HomeMy WebLinkAbout12171990
.o1l
~ DEe 1 1992. e
HARNETT COUNTY BOARD OF COMHISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 17 199 ~ ~ ~
. , , ~p. iJ~t/;. '.. ..
.0 ..
J>~~CH1"~
The Harnett County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on
Monday, December 17, 1990, in the County Office Building, Lillington,
North Carolina, with the following members present: Mack Reid Hudson,
Bill Shaw, Walt Titchener, Beatrice Bailey Hill, and Chairman Lloyd G.
Stewart presiding. Others present were Dallas H. Pope, County
Manager; W. Glenn Johnson, County Attorney; Vanessa W. Young, Clerk to
the Board; and Kay S. Blanchard, Recording Secretary.
Chairman Stewart called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Hudson offered the invocation.
Commissioner Titchener moved for the approval of the minutes of the
regular meeting on December 3, 1990. Commissioner Hill seconded the
motion and it passed with a unanimous vote.
PUBLIC HEARING ON Public Hearing on the proposed Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment for
PROPOSED WASTEWATER Northeast Harnett County is included and copied in full at the end of
FACILITY PLAN M~END. these minutes as Attachment 1.
MOTION TO EXTEND Commissioner Hudson moved after the public hearing was closed on the
TIME FOR PUBLIC proposed 201 Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment that the public be
COMMENTS given up to and including December 31, 1990, during which additional
written comments may be provided and in order to provide an
opportunity to appropriately evaluate public comments received
regarding this matter, that the agenda items concerning proposed Plan
Amendment be continued and placed onto the January 7, 1991, regular
meeting agenda. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion and it passed
with the following vote:
Ayes: 4, Noes: 1, Abstained: 0, Absent: O.
RESOLUTION NAMING Dallas H. Pope, County Manager, presented for consideration a
MEMBERS TO AVERAS. resolution naming members of the Averasboro Township Tourism
TOURISM DEV. AUTH. Development Authority. Commissioner Titchener moved for the adoption
of the resolution. Commissioner Shaw seconded the motion and it
passed with a unanimous vote. The resolution is copied in full at the
end of these minutes as Attachment 2.
COMM. TITCIIENER Chairman Stewart appointed Commis~ioner Titchener to serve on the
APPOINTED TO LIBRARY Library Board.
BOARD
Commissioner Shaw made a motion that Mr. John Milton McKoy, P. O. Box
JOlli~ MILTON MCKOY 593, Lillington, NC, be appointed to the Planning Board to replace
APOINTED TO PLANNmG Mr. Casey Fowler. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion and it passed
BOARD with a unanimous vote. Mr. McKoy is appointed for a three-year term
which will expire December 31, 1993.
GUY CAYTON REA?POUT. Commissioner Shaw made a motion to reappoint Mr. Guy Cayton, P. O. Box
TO PLANNING BOARD 417, Spring Lake, NC, to the Planning Board. Commissioner Hudson
seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous vote. Mr. Cayton
is appointed for a three-year term which will expire December 31,
1993.
PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Stewart called to order a public hearing on application for
ON ZONING CHANGE
FOR HQ;.1ER P. GODWIN zoning change for Homer P. Godwin, 15.5 acres located off Hwy. 82 in
Duke Township, from RA-40 Zoning District to RA-20R Zoning District.
George Jackson, Planning Director, presented the application and
briefed the group that the purpose of the public hearing was to obtain
comments from the public concerning the zoning change application.
Chairman Stewart opened the meeting for public comments. No comments
were offered and Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing.
ZON ING CHANGE George Jackson, Planning Director, presented for consideration by the
APPROVED POR Board application for zoning change for Homer P. Godwin, 15.5 acres
HOMER P. GODWW located off Hwy. 82 in Duke Township, from RA-40 Zoning District to
RA-20R Zoning District. The Planning Board recommended approval of
the application. Comrr.issioner Hudson made a motion to approve the
zoning change application for Homer P. Godwin. Commissioner Hill
seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous vote.
Pl,JBLIC HEARING ON Chairman Stewart called to order a public hearing on roadnaming change
ROADNAMING CHANGE application for J. Leroy Matthews, S.R. 1444 in Hector's Creek
FOR J. LEROY Township, current name: Andrews Road, requested name: C.W. Matthews
MATTHEWS Road. George Jackson, Planning Director, presented the application
and briefed the group that the purpose of the public hearing was to
obtain comments from the public concerning the roadnaming change
application. Chairman Stewart opened the meeting for public comments.
The following citizen provided comments:
1. J. Leroy Matthews, Rt. 2, Fuquay-Varina For
Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing.
,
2 .,
ROADNM-IING CHANGE George Jackson, Planning Director, presented for the Board's
APPROVED FOR J. LEROY consideration application for roadnaming change for J. Leroy Matthews,
MATTHEWS current name: Andrews Road, requested name: C.W. Matthews Road.
The Planning Board recommended approval of the application.
Commissioner ritchener made a mo~ion to approve the roadnaming change
( application. Commissioner Shaw seconded the motion and it passed with
a unanimous vote.
PUBLIC HEARING ON Chairman Stewart called to order a public hearing on roadnaming change
ROADNAMING CHANGE application for The Greater Buies Creek Association, S.R. 1542 in
FOR GREATER B.C. ASSO. Neills Creek Township, current name: Old Buies Creek Road, requested
name: Pearson Roa~ (from 1542 at 421 intersection. to the entrance of
Keith Hil~s only). George Jackson, Planning Director, presented the
application and briefed the group that the purpose of the public
hearing was to obtain comments from the public concerning the
roadnaming change application. Chairman Stewart opened the meeting
for public comments. The following citizen provided comments:
1. Leonore Tuck,. Buies Creek For
Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing.
PEARSON ROAD George Jackson, Planning Director, presented for the Board's
consideration application for The Greater Buies Creek Association,
current name: Old Buies Creek Road, requested name: Pearson Road.
The Planning Board recommended approval of the application.
Commissioner Hudson made a motion to approve the roadnaming change
application. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion and it passed with
a unanimous vote.
Chairman Stewart called to order a public hearing on roadnaming change
application for The Greater Buies Creek Association, S.R. 1542 in
N~ills Creek Township, current name: Old Buies Creek Road, requested
name: Johnson Farm Road (from Hwy 421 to S.R. 1516 only). George
Jackson, Planning Director, presented the application and briefed the
group that th& purpose of the public hearing was to obtain comments
from the. public concerning the roadnaming change application.
Chairman Stewart opened the meeting for public comments. The
following citizens provided comments:
1. Cecil Clark, Olivia Against
2. Leonore Tuck, Buies Creek For
3. Kenneth Stewart, Buies Creek For
Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing.
JOHNSON FARM ROAD George Jackson, Planning Director, presented for the Board's.
consideration application for roadnaming change for The Greater Buies
Creek Association, current name: Old Buies Creek Road, requested
name: Johnson Farm Road (from Hwy. 421 to S.R. 1516 only). The
Planning Board recommended approval of the application. Commissioner
Hill made a motion to approve the roadnaming change application.
Commissioner Hudson seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous
vote.
Chairman Stewart called to order a public hearing on roadnaming change
application for The Greater Buies Creek Association, S.R. 2002 in
Neills Creek Township, current name: Stewart Town Road, requested
name: Kivett Road (from S.R. 1532 to S.R. 2080 only). George
Jackson, Planning Director, presented the application and briefed the
group that the purpose of the public hearing was to obtain comments
from the.public concerning the roadnaming change application.
Chairman Stewart opened the meeting for public comments. The
following citizens provided comments:
1. Leonore Tuck, Buies Creek For
2. Cecil Clark, Olivia I Against
I
3. James Walker, Buies Creek For
4. Dorothea Stewart, Buies Creek For
5. Lelia Blackmon, Buies Creek . General Comments
6. Ben Stewart, Buies Creek For
Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing.
KIVETT ROAD George Jackson, Planning Director, presented for the Board's
consideration application for roadnarning change for The Greater Buies
Creek Association, current name: Stewart Town Road, requested name:
Kivett Road (from S.R. 1532 to S.R. 2080 only). The Planning Board
recommended approval of the application. Commissioner Hudson made a
,
3
motion to approve the roadnaming change application. Commissioner
Hill seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous vote.
Chairman Stewart called to order a public hearing on roadnaming change
application for The Greater Buies Creek Association, S.R. 1532 in
Neills Creek Township, current name: Oak Grove Church Road, requested
name: Main Street (from S.R. 2084 to S.R. 1516 only). George
Jackson, Planning Director, presented the application and briefed the
group that the purpose of the public hearing was to obtain comments
from the public concerning the roadnaming change application.
Chairman Stewart opened the meeting for public comments. The following
citizens provided comments:
1. Leonore Tuck, Buies Creek For
2. Kenneth Stewart, Buies Creek For
Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing.
MAIN STRJJ2T George Jackson, Planning Director, presented for the Board's
consideration application for roadnaming change for The Greater Buies
Creek Association, current name: Oak Grove Church Road, requested
name: Main Street (from S.R. 2084 to S.R. 1516 only). The Planning
Board recommended approval of the application. Commissioner Hudson
made a motion to approve the roadnaming change application.
Commissioner Titchener seconded the motion and it passed with a
unanimous vote.
PUBLIC HEARING ON Chairman Stewart called to order a public hearing on proposed
AMEND. TO ROADNA,."-lING Ordinance Amending an Ordinance Establishing the Names of Roads in
ORD. Harnett County and a Procedure for the Future Naming and Renaming of
Roads in Harnett County. George Jackson, Planning Director, presented
the proposed ordinance amendment to the Board and briefed the group
that the purpose of the public hearing was to obtain public comments
concerning the proposed ordinance amendment. Chairman Stewart opened
the meeting for public comments. No comments were offered and
Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing.
AMEND. TO ROADlJAMWG George Jackson, Planning Director, presented proposed Ordinance
ORD Amending an Ordinance Establishing the Names of Roads in Harnett
County and a Procedure fox ~he Future Naming and Renaming of Roads in
Harnett County. Commissioner Hudson moved for the adoption of the
ordinance amendment with section 1. to reflect a change in percent of
signatures of landowners to be changed from 51% to 75%. Commissioner
Shaw seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous vote. The
ordinance amendment is copied in full at the end of these minutes as
Attachment 3, and also in the Harnett County Ordinance Book 1,
page 33() .
