a permanent pond. However, it is not being managed as a sediment pond, so we conclude that was not the intent.
|We are new here. How did this pond get to be?
|It was built by the developer.
|Why is Option #1 not on that chart?
|There are two charts showing annual costs, and two charts showing total costs. Option 1 is reflected in the second of each pair of charts.
|We have a very different environment than was here 50+ years ago: more intense rain, much more construction in the future in the surrounding areas. How will the stream handle increased stormwater in recent years? The sediment from 15-501 construction, that had barely started? The Creekwood trail area looks like a bad flood plain in some areas.
|As our rainfall has increased, so has the erosion and sediment problem. The stream will allow the sediment to flow downstream. This would have no impact on the Creekwood trail area.
|Who will make the decision on which of the three options will be chosen?
|The FHA Board will make the final decision after input from the community.
|I would also like to know how the final decision will be made.
|The Board will consider the desires of the community as well as factors associated with risks and expenses when making the final decision.
|Could we have the figures for offsite trucking? When do you anticipate Fitch no longer being able to accept grit—and why exactly? Impending regulations? There is still plenty of building going…
|We do not have figures for offsite dumping of the sediment. We would face increased costs due to increased distance to the dump, and the location where the sediment is dumped would also charge a fee.
We do not know how much longer we can continue to use the Fitch facility to dump our sediment. Fitch is authorized to build approximately another 160 homes. After that they have no other permitted sites. So, building in our community could stop as soon as 10 years.
|At about 10,000 a year to dredge now annually, why does your graph show a cost of 400,000 in 20 years if we do nothing? It should show 200,000. The numbers seem questionable
|If there is no inflation, you are correct. However, our cost model uses the same 3% inflation rate that our Reserve Study uses.
Looking at the graph, it appears that after 20 years our total cost is approximately $350,000. The exact figure is $344,118.
|Does anyone live downstream of the dam?
|Fitch Creations does own property downstream. This property is not approved for any development at this time. Beyond that, the U. S. Government owns the next parcel, which is Jordan Lake.
|Granger lives below the pond. For 21 years. I’m worried about what will happen to the stream below the pond, which eventually goes to Jordan Lake. I can tell you it’s welfare has been largely ignored by a number of decision makers. Waste water treatment plant is also there….
|Any modification to our pond will comply with all regulations and will have the necessary permits and inspections.
|Isn’t Briar Chapel down stream from us? Tony mentioned a concern about erosion and drainage from there being an issue, but that would be if it is upstream.
|No, Briar Chapel is upstream from us.
|The law regarding responsibility for pollution of a pond has just changed, the source of the pollution is now liable for the cost. Why is that not updated in the presentation?
|This law is still in Committee and has not passed.
|That polluter pays bill is only in committee
|NCDEQ said dam is in beautiful shape. There has been no breaching of dam or spillway since exit pipe was cleared 3 years ago. Ref. Stormwater: plan 3 does not address stormwater, plans 1 and 2 do.
|We agree, the dam appears to be in good shape. This study was not conducted because we were concerned about a dam failure. It was performed due to the cost to maintain the pond.
|If the dam held through a 300 year flood and two 100 year floods in 24 months recently, why is there such a concern about this now
|As mentioned above, our concern is not dam failure, but rather the expense to dredge the pond.
|Is this the only pond on the property?
|it is the only pond on FHA owned property. The FHA does have two sediment ponds but those are very different. The three ponds near the village are owned by Fitch Creations.
|What’s your true feeling about the best choice, Jesse? Can we get a grant for #2?
|Yes, we can get a grant for option 2, but would not be as high a percentage as for option 3.
I think option 2 has serious problems. I think maintaining the flora to minimize the mosquitoes will be a huge challenge and expense. Also, this option still calls for annual dredging.
This will be a very difficult decision. If I just look at the expense side, then option 3 is a clear winner. If I look at the aesthetics of our neighborhood, then option 1 is probably more attractive. But, we can have a very attractive stream environment in that area, like the stream between the upper pond and lower pond in Camden Park.
|Why is the pond blue-green today and yesterday but usually brown water? This pond is usually some shade of brown, especially after a rain.
|The brown water reflects sediment that is in the water after a rainfall. As the water sits for a couple of days the sediment settles to the bottom of the pond and the water becomes blue-green.
|Pond is blue green because Foster just treated in with algicide.
|Has the Board discussed how to cut the cost of Option #3 by, for example, completing dam removal but allowing a natural stream to form?
|No, there have not been and discussions on reducing the costs of either of these.