Bobby Wicker, Tax Administrator, briefed the Board on a credit report
system to assist in tax collection fer the County. Commissioner
Hudson moved that the Tax Department implement the proposed credit
reporting system. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion and it passed
with a unanimous vote.
-
INDUSTRIAL DEV.- Tom Meece, Industrial Development Director, presented to the Board for
BOYT DIVISION consideration, a resolution certifying persons to act as signatories
for requesting funds for Harnett County's CDBG Economic Development
Boyt Division loan project. Commissioner Shaw moved for the adoption
of the resolution. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion and it
passed with a unanimous vote. The resolution is copied in full at the
end of these minutes as Attachment 4.
Tom Meece, Industrial Development Director, presented to the Board for
consideration, a resolution authorizing the acceptance of the CDBG-ED
Boyt Division loan project. Commissioner Shaw moved for the adoption
of the resolution. Commissioner Titchener seconded the motion and it
passed with a unanimous vote. The resolution is copied in full at the
end of these minutes as Attachment 5.
Tom Meece, Industrial Development Director, presented to the Board for
consideration, a project budget ordinance for Harnett County Community
Development Block Grant-Economic Development. Commissioner Hudson
moved for the adoption of the project budget ordinance. Commissioner
Shaw seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous vote. The
project budget ordinance is copied in full at the end of these minutes
as Attachment 6.
Tom Meece, Industrial Development Director, presented to the Board for
consideration, North Carolina Department of Economic and Community
Development Grant Agreement-Industrial Building Renovation Fund-Boyt
Division Welsh Sporting Goods project. Commissioner Shaw moved for
approval of the grant agreement. Commissioner Hudson seconded the
motion and it passed with a unanimous vote. The grant agreement is
copied in full at the end of these minutes as Attachment 7.
4
REPORTS Monthly reports were filed with the Board from the following
departments: Fire Marshal, Industrial Development, Planning
Department, Health Department, Building Inspections, and the Sheriff's
Department.
BUDGET AMENDMENTS Dallas H. Pope, County Manager, requested the following budget
amendment for Planning & Inspections:
; Code 10-7200-002 Salaries & Wages 3,754. increase
10-7200-005 F.I.C.A. Tax Expense 288. increase
10-7200-007 Retirement Expense 189. increase
Revenue: 10-3990-000 Fund Balance Appropriated 4,231. increase
Commissioner Hudson moved for the approval of the budget amendment.
Commissioner Shaw seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous
vote.
Dallas H. Pope, County Manager, requested the following budget
amendment for Education:
Code 10-8600-1090 Central Carolina
Community College 1,500. increase
Revenue: 10-3990-000 Fund Balance Appropriated 1,500. increase
Commissioner Shaw moved for the approval of the budget amendment.
Commissioner Hill seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous
vote.
Dallas H. Pope, County Manager, requested the following budget
amendment for Emergency Medical Services:
Code 10-5400-054 Insurance & Bonds 550. increase
Revenue: 10-3990-000 Fund Balance Appropriated 550. increase
Commissioner Shaw moved for the approval of the budget amendment.
Commissioner Titchener seconded the motion and it passed with a
unanimous vote.
Dallas H. Pope,. County Manager, requested the following budget
amendment for Public Utilities (Water) :
Code: 30-9100-004 Professional Services 1,850. decrease
30-9100-074 Capital Outlay - Equip. 1,850. increase
Commissioner Hudson moved for the approval of the budget amendment.
. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous
vote.
LETTER OF CREDIT Glenn Johnson, County Attorney, presented a letter of credit for Mire
MIRE BRANCH SUBDIV. Branch Subdivision. Commissioner Shaw moved for the approval of the
letter of c~edit. Commissioner Titchener seconded the motion and it
passed with a unanimous vote. The letter of credit is copied in full
at the end of these minutes as Attachment 8.
BUDGET ORDINANCE Dallas H. Pope, County Manager, presented for consideration a budget
HARNETT CENTRAL ordinance for the Harnett Central Middle School wastewater line
MIDDLE SCHOOL interceptor project. Commissioner Shaw moved for the adoption of the
WASTEWATER LINE p~oject budget ordinance. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion and
PROJECT i~ passed with a unanimous vote. The project budget ordinance is
copied in full at the end of these minutes as Attachment 9.
Dallas H. Pope, County Manager, provided information to the Board
concerning replacement of copier for the Planning Department. The
Board concurred with recommendation to replace the copier.
EXECUTIVE SESSION Commissioner HUQson made a motion that the Board go into executive
session to consider' possible claims on a contract and to consider a
new contract. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion and it passed
with a unanimous vote.
Commissioner Hudson made a motion to come out of executive session. I
Commissioner Shaw seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous
vote.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Harnett County Board of
Commissioners regular meeting, December 17, 1990, duly adjourned at
1:15 a.m.
h ~
'.)1 ''''1. ~ .J~
~r J7 /,/L,~~ ..
. ~ ~ . /I01A~..-f/
Lloyd G Stewart; Chairman . , Vanessa W. Young, Clet) to d.e Board
/(~/ t. 4fMtdllfNj
Kay . Blanchard, Recording Secretary
-.-- -.- -
5
ATTACHMENT 1. (to regular Board meeting minutes, Jecember 17, 1991)
Public Hearing
December 17, 1990
Chairman Lloyd G. Stewart called to order a continuation of a public
hearing on the 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan Amendment for Northeast
Harnett County and recognized John M. Phelps, II to provide the
purpose for the continuation of the public hearing.
John M. Phelps, II, Public Utilities Attorney, stated that a public
hearing was held during the Board's last meeting on December 3, 1990,
regarding the 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan Amendment for Northeast
Harnett County. At the conclusion of the Board's morning session that
day the public hearing was continued until the Board's next regular
meeting, which is tonight. At the session on December 3, 1990, a
listing of 15 questions was presented to the County regarding the 201
Amendment and related matters and it would be appropriate to answer
those questions tonight.
Chairman Stewart recognized Charles Mercer, Attorney.
Charles Mercer, Attorney representing Campbell University, Lynn R.
Buzzard, Patrick K. Hetrick, and Donald C. Hollingsworth, requested
that the public hearing concerning the 201 plan amendment be continued
until January 21, 1991, and a delay of official action by the Board of
Commissioners concerning this matter until January 21, 1991.
Chairman stewart advised that the public hearing would continue as
scheduled and request by Charles Mercer would be considered after
receiving public comments.
Chairman Stewart recognized Rodney, M. Tart, Public Utilities
Director, and Hiram Marziano, Marziano and Minier, P.A., to provide
response to questions concerning the proposed 201 Wastewater Facility
Plan Amendment. The questions and response are copied in full at the
end of these minutes as Attachments A & B. As part of this
presentation, Mr. Tart read a letter dated December 14, 1990 from Mr.
W. E. Venrick of the Water Supply Section of the Division of
Environmental Health. The letter is attached to these minutes as
Attachment C.
Chairman Stewart called for public comments.
Transcription
Public Hearing
December 17, 1990
Charles Mercer, Attornev - Let me just state at the start
that having gotten into this project it has become more and
more of interest to me. Though I currently live in Wake
County, I am from Johnston County and so that makes it even
more interesting to me because I was brought up the son of a
Methodist minister in a neighboring county and I want to
assure the commissioners and everyone in this room the
desire of my clients to help this community and this county
to work towards the best and most efficient wastewater
facility plant for all the county and that's why we're here
tonight and also to help prevent what we believe, in good
faith, may be a penny wise and pound foolish decision. Now,
with respect to what we will present tonight you will hear
from several people from various communities throughout the
county and from representatives of Campbell University. At
the conclusion of that I would like to summarize these
comments at some point and we can do that at the pleasure of
the Chairman. First we will will here from Ken Barbour of
Buies Creek then we will here form Don Hollingsworth from
Scotch Plains. Following that will be Keith Hills residents
Lynn Buzzard and Jim Abrahamson. That will be followed by
comments form our engineer, Robert Browning, Leonard
Johnson, Business Manager at Campbell University, another
- --
~ ~
6
engineer, Steve Cavenaugh who is with HObbs-Upchurch and
Associates, Dr. Norman A. Wiggins, President of Campbell
University who is with us this evening will present a
statement and then he will introduce and have that statement
followed by the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Mr.
Womble. At that time other residents from the community
would speak and then I.would summarize those remarks. In
the interest of time I will just turn this program over now
to Mr. Barbour to speak for us and then when I make my
summary comments I have some things that I will pass out to
you at that time. Thank you sir.
Ken Barbour - I am a resident of Buies Creek with some
debate on part of the previous meeting as to if we had had
any information concerning the 201 studies. I receive a
water bill each month from the county and at no time did I
see any notice that we were going to put a wastewater
treatment plant in the area you have now designated. We
feel like it would devaluate the property that we have
purchased. Most of us when buying property go by a realtor,
when we buy property the first thing the customer asks, do
you have a restrictive covenant? Yes, we do have a
restrictive covenant. If the county is going to come into
an area such as Keith Hills, Cornelius Heights Subdivision,
Scotch Plains, and an area like Campbell University and put
this Wastewater Treatment Plant you and I know that within 5
to 10 years there won't come and odor from it. This is one
of your highest tax areas in the county. We feel that more
consideration should be had on this and that property owners
could have more of an input in a decision that's going to be
made that will affect our lives and our community which we
have tried to build in Buies Creek. So your consideration
would be greatly helpful.
Don Hollinqsworth - My name is Don Hollingsworth. I am a
resident of Scotch Plains. I am not affiliated with
Campbell University, I am the postmaster of the Buies Creek
Post Office. We moved here seven years ago and we bought a
house in the edge of Coats. We lived there for about four
years and we liked it and we decided that Buies Creek is our
home and we want to settle down and stay here so we bought a
home in Scotch Plains. I am well satisfied with my home
there and this business about the sewer project coming in,
we didn't know anything about it from anyone until Campbell
University was kind enough to send us a letter and invite us
to a public hearing. As I said before, I am not affiliated
with Campbell University and we don't feel like this is
going to be in the best interest of the local people in the
Buies Creek area or for Scotch Plains or Keith Hills. We
all agree that we need a waste treatment plant but we would
like for it to be reconsidered and like for it to be moved
on down stream and it has my support 100 percent but we do
need a better location for it. Thank you.
~vnn Buzzard - My name is Lynn Buzzard. I represent
residents of Keith Hills. I am a professor at Campbell
School of Law. The last time I spoke at the first session
of this hearing I indicated to all of you two primary
concerns. One was a concern for what some people call a
participatory democracy sense in which we might be partners
in a decision that had such an affect upon us a concern that
we be included in conversations about the plan that there be
not just decision communicated to us but that you try and
convince us and persuade us that it was a good plan.
Secondly, a concern that the kind of hearing that we have be
a meaningful hearing and not simply fulfilling some
statutory requirement .so that when some subsequent authority I
looks to see if a hearing was held sure enough the little
box will be checked and there was a hearing but rather a
hearing that was a conversation between the residents of
this community and those who are making suggestions and
drafting ideas. That a hearing would be a place of speaking
and listening. Now we continue to have these concerns
though I must first of all express appreciation for the
extension that was granted frankly we've heard more about
some of the details of this plan this evening from the
engineer than all the previous conversations put together
and that is helpful to hear that. You will appreciate our
continued concern however in the two weeks notice for us to
explore alternatives to try and get a feel for the nature of
the engineering recommendations is hardly sufficient to put
us on anything like an effective footing to engage in the
conversation we would like to have and we continue to have a
concern that this hearifig be a meaningful and a real
- - --- --- --
7
hearing. That concern began last meeting when we noted that
the original agenda called for a decision to approve the
plan immediately after the hearing which didn't look like it
was a very serious hearing. That's further reinforced by
comments made to a number of us that it's either this or
nothing which doesn't sound like an open process and thirdly
reinforced by the only community meeting we had last week
which was hardly a conversation, in fact when some residents
attempted to ask questions about what alternatives have been
considered and various cost items they were told that those
questions were out of order. That did not sound like we
were in a meaningful hearing process. Now all of this has
given to many of us some impressions. Now we may be wrong.
We can see that the limited time that we have had to explore
these items may result in our misimpression and we hope that
if further time is granted that you will be able to persuade
us of this plan or will come to some other plan, but never
the less in the short time we have some impressions. One is
that the rationale for this plan are basically two fold. We
are freq~ently told when we ask questions that a major
factor in this particular plan was the cost, that it's the
least expensive. Now first of all we don't know if it is
the least expensive because when we've asked questions about
whether costs have been factored in for possible nuisance
damages the answer seems to be that no one knows. Certainly
costs of land acquisition are not clear. Potential
litigation cost challenging this plan are all unfactored.
So we're not sure it's the least expensive plan at all even
if it is the least expensive, however one of the things we
as residents want to communicate to you as commissioners is
that cost alone, mere dollars is not the only measure for a
public works project. Respecting property and people always
cost more. We build ramps so that handicapped people have
access to facilities. That's not cost affective. Democracy
is not cost affective. In our society we have decided to
value people as well as things, as well as dollars and those
kind of considerations we believe cause a more careful
calculation of all kinds of costs in a project of this sort.
We are concerned that even if it does cost less it may cost
less because some of the cost of putting it somewhere else
is shifted on the nearby property owners. The second reason
we're given why we ought to enthusiastically support this
plan is that time is running out. Now first of all it is
not our doing as residents that time is running out. We are
not the ones that have produced plans that were not accepted
by others or caused delay that have resulted in this last
minute plan. Even if time is running out it doesn't justify
a poorly conceived plan and I must tell you that I think
many of us are not thoroughly convinced time is running out.
I don't think that this is the last waste water treatment
plant to be built in North Carolina. I don't think it's the
last time that the state and federal government will be
involved in plans for coordinated waste treatment operations
and assistance in funding. In light of this it is our
judgement that this decision is both bad policy and bad
politics. It is bad policy because everyone agrees this was
not the initial choice. It was not the primary choice.
There were conversations about going in with Erwin
apparently. There were conversations about Thornton's
Creek. There were conversations when Lillington was
involved. All those fell apart and suddenly five, six
months ago someone had to come up with another plan and what
we got was a quick fix to meet a deadline. We understand
that even one engineering firm was let go and another one
hired in that process. Not only is it bad policy because it
appears to be a quick fix but we believe it does not meet
some of the.simple human environmental factors. I don't
think, ladies and gentlemen, you need an engineer or a
lawyer to decide that the best place to put the outhouse is
not next to the living room. Now I expect the engineers and
the lawyers to defend the plan. I'm reminded, watching
television the other day and seeing Maggie Thatcher in her
last question and answer session when one of the MP's of the
opposing party got up and gave this stinking rebuke of all
the problems in Thatcher's government and asked her what she
had to say about that. Thatcher got up and said that that
MP was always noted as a fine lawyer able to argue any side
of any brief without believing a word of it. Now I suggest
that at times it may be someone's duty to defend a plan, but
I think you could take any grade school child and give them
a sewer plant and a little model village out here and they
- - --.- ---..- -
8
wouldn't put the sewer plant by the village. Why? Because
they can see and smell. They know something other that
rulers and calculators. We've been told frequently that
this is the most direct line and that sewer floats down
hill. We don't doubt that. The question is whether rulers
and calculators are the sole rules by which decision ought
to be made by this ,. group. We believe there will be an
impact on our property values. I believe you received in
the mail a copy of a news story from Clinton titled
"Deodorant Apparently Not Working in Clinton". And this is
about attempts to use cherry deodorant to mask the smells
from the sewer treatment plant. Now what is most
interesting about the article is this plant won an award two
years ago as one the best designed engineered plants in the
state. I don't doubt that this may be the state of the art,
but I am inclined to believe because I believe in the Peter
Principle that if something can break down it will and
because I believe in original sin which sort of says
everything's going to become a mess that sooner or later
this plant won't be quite as good as is being professed. As
even the supreme court noted one time a pig is a fine thing
but a pig doesn't belong in a parlor. Now we are not,
ladies and gentlemen, in a situation without alternatives.
This is not a situation where it has to go next to
somebody's living room and they're undoubtedly going to be
unhappy and we happen to be the chosen people. We live in a
county with lots of areas that are not livingrooms. Many
alternatives we believe exist. Lastly, we believe this is
not simply bad policy the process has been bad politics.
I'm not sure your staff in the county has served you well as
commissioners. As people will express here repeatedly I
suspect the lack of notice and participation by the affected
citizens of this community is a serious mistake in terms of
political process. We're concerned that engineers and
lawyers and consultants have made this choice and now hand
this choice to you as commissioners and expect you to rubber
stamp it because its their recommendation. What we're
asking you to do is to recognize that you're our
representatives and not theirs. And to consider the people
of this county and this community and to adopt a decision
which permits further exploration of alternatives. There
are two possible plans surely. One is the one before you.
We have no doubt that you can adopt this plan. I personally
doubt that you have the political power to make it work. We
are essentially powerless and you are the ones that have
been given the authority to make this decision. When
someone asked me to speak on behalf of the residents they
jokingly noted that I had appealed my property taxes a few
years ago and they raised them. The suggestion was that I
probably wasn't a very good person to argue this cause.
That simply enforces the political powerlessness with which
we come to you as citizens and ask you to hear us. We don't
believe, though, that this has to be a win lose affair. We
believe that there are alternatives in this county in which
we all can win and we can join together in supporting a plan
which will not have the devastating impact we're concerned
this one may. Thank you
Jim Abrahamson - My name is Jim Abrahamson. For the past 4
and one half years I have lived at 207 Keith Hills road. I
teach u.s. History and Government at Campbell University.
Like people who have already spoken and like many in the
audience tonight, I am very concerned about the impact of
this plant on my property and on my life. We've been told
of a possible 20% increase in the cost of the service that
we now get not so important as other things but not
insignificant to many either. Obviously this plant might I
have a very negative impact on our property values and even
if we're not planning to sell that property if it creates an
odor it will have a very negative impact on our life. All
those things are obvious and I don't think I need to repeat
what others have already had to say. Now these questions
came up at a meeting I attended at Buies Creek School a week
ago and many of the same gentlemen that you have heard from
this evening made presentations at that meeting. They in
affect told us don't worry. None of these things that you
fear will come true. Trust us. It won't smell or precisely
it will have no objectionable odor. Well, what exactly that
may be I don't know. None of us I am sure would normally
object to the smell of cherries, but if all we smelled day
--
9
in and day out week after week was the smell of cherries I'm
sure we would all find it highly objectionable. So, I'm not
reassured by some of these assurances that we were given.
And there are two reasons why I am not reassured. The first
has to do with the process by which this recommendation has
been placed before you. And the second has to do with
conduct I saw at that meeting that raised doubts in my mind,
perhaps false doubts, but never the less doubts about the
objectivity of those who were devising this proposal that's
been presented to you. Let me deal first with the selection
process. We were told that a six person sewer advisory
committee had been created to advise the county on the
selection of the site and the building of this new system.
Nobody from the Keith Hills community was made a part of
that sewer advisory committee. Neither at the onset or four
or five months ago when it became likely that the sewage
treatment plant would be placed close to Keith Hills. It
seemed appropriate to me that such should have taken place
so that we could have been better informed about what was
taking place. Now three members of that committee appointed
by this commission did live in the greater Buies Creek area.
Two of them are personally known to me, but at no time in
this process did anyone of them apparently think it was
appropriate to share with me that a sewage treatment plant
was about to be built a quarter of a mile away from my
community. I am appalled at that. Why were we not informed
and when I am not informed of something that is of obvious
interest to me it tends to undermine my confidence in the
judgement of those who are telling me, telling you - trust
us, everything is going to be alright insofar as Keith Hills
is concerned. At the meeting that evening I was also very
troubled by the conduct of those people who were making the
presentations to us and to you this evening. It seemed to
be that we had to ask the same questions five and six times
before we could even make the individuals understand what we
were getting at. We had virtually to pry information out of
them with a crowbar to find out exactly what studies had
been done, what other sites had been considered, had a
judgement been made of the cost of this project if it turned
out that significant damage was done to property values at
Keith Hills. What would be the impact of that on property
owners? What would be the impact of that on the county's
tax base? It was very difficult to get answers to very
obvious questions. And again I cannot understand the
reluctance to share with us as citizens information about a
plant that is potentially of vital importance to us. Then
when the meeting was over my wife happen to overhear certain
of these same officials talking among themselves laughingly
referring to the sewage treatment plant suggesting that it
be named the Norman Adrian Wiggins Memorial Treatment Plant.