The first priority is to make a decision on which option will be implemented. Once that decision is made, then getting full design information and discussing modifications to that design will be a task to be completed.
|Do we still stock that pond with fish?
|Steril grass carp are stocked in the pond when needed to control grasses. Approximately 12 sterile carp were added last fall. JF
I’ve been treasurer for three years and this item has not been a discussion item. I’ve not seen it in previous records either but understand it was done on occasion. TD
|If the survey suggested that TGP didn’t warrant expansion, so I’m a little confused about that being listed as “reserve surplus”–I guess this has been a budget item, but the majority don’t feel the need to use the $ for such?
|There is a line item in our 2019 reserve study for expansion of the GP ($450,000). As a result of the Community Survey 2020, most people were satisfied with the size of the GP. Based on that we approached Giles & Flythe Engineers to review this allocation and asked if it was reasonable to reduce that allocation to $300,000 for smaller building footprint adjustments and place $100,000 into a Beechmast Pond resolution. This they agreed. The purpose for doing this reallocation was to avoid the need of a possible special assessment which becomes a $$$ issue rather than what is the best solution for the pond. The purpose of this KB pond study was to make homeowners aware of the increasing costs to maintain the pond and that going forward there are several factors, which we cannot control which could see a significant increase in pond maintenance. TD
|How much is the maintenance of other community spaces annually? Since the survey showed that people wanted more trails and spaces to get away from the hustle and bustle as we see many people come to the pond, why is it considered a poor investment to maintain the pond?
|It is the only pond on FHA owned property. The FHA does have two sediment ponds but those are very different. The three ponds near the village are owned by Fitch Creations.
|I’ll take my well-maintained septic system over an interconnected sewer system that destroys the environment in the area of FV that was targeted by the interconnect (of the WWTPs). Targeting Creekwood septic systems is suddenly becoming popular.
|No one is targeting septic systems. However they can, just like a common sewer line, malfunction and spill unless properly maintained.
|Have you a “duty of care” to conisider the value of your neighbors’ property as you make a change?
|Yes, we have a duty of care. We are all neighbors and none of us are wanting to put undue hardship on anyone. Should we remove or change the pond, it will be completed with diligence and concern, knowing that you can’t please everyone all the time. Managing successful change occurs by open communication and agreeing on manageble expectations. TD
|Will there be more sediment downstream? If so, what do homeowners downstream have a “dog in the fight?” What about Jordan Lake. Is it still “owned” by the Corps of Engineers? If so, do homeowners downstream have a “dog in the fight?” Will there be an impact on Jordan Lake?
|The sediment that currently settles in our pond and is dredged annually will flow downstream.
As mentioned before, Fitch Creations ownes a parcel of land between FV and Jordan Lake. This parcel of land is not approved for development at this time.
The construction will abide by all regulations and inspections.
|It was built for the historical phase 1&2 construction and Fitch had the option to get rid of it or keep it. He elected to keep it.
|If the question is whether the pond is considered a sediment pond by the govt, the asnswer is simple. Take it OUT NOw.
|One idea was to try and give the grit to a hauler, but first attempt to find one did not work.
|We live around the pond off Beechmast. Wetlands out of the question as I have lived around a wetlands and mosquitoes are abundant. We bought our place based on this pond and its natural beauty. Why is the current way the pond is being maintained so expensive. I’ve watched how it is dredged, they bring in a backhoe for a day and remove the silt then the next day flatten out the land. Why is it so expensive? Can we see the bill? Are we using the right companies to do this service?
|We have been using the same firm for several years and their prices have held steady. I am happy to show you the invoice, but it does not include a cost breakdown since it was a fixed bid for the job.
If you think about rental rates, a large excavator will rent anywhere from $2,000-$3,500 dollars per day, and an operator an additional $80-$150 per hour. Then you have rental expenses for a dump truck that can run between $400-$750 per day plus an operator.
It usually takes them a minimum of two days, so the costs do add up quickly.
|With HRW now the management company for FHA, has anyone consulted with them over this? They have been very helpful over the years we have used them for Camden Park Inc.
|HRW did not become the management company for FHA until after KRE had submitted their report. They may well be helpful when it is time to find a contractor for the work.
|Horse logging would not cause the damage to the area upstream to clear vs damage that machinery would cause that was just explained.
|Horse logging – thanks Sharon, brilliant suggestion to help clean some banks, and haul rock even..!
|Do we need county approval to modify the pond? If not, is there a risk, given that it seems to have been originally designated as a sediment/erosion pond, that the county could come back to us, after we’ve removed it, to put it back?
|All necessary permits and approvals will be obtained.
|Apart from the esthetics, who is the principal beneficiary of Beechmast Pond?
|We all are principal beneficiaries of Beechmast Pond?
|Comments Concerning Wastewater Disposal Plant
|Things are quite stinky, too! ?
|Ditto on the stinky. Every time I walk by, I am soooo thankful I don’t live right there!
|Sorry, but I have probably smelt someting maybe once or twice a summer each year. The hauling tanks run 3 truck fulls, 30,000 gallons ? of sludge out every two or three weeks.
|Comment Submitted by Chat Function
|I disagree about the bank having to be built up. The point is that in dam removals across the U.S., the stream carves out a path through the the topography that exists behind the dam. Dams cause sediment to accumulate raising the level of the land. This will be REVERSED when the dam is removed. It is called INCISE process. The bankings will be high because of the sediment build up over decades, unless there is a MASSIVE and Expensive sediment removal project.
I’m referring to Option 3 and Jesse’s comment that the banking would have to built up by moving soil around. I don’t think this is needed.
|This is an important point. KBE provided costs estimates that they believe are accurate, and we have reflected the high-end of their estimates in our presentation. Once an option has been chosen, the final design might impact costs, either up or down.