Somehow I find that as suggesting a lack of objectivity.
Suggesting that there may be some bad blood that I as a
relative recent resident am not aware of. And again, I am
not filled with confidence because of these kinds of
attitudes on the part of the people that are advising you on
this project and telling us there's no problem. And I guess
in conclusion what I would ask you for gentlemen and Mrs.
Hill to do is as you prepare to make a decision on this
project ask these gentlemen the same kinds of questions that
you would ask if they were about to build their sewage
treatment plant a quarter of a mile away from your home and
I think if you probingly ask them the same questions you may
then be able to make an appropriate decision on this that
will be not only in the welfare of the county but also of
benefit to the residents of Keith Hills. Thank you.
Bob Browninq - My name is Bob Browning. I'm from Raleigh.
In my opinion the citizens of Harnett County have a
marvelous opportunity to construct a sewage collection
system and a regional treatment plant to take advantage of
the growth that will come with the opening of 1-40 and the
four laning of U.S. 421- A number of people moving into the
Raleigh-Durham-Research Triangle Area are affluent. They
are accustomed to commuting a fair distance to work and
their desires of getting away from the growing congestion of
the cities and into a more rural setting. As we've seen
with Cary and Morrisville the growth of industries and homes
follows the corridors of the highways and the extension of
water and sewer lines to the adjacent land. It appears to
me that the tax payers of Harnett County need time to
evaluate the several proposals included in the amended 201
submission and seriously review other options. It may be
that such planning will suggest more attractive alternatives
at little or no additional cost. Thank you.
1 0
Leonard Johnson - Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen I am
Leonard Johnson, Business Manager and Treasurer of Campbell
University. Although I'm not sure how my role as a
participant in discussions concerning preliminary proposals,
and I emphasize the word preliminary by the county for a
regional wastewater treatment system is relevant to the main
issue before us tonight. I feel I must respond to
statements that have been made over the last few weeks and
again here tonight. I thought the central issue we were
considering was the desire of all concerned parties to
determine the best possible treatment system at the best
possible location. However, it has become apparent that my
cooperation with county agencies and their consulting
engineers in discussing proposed designs, furnishing
requested data and allowing surveying of certain University
properties has become at least part of the central issue and
has been interpreted to mean a joint venture and approval of
this specific 201 plan. That interpretation is not
accurate. When I came to Campbell University in December of
1983 as a member of the University Development Staff I was
determined and I still am to make every effort to go the
extra mile to do whatever necessary to cooperate with every
municipality in Harnett County and with the county itself to
build the best possible relationship between Campbell
University and these agencies. We are, after all,
supposedly seeking to attain the same worthy goals of a
better quality of life for all citizens. To this end, I
have willingly and gladly served among many others in this
room on the Board of Directors of Harnett County Community
Pride, Harnett County United Way, and the Dunn Area Chamber
of Commerce in each and everyone of these capacities I was
the spokesman for Campbell University. I have participated
in hours of discussion. I have listened to hundreds of
proposals and I have received countless requests for
University participation in various plans and events as well
as committment of University resources and funds. Never
have I involved the University or granted a request unless
and until two things occurred. First, the proposal had to
be specific in nature and in final form that could be
presented to other university officials and ultimately to
our governing body, the Campbell University Board of
Trustees. Secondly, I have presented the various proposals
in this manner before giving any form of consent to any
request or approval of any plan. My operating procedure
with this plan has not changed nor will it change in the
future. It disturbs me now that my consent to cooperate has
been construed to be consent to the design of this plan and
in fact approval of the entire project as I have been told.
With all due respect to all parties concerned, I must again
state that this interpretation is not accurate. Thank you
for allowing me to address this point tonight.
steve Cavenauqh - Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is
Steve Cavenaugh. I am with the consulting engineering firm
of Hobbs, Upc.hurch and Associates, Southern Pines, N.C. The
Harnett County Public Utilities Department has recently
expressed wastewater planning efforts and the
regionalization of northeast Harnett County. In response to
these plans, Campbell University and other citizens have
expressed concerns regarding proposed treatment plant
locations and various routing of sewer lines in and around
Keith Hills Subdivision and Campbell University property as
it exists on the south side of U.S. 421- In response to
these concerns Campbell University commissioned Hobbs,
Upchurch and Assoc. to perform and economic analysis of the
proposed plan. This study will be complete and is planned
to be presented sometime after Christmas. The scope and
intent of this study will be to present the cost associated
with the proposed plan and other independent alternatives.
The plan will evaluate cost by the generation of capital
cost, annual operation and maintenance cost and net present
worth. This study will present only economic consideration.
It will not address aesthetic value such as property
devaluation or growth potential due to the interceptors and
there location. Proportions of the proposed plan that will
be reviewed and alternatives set forth will be limited to
the area contained by the following boundaries: US 421 to
- - --- -.----.- - -. - - -
I t
the north and east, Thornton's Creek to the south, Cape Fear
River to the south, and west Buies Creek to the north and
west. Thank you.
Dr. Norman WiQ9ins - Ms. Hill, gentlemen, I'm Norman
Wiggins. I'm here tonight in behalf of my University, our
University, Campbell University. I want to address a matter
that was addressed a moment ago in the outset. It has been
said by one of the county officials that the new plant
should bear my name. I would like tonight to accept that
honor if you will give me one or two conditions. First, I
would like to add the name of Mister Lonnie Small who died
today, who was just across the street here, without who's
efforts and the efforts of Mr. Browning who has already
spoken tonight we would not be here tonight talking about
any plan. They were the ones who worked, they were the ones
who went through all the procedures, they were the ones who
filed for all the grants. So I would like to have his name
along side mine when the plant is named if it's going to be
named for me and I take no objection to that. I'd also like
to have the names of a lot of Baptist people/Mrs. Tuck,
because the Baptist people of North Carolina are the ones
who helped make Campbell University what it is. The people
in Harnett County have helped also. I don't know how many
would petition for the names to be there but I'd like to
have their names on the side of the building and I'd like to
put the names of the trustees and the advisors and all the
little people who have made possible Campbell University for
the last 105 years. I must tell you honestly folks, when I
first went down to Campbell this was the first major problem
I faced, so we worked diligently to construct the plant that
we now use which was taken over in 1983 by the County of
Harnett. Well you show what you have and as our incoming
Chairman of the Board of Trustees said on one occasions when
you go down and visit Campbell the President would take you
down and show you the new sewage plant. Well that's what we
had. That was the first thing we built and I was rather
proud of it and I must say I still am. I hope tonight as we
come to talk about this matter that we haven't forgotten
where we are and what we're doing. Here we are at a
University which now educates in a 12 months period more
than 6500 students, students coming from all 100 counties,
all 50 states and in the average year from 30 to 45 foreign
countries. It's a Baptist university, but it's not
sectarian. Each year we have 25 to 35 other denominations
and faiths represented on this campus and we serve them
without any partisanship of any kind or sectarianism.
Campbell University as you know has been experiencing steady
growth in recent years and although tonight as we stand here
talking about a matter that doesn't seem all that important
in the light of everything that's being compared we have 12
to 1400 of our students including the editor of the campus
paper in Saudi Arabia. We did realize a small growth in
enrollment in the fall enrollment this year. I think that
all of us would agree here tonight that since the opening
date of January 5, 1887, Campbell University has been a
leading contributor to the educational, recreational,
social, spiritual and economical life of this county. Today
with a budget of 35 to 45 million dollars with a total
student enrollment as we've just said of more than 6500
students and with 6 to 8000 people attending one of our
several summer programs the university provides, I think,
an unmatched economic stimulus to this county. Our more
than 600 employees, and many of them are here tonight,
including teachers and staff generally live and pay taxes in
the county. They have families, they work in churches as
you've just heard, many are leaders in the civic life of
this community. They buy groceries and they get haircuts,
they buy clothes and they patronize restaurants and they
rent or they own their homes. Today we have more than 1000
students in our law school, pharmacy school, business
school, school of education and other graduate programs.
Many are married, most of them live off campus, some own
homes, others rent. Many have children that attend the
public or private schools and I'm not boasting now when I
say that Keith Hills is one of the finest real estate, golf
course developments perhaps in the nation. Thousands of
rounds of golf are played weekly. People are drawn to
Harnett County from across the United States because of
Keith Hills. Representatives from the finest colleges and
- ~. - -
- .- - .- ---
1 2
universities annually come to this area Decause of Keith
Hills and because of an excellent athletic program that
competes at the highest level .of competition NCAA Division
wide. I could spend the remainder of this evening talking
to you about the academic quality of our programs. Someone
else will have something to say about that later in context
of this hearing. I could talk about the ROTC program and
other aspects of the university, but we are in the process
of bringing that kind of information up to date and we'll
give you more helpful information on it a little later on,
but there is one other statistic that I need to call to your
attention and that is the vast amount of scholarship aid and
financial assistance that our students must receive in order
to carryon their education. The fact is that over 80% of
our students must have financial assistance in order to
carryon their programs and a large number of those young
people come from Harnett County and we're proud of them,
we're proud of what they accomplish. Many of them are in
the room tonight. For the past 23 soon to be 24 years I've
had the privilege and the honor to serve Campbell and
Harnett and during these times Ms. Hill, gentlemen, there
have been many county-university matters. Some of you will
remember that it wasn't too many years ago when our
neighbors in the rural communities were desperate, their
wells were dry. They had to haul water. They needed
relief. The university had a water system that served the
citizens of Buies Creek and we had a large number of users
and I believe at that time the users paid three or four
dollars per month with no limit on water and no meters. The
county came to the university on that occasion and we
discussed the need of the county to find someway to
alleviate that problem. The county said that unless we
would sell them our customers a metro system would not be
feasible and for slightly more than one years income the
county purchased the university system and the metro system
became a reality. We have worked cooperatively with the
county on such matters as the airport, the mental health
clinic, volunteer fire department and public safety. We
have only one issue we haven't been able to resolve and that
deals with wastewater treatment. From the outset including
this evening the university has been in favor of a regional
wastewater system. In fact, I believe it was our attempt to
get the commissioners to consider spot zoning for Buies
Creek and the communities adjacent thereto. That may have
been the first efforts made for regional wastewater
treatment although it was rather elementary.
In 1983 when the county terminated its lease and took over
the wastewater treatment plant, which the university had
built, we begged, we urged, and we cajoled our leaders to go
forward with a regional plant. In 1986 we were encouraged
when I heard that the county manager, Mr. Dallas Pope, was
considering going forward with an attempt to develop an
acceptable wastewater treatment plant. I was encouraged,
appreciated it, and so told him and others as well as our
board. Now friends, let me tell you there is a vast
difference between supporting a concept and agreeing on the
details of the location of the plant. Tonight I have the
privilege of introducing the chairman of the Board of
Trustees of Campbell University, Mr. W.M. Womble of Sanford.
Mr. Womble joined the board in 1958. He has served
continuously ever since. Actually every four years our
trustees will take off the board. Mr. Womble has never been
relieved of his duties and has remained constantly in
service. As Chief Executive Officer and Director of First
Federal Savings and Loan which merged into the Raleigh
Federal Savings and Loan, that very strong savings and loan
I might add, Mr. Womble came to be recognized during his
time in office as one of the most talented financial leaders
and real estate experts in North Carolina. Thousands of
people today have homes because he was willing to trust in
them. In addition to serving as Chairman of the Board,
Chairman of the Executive Committee, head of every major
committee of the University, he has more experience in the
development of Keith Hills and the wastewater treatment
problem than any other trustee. Probably more experience
than any in this room tonight except those who have been
directly involved in the program. In as much as his company
financed many of the homes in Harnett County during his
tenure there in Sanford, he has more than just a passing
interest in both Harnett County and Campbell University.
-- -- - - - - -------- - -
, ....
i5
There is an old saying, that there is a time and tide in the
affairs of men when taken at the flood go on to fame and
fortune omitted we wallow in the shadows all of our days.
In 1983 as we've already mentioned, we urged those people,
good people, fine people, to move forward with a regional
plant. Had we done so we wouldn't be where we are tonight.
I predict the way we're going tonight if we move forward and
we are going to be about like we were in '83. We said then
it will take ten to twenty years for this problem to return
- it took seven. I suggest that we have two problems
tonight if we go forward with this plan. The first one is
how to finance it and the second one is how do we get the
money to remove it when it gets to the point to where it's a
nuisance and we're mandated to remove it out of the
residential area where it is about to be located. Thank you
very much.
W.M. Womble - (Mr. Womble's comments were presented to the
Board in writing after his presentation. His statement is
attached to these minutes as Attachment D).
Jerry Wallace - I'm Jerry Wallace and I live in Buies Creek
and I work at Campbell University and I'd like to make a
statement, read a letter, share some good news and then make
a comment about it that I think would be interesting to my
friends and everyone here. First of all in the letter that
I will present after the session tonight it's from me and my
wife. Dear madam and sirs, Harnett County and Keith Hills
have been my home since 1975. My family has enjoyed our
home in the Keith Hills Community and we have watched with
pride as neighbors have come from near and far to take their
place in this special community. The prospect of living
next to a regional wastewater facility is almost unthinkable
except for a short term solution to problems that are miles
away from my home the decision is flawed in so many ways. I
very much support the concept of a regional wastewater
facility located in a place that would affect the least
number of people and provide facilities for residential and
industrial growth. A site next to the Cumberland County
line would be adequate to meet and existing and future
needs. I respectfully request that the commissioners reject
the proposed location and endorse a regional facility tha~
will accommodate the needs of the citizens of Harnett
County. Sincerely, Betty and Jerry Wallace. But even of
greater significance is the impact on the academic life of
Campbell University. Last week tonight Dean Barge and I,
Dr. lng, Dr. Lymm and President Wiggins were waiting in
Atlanta to hear the good word that Campbell University would
be reaffirmed as a level five university. We had worked
hard and for nine years to get to the point that we would be
considered. About 3:15 on Tuesday, the 11th of December
Campbell University's name was listed as a levelS
university. My friends, there are 115 institutions of
higher learning in North Carolina. Only 6 can make that
statement. We are one of them. Those institutions are the
University of Chapel Hill, NCSU, Wake Forest University,
University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Duke University
and Campbell University. It has not come to us easily. It
has been the result of sacrifice and work and effort and
encouragement of this county for 105 years. We have been
partners in this relationship. Almost everything that has
been educational in Harnett County started in Kivett Hall
from elementary education to secondary education when this
county was not able to provide that for its citizens and now
from Kivett Hall we are looking to a school, the Norman
Adrian Wiggins School of Law - Mr. President, I'm glad that
has your name - and that it speaks for what we want to say
to you tonight, academically in this university has come a
development in the life of this school that has moved us to
the possibilities of being what we are. It's my
responsibility, ladies and gentlemen, to represent the
university in speaking to parents of prospective students
and students and faculty members to convince them that this
is the place they ought to spend four to seven to ten years.
~ - -- - - --
- -- - -- --- -
'~ 4
I won't labor your time long but I want to give you my 4 PiS
and I've been giving them a long time at Campbell
University to faculty members and to students and parents.
Why Campbell University? First of all our purpose.
Succinctly put it's this - to educate young men and young
women for Christian service throughout the world. If you
please that is the process in our selection and our
cultivation and our nurture of the students who come our way
and of our faculty members. When we announced that we were
going to establish the first school of pharmacy to begin in
35 years in the United States of America, we had a lot of
questions. Believe it or not folks came out of Buies Creek
and on the other end I heard dialects and I heard ways of
pronouncing names that I had lived with all my life that I
almost chuckled, but almost summarily it was, "Where is Boos
Creek, N.C.". And on the other end I would say why don't
you come down and let me show you Buies Creek. It's a grand
place. I'll tell you where Buies Creek is. It's the hub of
all those other little places called Chapel Hill and North
Carolina State University and Southern Pines and
Fayetteville. We are the hub. Harnett County is the hub of
exciting things that are happening. I want to tell you
about Buies Creek so get on the plane, get on the train.
Drive to Buies Creek and let us talk to you about teaching
pharmeco kinetics. Mrs. Hill, I must confess I don't know
what pharmeco kinetics is, but I know it has to do something
with pharmacy and I had to fake it a long time to try to get
people who did know what pharmeco kinetics would be to say
you know that purpose and that place are worth investing a
life in and I'm willing to come to Buies Creek and see this
place. That purpose is so keen and our place is so precious
to us. What if on a given day when the beautiful magnolias
are in bloom and mothers and fathers are coming from New
Jersey and from Tabor City, N.C. and they come to Campbell
University to think about 4 to 7 to 8 years for their
children and they drive over to Keith Hills where our golf
course is and where our people live and they have an
offensive odor that they face. I can tell you what's going
to happen. This grand place that's a level 5 university is
going to diminish in it's importance and in it's service to
this community and to this state and to this nation. I want
to tell you also that from this little place in Buies Creek,
where it's so important that we put our best foot forward to
attract students and faculty, have come and product that has
made a difference in this county, in this state and in this
world. I think tonight, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Hill and my other
respected friends on this board, we all agree that this has
been Campbell University's place of service and that it is
the greatest asset of this county and it's beyond me to
think that we would be so short sighted that we would affect
in any manner the right, the privilege and the calling of a
school that we believe was commissioned by God and that we
work in day by day to be what it ought to be for the grand
County of Harnett and for this state and for this nation.
My dear friends, I hope you do know this, but I think I know
it and I believe you do and a lot of people are beginning to
understand that orange and black aren't just related to
places like Tennessee and Clemson. This is orange and black
country. This is Campbell country and we beg you to help us
do what the Lord has called us to do and our work day by day
as teachers and as members of this community. Thank you
very much.
Willis Brown - I'm Willis Brown and I'm at Campbell
University and in the interest of time I asked a lot of the
residents to prepare written statements to you for your
consideration and I won't read those. They are some of the
same repetition of things you have already heard and what it
does is 32 expressions of interest and all of it is saying
to please reconsider in so far as the exact location of this
plant is concerned and these people, incidentally, are here
but to keep from imposing on your time they have passed them
to me Mr. Chairman and if I may I would like to pass them on
to you and thank them for being so considerate of this
board. I know you're willing to hear it all and I'm sure
you will take the time, each of you, to study these. I
would like to - there's one thing that's occurred to me
since we've been talking, and again I'm always trying to
look for some kind of compromise. It's obvious we all
gotta, if we live we're going to give off waste and it has
to be disposed of. That's just a fact of life and I guess
it's human nature everybody don't want to solve other
people's problems, it's both the truth you know, that's kind
.
----- --------
i5
of the way it goes. This is your problem you do it ana
that's a selfish thing but that's life and that's what I
think is going on here. This isn't a regional plant. Mr.
Pope will not tell, John Phelps won't tell you it's a
regional plant. The engineer won't tell you it's a regional
plant. According to this 201 study it is a sub-regional
plant. It is the least desirable of the alternatives facing
you. Now something bothers me and I want somebody to
address this because I may be wrong, but I understood in
1983 as they've said they had a problem with another
community and they added it to that. Now we've got another
problem in a second community and we're adding it to this.
They need solutions. I think you deserve to give solutions.
The question is are we using the right foresight in the kind
of solutions that's being given. I understand that there is
an agreement but I understand that the capacity, the 1 and
1.5 million gallons that's being allocated tentatively
between Angier, Coats and the Buies Creek area. We are
about as far up river as we can get to even call it any kind
of plant. We all know that. The best place is all the way
down at the bottom and then you keep marching up the river
because you all know as well as I do that's why this plant
is running down stream. So the further down stream you get
the better it is but this allocation of capacities who knows
what tomorrow holds with this - I say band-aid approach to
this at this time. What about this and I'll probably be - I
don't know what the reaction of my bunch is going to be from
this standpoint - everybody trying to reach it- what
about-what about if you helped with this money, Angier, and
Coats solve their problem and gave us this plant that we
could update - I mean I just saying - I'm looking for a
solution that everybody's problems will be taken care of.
There ain't one soul in this audience that wants Angier or
that Central school's problem not to be solved, there's
nobody that callous, absolutely not. And so, considering
the alternatives that we're talking about, why not consider
that as one. Some question that moving the plant might
effect the drinking water for Dunn. Buies Creek will not
discharge something knowing that it's going to hurt his
neighbor down the stream, but have you ever heard of a pipe
that runs down a river with an affluent that dumps in below
your neighbor to keep from hurting him? I mean there are
alternatives. Please that we ask you to consider and I know
you want to do what's the right thing and, and, and I've got
faith that you will. Thank you very much.
Walter Barqe - Mrs. Hill, Mr. Chairman, Gentlemen, I'm
Walter Barge. I live in Keith Hills. I'm also an employee
of Campbell University. Those two things in this case don't
necessarily go together. I wrote two pages single spaced
explaining to you why I think this should be reconsidered.
I will submit the letter to you formally, but let me say two
things if I may. Both of them have been said in one way or
another. The first directly, the second indirectly.
Because of the way the notifications have been handled and
the involvement of people in my own community in this, I
feel as if I have been treated with contempt as a resident
and as a taxpayer. The second thing is this, and it's very
personal, my wife is a gardener and she enjoys her garden.
We have no intent to move. We don't ever want to move from
where we are. My house is full of family treasures that
have been handed down to me from generation to generation
and I would rather give you a torch and let you burn it down
than foul the air so much that she can't enjoy her garden.
Thank you.
Kevin Nelson - Mr. Commissioner and other commissioners, I
appreciate the opportunity. In 1985 I was a county employee
for Harnett County and I am proud to say that and I was
shocked and had a disbelief that a comment was made at a
public hearing by a county official about a fine citizen who
has lived in this county and served this county rather well.
At this present time I am employed by the State of North
Carolina with the State Highway Patrol. Part of my job is
to run communications not only for the State Highway Patrol
but for the Department of Emergency Management, the
Department of Human Resources which is what these engineers,
when they refer to the State of North Carolina that's what
----- ---- -
, ,
10
they are referring to and as a state employee whose life
mission which has been taught to me not only by my friends
and relatives and the people who have educated my in Buies
Creek and Campbell University is the side of the public and
as a state employee if I had made a comment about another
citizen or in my function as a civil service had made an
offhand remark I would be severely disciplined. I can tell
you what Colonel William D. (inaudible), North Carolina
State Patrol would do to Kevin Nelson and it even shocked
people of Harnett County because in 1985 in Harnett County I
was employed by Harnett County EMS and my captain who is
sitting in this room right now, capt. Dan Gardner, I can
tell you what he would do if one of his employees had
mishandled a patient or especially had made an offhand
remark or had done anything wrong to a citizen of this
county.. I strongly urge that you as county board and county
commissioners take a second look at the government and the
people we have directing and leading our government in the
sections because they're not elected, you are and come
election time and when the people of Harnett County will be
looking at people they will be looking at you as the Board
of County Commissioners. Thank you.
Fred McCall - I didn't plan to get up here. I'm a retiree,
I've been in Harnett County for about 40 years. I like
Harnett County. I like Buies Creek. I like Campbell
University and like I told Tony Blackmon, Campbell could be
wrong and I'd vote for 'em, but this is one time that I
believe they're not wrong and I don't say that you're wrong,
but I do believe that coming from a Christian institution
and looking back here at the Colonel. The Colonel might
have a little rigidity, but he ought to loosen up a little
bit. This isn't the army and give us a little time and Mr.
Hudson, but I just want to come up here and tell you just
how I feel. First thing, we gotta get along with ourselves.
We gotta do what we think's right. The next thing, we gotta
get along with other people so you got to have trust. You
gotta like other people, get along with other people. So if
the people at Keith Hills and at Campbell University, I'll
guarantee you will go the second mile to get along with you
and I'm sure that you'll do likewise. So I just feel
obligated to come up here and ramble around just like an
empty wagon for a few minutes. You've heard all these great
speakers but I've enjoyed just appearing before you and give
your son my regards.
Herman Tyson - Mr. Chairman, I'm not one for making
speeches, but I believe there's one issue that has not been
addressed in this meeting and it needs to be. We're talking
about the odor but we're not talking about what that odor
represents. When I graduated from high school in 1971, I
went to work for the treatment plant in Wilmington, N.C. so
I know first hand the inconvenience of the smell around a
treatment plant but we have not considered the health
problems that can arise from the odor that we're talking
about. That issue has not been raised tonight. The plant's
going to be a quarter of a mile from Keith Hills and Scotch
Plains and the prevailing winds can concentrate around this
area where we have children that we're raising and I believe
this issue really needs to be brought to the floor and be
considered.
Charles Mercer - Mr. Chairman if I may, Charles Mercer of
Raleigh, N.C. representing Campbell University and other
residents of Harnett County. In order to facilitate this
hearing process and not take more of your time than
necessary I have provided you a 5-point summary of things I
really think you need to consider. In that regard I do want
to point out a couple of things, a couple of documents.
Number 1, I have summarized on the first page there a
statement on behalf of my client. I then have presented a
summary of key points, 15 points of the December 10, 1990
public meeting. Now those are points that I made based on
notes that I took at that public meeting. It was not
recorded and that I have shown to my clients who assure me
of their validity and they are intended to show some of the
grave concerns about this project that came out at that
public meeting and at least to my satisfaction are yet to be
addressed. I do feel the importance of making one point and
that is, I state th~re, point number 1 in the summary of key
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -~--- -- - - -. - - - -
7
points in the December 10 public meeting is - The County's
engineer stated that some wastewater facility plants have an
odor and some do not. He stated words to the effect that
for every three or four such plants that do not have an odor
you can find one that does. Now I have been told that's not
exactly what he said. I talked with Mr. Marziano today and
that's the effect of what he said. I think, and that's what
I have in my notes, what he may have said is the converse,
that for every plant that you say has an odor I can show you
three or four that don't. I just want to point that out
because I am really trying to be precise because as a
lawyer, credibility is our profession, credibility is our
trade and as the son of a methodist minister in eastern N.C.
I've learned about credibility all my life and I point that
out. I don't think it makes any difference which way you
put it. It's the same thing. Copies of documents presented
to the Board is attached to these minutes as Attachment E.
Attachment E consists of:
1. Summary: Statement of Objection to Adoption of
Northeast Harnett 201 Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment and
proposed Wastewater Facility Site.
2. Statement on Behalf of Campbell University, Inc.
and Harnett County Citizens, December 17, 1990 Public
Hearing Northeast Harnett County 201 Wastewater Facility
Plan Amendment.
3. Discussion of 201 Plan, December 10, 1990 Public
Meeting Summary of Key Points.
4. Effect of Wastewater Facility Interceptor Lines
Located on Keith Hills Golf Course and Location of Plant
Near Golf Course.
5. Letter dated December 13, 1990, to Mr. Dallas H.
Pope, Harnett County Manager, from Mr. John R. Blowe, Chief,
Construction Grants & Loans.
6. Letter dated August 1, 1990, to Mr. Reginald R.
Sutton, N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, from Mr. L.K. Mike Gantt, Supervisor, U.S. Dept.
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
7. Memorandum dated August 3, 1990, to Mr. Reginald R.
Sutton, Division of Environmental Management, from Mr. Fred
A. Harris, Chief, Division of Boating and Inland Fisheries.
8. Statement of Mr. Robert C. Browning, P. E.
Consulting Engineer, relating to the June, 1990, 201
Wastewater Facilities Plan Amendment for Northeast Harnett
County 201 Wastewater Facilities Planning Area, Harnett
County, North Carolina.
If I say for every three or four plants that don't have an
odor you can find one that does, it's the same thing as
saying if you can give me a plant that does have an odor I
can show you three or four that don't, but I want to clear
that up that's why I have words to the effect of, and I have
shown these key points to my clients, they were there and if
need be and necessary we can produce affidavits to that
point, sworn testimony. We didn't think it was necessary at
this public hearing but we can do and we will be prepared to
do it. I also have a statement from our appraiser, Joseph
Robb on the effect of the wastewater facility interceptor
lines located across Keith Hills golf course and the
location of the plant near the golf course. Joseph Robb is
with ... (tape was changed and portion of comments was not
received) . . . that could be very significant and I think you
need to put that in your decision. Mr. Robb tells me he can
have a full appraisal report, that may take some time. He
tells me that he can have a summary, an estimate, a
calculation if you will by January 21 and that was talking
to him earlier today and that's one of the several reasons
we have requested the continuance to January 21. Let me just
summarize three things Mr. Robb says in that memorandum.
According to him the placement of these interceptor lines
through the golf course may provide a costly alternative to
the county. Placement of these lines can damage the golf
course in three ways. One, loss of income because people
pay fees to play golf. They also have cart fees in addition
to that. There is an instance in eastern N.C. where this
was done and it lost thousands of rounds of golf over a year
and a half period of time multiplied by $30.00 a round - you
know as Everette Dirkson said - sooner or later you're
talking about real money and that's the case there.
Secondly, extra maintenance expense. You can't verticut,
you can't fertilize, there are a number of things you can't
do. By creating through this easement placing of the lines
-----
i8
there it causes uneven portions in the golf course. It can
create standing water. A lot of things can happen all of
which if we have the time we'll tender to you by January 21.
So eight extra maintenance expense and finally a loss of
reputation. If you want to go out to a tranquil setting to
play golf certainly you want it to be tranquil and relaxing
and if you have the reputation of having a sewage facility
right by your golf course with sewage lines and visual
hinders on the golf course because of those sewage lines you
are going to have a loss of reputation. That equals loss of
rounds of golf and that equals income and that's in the
pocketbook and that money's not provided for in this plan.
Also you will recall on December 3, I stood here at this
podium and Mr. Bobby Blow from the Division of Environmental
Management was back there and I said if anything I say here
is incorrect, Mr. Blow, please speak up and tell me because
I want to say what's right and honest and he didn't say one
objection when I reminded you all that you did not have to
make a decision on December 3, but could wait for 30 days.
I refer you to his December 13, 1990 letter to Mr. Pope, the
County Manager wherein he states in the second paragraph, he
talks first of all about the funding for this proposed
project being available until March 31, 1991 and he says
secondly, therefore a final decision by the county regarding
the implementation of the selected plan can be delayed as
long as January 31, 1991 and still meet the March 31, 1991
deadline. Assuming that all environmental comments can be
resolved and I want to say that because we came here
December 3 at a time when something was being rushed through
and we held up the flag and said caution, wait let's
consider and we have been confirmed that that was the right
decision by the division and it's still the right decision
and you have until January 31, 1991.. INext there is a letter
from the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service. I refer you to the third paragraph. The
service believes that extensive adverse impact to fish and
wildlife resources would result from implementation of the
preferred alternative. Construction of a sub-regional,
million and a half gallon per day wastewater treatment plant
with interceptor lines along east Buies and west Buies
Creek. The Service strongly recommends that an alternative
be selected that minimizes adverse environmental impact,
including wetland operations. Such an alternative could be
a selection of alternative one. The upgrading of existing
facilities. I couldn't help but think about that, Mr.
Willis Brown, when you got up and said what you said about
just kinda seeking a compromise. Seeking something that's
really to the advancement of this county. The upgrading of
existing facilities or a new alternatives that calls for
installation of interceptor lines along existing road rights
of way or other existing rights of way. So our ideas that
some people have said are absurd about locating these lines
down existing road rights of way that already are paid for
and you don't have to shell out big money to pay for is not
absurd at all. Not only might it be cost effective, it's
environmentally sound. U.S. Department of Interior said so,
the Fish and Wildlife Service. There is also a letter from
the North Carolina Wildlife Commission that confirms the
kinds of things that we have been addressing and telling you
and finally is a letter from Mr. Browning. Now on my
summary, the 5 points we make there is the current plan may
not be the least cost alternative because the eost of
locating these lines through Keith Hills may be substantial,
will be substantial. The cost of land for the current plant
location versus another less expensive location and
construction of the plant may have a severe, severe impact
on property values of neighboring land owners and your
getting into the realm of private nuisance where not only
must you pay for the damage to the golf course but the
damage to the homesites by that golf course and that is
substantial, very substantial and you also are going to the
realm of a public nuisance and that is the odor and the
sound and the visuals that create a public nuisance to these
-------- ---------
----
;9
land owners. Second, the current proposed site is not
environmentally sound and would have a negative impact on
the environment and I've read you the comments from those "
letters of the Dept. of Interior and Wildlife Resources. ,j~
Environmental concerns also have been expressed by agencies. '.'
Three, investigation to date has revealed reasons for
further study, possible inaccuracies in the 201 plan and new
findings and Mr. Browning stated a couple of those
inaccuracies that aren't even possible, they are in fact
inaccuracies in the plan. Four, implementation of this plan
may result in a breach of an existing contract between the
County and Campbell University and think that is something
the County should take into consideration before they make
any decision and finally rerouting of interceptor lines
along the highway rights of way and relocation of the waste
treatment plant will enhance the long term economic
development of the county and after all, what we're about at
Campbell University is maximizing the opportunity for
everyone. Being inclusive and helping this county grow.
December 3, we really heard none of the story because there
wasn't really an adequate preparation time for the hearing.
Tonight we've heard some of the story and the reason we need
to wait until January 21 as Paul Harvey says we need to hear
the rest of the story and there's more of a story to be told
and as we've seen it unfold tonight, I think every person in
this room, I think the commissioners, I think everyone
involved in this project will agree, there's more story to
be told. The other thing I would like to say is this plan
as I've looked at it is exclusive. It's not inclusive. It
comes from the top to the bottom and there's one thing that
my daddy taught me about life and about politic and that is
that it works from the bottom up and it's to be inclusive of
everyone and not exclusive. The second thing I'd like to
say is somebody mentioned the growth of Campbell University
and the reasons for it. Sound leadership of Dr. Wiggins,
sound leadership of Mr. Womble and many, many other people
inside this room and outside this room that have meant so
much to Campbell University, but you know there's another
reason for that and that's vision. Vision of these two
gentlemen over here. Vision of many other people in this
room and visions of others not here tonight and I think if
we consider those two principles from the bottom up,
inclusive and the second principle of vision, what we're
asking you all is to work with us and have a vision as they
say, to be all we can be and to have a facility that truly
is in the best interest of this county. I think you can
tell by my sermon here, if you will, that I've become a
believer in this project. The way that my client believes
that it should be done. It was said earlier about a member
of parliament that they could argue at either side depending
whether they believed it or not. Well here, we're not just
here because I'm arguing a side. I'm here because I
believe it. I absolute believe every word of what I'm
saying and I plead with you not to deny the citizens the
development that can help this county. Not to pursue a
course that may have additional costs not contained in your
plans and lead to a far greater cost than is on the books
right now and that is anticipated and don't go for the quick
fix that may not be the right solution, but instead delay
this decision so there can be input. Do work with the
University and my clients to seek an alternative site and do
listen and do decide with vision and inclusiveness and based
upon the rest of the story the right story and choose the
right solution for the right reason and that's the
advancement of Harnett County. Thank you.
Ed Powell - Thank you Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My
name is Ed Powell. I'm with the firm of Davis, Martin,
Powell and Associates from High Point, N.C. and we're
consulting engineers appointed by the City of Dunn. The
City of Dunn operates a water treatment plant on the Cape
Fear River located near the City of Erwin, NC. Now we've
heard a lot said here tonight about the Cape Fear River.
We've heard it referred to as a pristine river, which I
agree it's probably not but it is a wonderful water resource
for this area and this state. The City of Dunn, in
operating a treatment plant, supplies water not only to
themselves, but to the Town of Erwin, the Town of Benson and
they are presently extending service into Cumberland County,
to Falcon, Wade and that area. We are concerned about the
-
- - ---
20
,
problem that you are faced with. We know that yo~ have a
tremendous decision to be made. Where are you g01ng to
locate this wastewater treatment plant? You've heard a lot
of information. You've heard a lot of different opinions
and then it's going to be up to you to make.a decision as to
where the plant goes ultimately. I would l1ke to reiterate
one point that was made and that came from Mr. Wally
Vinrick, who is supervisor of the Division of Health
Services in Raleigh. The agency that has jurisdiction over
water treatment facilities within the state. He says that a
discharge such as that you are proposing will not be allowed
closer than 5 miles to a water intake. We have such a water
intake 5 miles down stream from you. We've also heard
comments made here tonight that says we need to move this
discharge south on the Cape Fear River. We heard comments
that you need to move it to Thornton's Creek. Both of these
areas lie within that 5 mile stretch along the river where I
do not feel that you would be able to receive a permit to
construct this facility. It's either where your staff has
recommended it or it's below the Dunn intake, 5 miles south
on the Cape Fear River. Obviously, we believe in
regionalization. We think that this is an answer to a lot
of problems in the county. something that you should
consider, but a decision has to be made based upon your
financial capabilities as to whether or not you can move
this discharge five miles down the Cape Fear River to clear
existing water intakes. Thank you.
Leonore Tuck - I'm Leonore Tuck from Buies Creek and I'm
proud to be a resident of Buies Creek and I'm also proud to
be an employee of Campbell University. Campbell University
is an asset, not only to Harnett County, but to North
Carolina. We have worked very well with Campbell
University, but I'm standing here as a resident of Buies
Creek, Buies Creek-Coats Wastewater Advisory Board. I am
disturbed that my neighbors are not participating in a
reasonable and rather important decision on where we are to
place the wastewater system. We have to furnish utilities
for the middle school, for Harnett County School, for Buies
Creek and Campbell University. 1 do not deny the fact that
Keith Hills did not have a chance to give their views. That
is true, but Keith Hills is not in the Buies Creek-Coats
Wastewater District. The Board and the County had
conversations with Campbell University and that Campbell
University is the agency in which Keith Hills is a part of a
corporation and that is the reason they did not have the
conversation. I say that is so, it is right because they
are not a member of the wastewater district. When we look
at a plan, we look at the financial burden to our people.
You have to remember, Harnett County is not the highest
income people in North Carolina. We have lots of people who
are retired who are on fixed incomes. We look at that. We
cannot possibly overburden these people with the cost of
disposing the much needed wastewater and that's the reason
we are holding many of the costs down primarily for these
people. Sure, 1 look at Campbell University, I am employee
of Campbell University, I love Campbell University, but we
are looking at a broader part of Harnett County. We are
looking at Dunn. What we will do with Dunn, what we can do,
what effects we have with Erwin. We are not looking just
for ourselves and that is our responsibility as Advisory
Board. Now we do not have, Mr. Chairman, 1 am sorry we do
not have the ability to make the decision. We just tell you
what we think is good for us and that is what advisory board
does. We listen to our engineer. We are not engineers. We
are just merely residents who are loyal to the people that
they are trying to represent. It's unfortunate that Buies
Creek is not a corporate town. We do not have a government. I
We rely on the County Commissioners to govern us. When we
need a wastewater we go to the county commissioners and that
was true in 1979. In 1977 I can remember very clearly when
we tried to service Buies Creek community because we did not
have a wastewater system. Campbell University had. We are
forever grateful to Campbell University for giving us water.
Yes, water and had it not been for Campbell University as
Dr. Wiggins had said, we would've had the metro system. I
have been a member of that board since we put the water in
there. Now as 1 parti~ipate, and Dr. Wiggins knows that,
any community or county committee 1 am no longer an employee
of Campbell College because I stand as a member of a
- - - -.-.--- - - - - -
21
community solely responsible and at the same time looking at
the welfare of my people. Now, when we look at programs,
the plan, we have all of you in mind. We are not selfish.
We made a - somebody said did you turn to be a Swiss cheese
after the meeting on the 10th. I said I may have but I
don't have any holes in me so I tried to find out were there
still holes. I do not mind having a public meeting. No sir.
I have withstood the Japanese I can stand anybody. Have
been through war. I know what it is to be anger, but I
would like for everybody to know here tonight, if you are
listening to me carefully, that the advisory board has no
malice or intent to try and make sure that your property is
worth what its worth and that your life is worth a quality
life because that is what we are here for and I hope to
goodness that when time passes and my name is called that
you will remember me as making life in Buies Creek a little
bit better. That's all I'm after and that's all I would
like for us to do and that's all what you all wish for
everybody to do. Likewise, Mr. Chairman, the hearing
tonight is pretending to be 201. As chairman of the Buies
Creek Wastewater, I would like to make it a record that you
participate in locating the wastewater system where it is
going to be as planned by our county engineers, as planned
by the engineers we have hired. Thank you very much.
Glen Rasmassen - My name is Glen Rasmassen. I had no
intention of speaking but after hearing Ms. Tuck's
passionate defense, I feel I must say something. My wife
and I moved from Ohio here seven years ago. We actually
searched the whole country to find a place we liked best and
we decided Buies Creek was it. I had been in college work,
there was an opportunity to be near a college. I had never
had any association with it and I don't think I ever will
because I'm 69 and I'm not really interested in work, but
never the less I enjoy the community and I enjoy our house.
We live two doors down from Dr. Wiggins house so we're right
on the edge of the property you're talking of. We have sat
out on our patio, which is modest because our house is
modest, and we have watched deer along Buies Creek. We have
had foxes run through the yard. We had a possum come up and
look at us through our glass doors in the back just two
weeks ago. Now we've searched allover and we've found what
we think is a great place and now you're thinking of
building a water treatment plant as close as I can tell a
quarter of a mile or less from our back door and I think
it's only natural that we're upset and that we're asking
that you do whatever you can do to find another solution
because there possibly some solutions that haven't been
looked at and we'd very much appreciate you doing so. Thank
you.
Diamond Matthews - My name is Diamond Matthews and I live on
Main Street, Buies Creek, North Carolina and I would like to
say that this sewage system has in no way made my life
better. It has made my life miserable. Before I was told
that I had to get on this sewer system I had two perfectly
working septic tanks. One on each side of my house. Now we
have this sewer system. I have had nothing but problems
since I got on this sewer system. My life is miserable and
half of it is because of the sewer system. In the summer
all you smell is sewage coming up through the kitchen sink,
in the bathrooms the commodes often smelled because I live
on main street and I live on the main line that's coming up.
It's got no other place to go and the water and sewage bill
is just horrible; just perfectly horrible. Talking about the
widows and the old people that don't have any money, how in
the world can we pay a 30% or 40% or 50% water bill and
then we've got to live in all this sewage. I feel like a
sewage dump and I know I look like one because I hadn't
planned to speak and I didn't get pretty, but this is just a
horrible, horrible thing that somebody is trying to put on
the people of Buies Creek. I've been in Harnett County for
48 years. I came from Smithfield, N.C. I came to Campbell
School. I thought it was the most wonderful place in the
world. I loved it so much I never wanted to leave, but I
can tell you one thing, I cannot live in a sewage dump and I
---
------ --- ---
22
as many other I am sure will be moving back to where they
came from and you talk about economic impact. I just wish
right now - you see I have this feeling, inwardly, that
people in Harnett County do not appreciate Campbell
University. I know, I feel it and I've seen it. I wish I
could instantly snap my finger and it would disappear and it
would go somewhere where somebody would appreciate it and I
frankly do not appreciate having to get on the sewer system
and having to pay all that money which I don't have. I only
have one salary and I can barely live and here we have this
prospect of the whole town being stunk up and that's the
word for it and I am not as well off as I was before and I
never will be as long as I have to pay the sewage bill that
I have to pay now.
Phillip Melvin - My name is Phillip Melvin and I live on lot
18 at Keith Hills and I am an employee at Campbell. I'm
responding really to Mrs. Tuck's comments. I hadn't really
thought that there would be a point in my speaking to you
because we have many people here who can speak far more
eloquently than I. I was a little disappointed at the
earlier meeting at Buies Creek when I found that Mrs. Tuck
and her committee did not represent the residents of Keith
Hills. I thought that was disappointing because I always
thought that we were residents of Buies Creek and I found
that we really are not. It is assumed tonight that because
we are in some way associated with Campbell University that
the university represents us, but we didn't elect Campbell
University, we don't pay taxes to Campbell University and I
didn't buy the land from Campbell University. So I hope
somebody will represent us since Mrs. Tuck does not then I
hope you gentlemen will. That you will look after our
interest. I have seen what this swathe of devastation will
look like because it already exists. There are already two
lines that come into Keith Hills from across 421. We don't
need another one. It would take a magician to make that
look good. Thank you.
Tim McKinnie - Mr. Chairman, I'm Tim McKinnie. I'm here, I
guess, representing three entities. The Coats-Buies Creek
Wastewater Advisory Board, I serve as mayor of the Town of
Coats, I'm a citizen of the Town of Coats and I'm a graduate
of Campbell University. We have in the years past
experienced problems over in Coats and on behalf of the
citizens of the Town of Coats I'm here tonight to express
appreciation and gratitude for what the county board saw fit
to do many years ago to help alleviate our problem. The
financial strain that has been mentioned a couple of times
is there and it's severe for some people and so therefore as
a member of the Coats-Buies Creek Adv~sory Board it was a
major factor for me in looking at the cost of the system and
therefore I would like to go on record as personally
endorsing the amendment that the engineers have set forth
and I have a resolution here passed by the Town Board of
Coats in support of it's citizens again recommending to the
County Board that they adopt and pass the 201 amendment as
set forth by the engineers. I'll be glad to read this if
you like. Mr. McKinnie then read the Town of Coats
resolution which is copied in full a the end of these
minutes as Attachment F.
Roxanne Granger, Buies Creek, commented about the political process
stating that more notice is needed for a better defense. Ms. Granger
is not opposed to the treatment plant being built but is opposed to
the current proposed 'location.
Chairman Stewart asked if there were any further comments from the
public. There being none, Chairman Stewart recognized W. Glenn
Johnson, County Attorney, for eomments concerning the public hearing.
W. Glenn Johnson, County Attorney, stated that the issue of the public
hearing has been fully addressed and recommended that the Board act as
follows: close public hearing tonight, not act on 201 amendment
tonight, receive written comments concerning the 201 amendment through
December 31, 1990, and include 201 amendment on agenda for regular
meeting on January 7, 1991, for consideration.
Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing.
...) ~
.:::..)
ATTACHMENT A. (to public hearing)
AttllLhh\e'nt A
STATE1~~. OP OBJECTIONS AND QUESTIONS
I TO THE 201 WAS.':'II",.TER PACILITY PLAN AHEIID1.:.:......
I'OR NORTHEAST BARNETT CO~....l
StJBKITTED AT PUBLIC BEARING HELD ON DECEKBER 3, 1990
contained herein is a statement of objections and questions
submitted by campbell University, and Lynn R. Buzzard, Patrick K.
Hetrick and Donald C. Hollingsworth, ("citizens and interested
parties") to the 201 Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment for
Northeast Harnett County. This statement provides some, but not
all, objections and questions raised at the hearing. Additional
questions may be stated by participants in the public hearing.
In stating these objections and questions, citizens and
interested parties also state their objection to the public
hearings on grounds of improper notice, the objectionable time of
hearing, insufficient time for full expression of comments and
questions at the hearing, and the appearance that the decision has
already been made to implement the 201 plan amendment.
By stating these Objections and questions, and by
participating in the hearing, these citizens and interested
parties do not waive their objection to the public hearing and
their request that the hearing be continued for a period of thirty
days, during which time there will be a comment period.
The citizens and interested parties raising these objections
and questions affirm their support for a regional wastewater
facility that will serve efficiently, effectively, and fairly the
maximum number of Harnett county residents for the near, medium
and long-term future of Harnett County.
Objections and questions are, as follows:
1. Did the authors of the plan, agencies involved with the
plan, and the county pursue the question of the cost of locating
the wastewater plant in an area that has a less severe impact to
Keith HillS, ScottiSh Plains, and Campbell University?
2. Did the appropriate authorities, agencies, and the
county pursue the possibility of constructing the treatment plant
with more stringent effluent discharge limits that would permit
the plant to be at a location further downstream from its present
location and would result in
(a) Locating the plant in a less populous area:
(b) serving a larger area and population of the
county:
(c) Providing greater opportunity for the maximum
number of people to benefit from this plan:
(d) Permitting greater opportunities for growth: and
(e) providing for a better long-range plan.
3. Given the effluent discharge limits of "12 and 2"
established in the plan, which are five-year limits, and given the
plant will not be constructed for perhaps two or three years, and
given the plant is designed for a twenty-year period, has the
county investigated the possibility of constructing a plant with
"5 and 1" effluent discharge limits, which apparently would result
in having a better location for the plant, ensure a longer term
use of the facility, and provide for greater opportunity for
future expansion of the facility?
4. citizens who have purchased property in the Keith Hills
and Scottish Plains areas thought they were buying land on a
pristine river, the Cape Fear River. Now such people learn that
they have purchased property adjacent to or across from a
wastewater treatment facility. Has this been considered by the
county and what conclusion has been reached?
5. Has the impact of the interceptor lines crossing Keith
Hills and campbell University property been quantified?
6. Why is this particular geographic site selected for the
I proposed system and wastewater facility plant?
7. At the April 30, 1990, public hearing, the county
promoted placement of the plant on the south side of the Cape Fear
River. Why is the plant now located on the north side of the
river?
8. Is information available to assess the impact of odor
for the planned treatment process? Further, how can the county
make this assessment when it appears that the type of treatment
process for sludge has not been decided? What is the effect of
any odor on the value of affected properties?
9. Has an environmental impact statement (EIS) been issued
for this treatment plant alternative in this location? If not,
why not? Further, if not, we hereby request that there be an
environmental impact study. The burden of this EIS should not be
on Campbell University or citizens of the county, but is the
responsibility of the county and the appropriate agencies
_ preparing the plant.
c., II
..- .IIi
L--
10. Has the appropriate state agency issued a finding of no
significant impact (FONSI)?
11. Does the existing project and plant facility comply
with relevant EPA guidelines that call for seeking the best
practicable wastewater treatment technology (BPWTT) so that
treatment for the wastewater discharge will achieve preferable
high water quality standards?
12. citizens, through their own efforts, recently have
learned that two wastewater treatment plants of similar size and
design are located in clayton, North Carolina, and Erwin, North
Carolina. Has the county personally visited these plants and
neighboring residents to learn about the operations and effects of
that plant? Why would not the county provide citizens thirty days
to conduct an investigation and get their information concerning
the operation and effect of these plants?
13. What method of disposal will be used for the sludge?
Has a disposal technique for sludge been finalized?
14. Some citizens have been told that the plant will create
"minimal odor". It has been stated that the treatment facility
could smell like a "musky basement". What is minimal odor and
what would this odor smell like? Further, what happens if there
developed severe odor problems?
15. What is the harm in allowing a thirty-day comment
period and continuance of this hearing for thirty days so that
citizens can assess these and other substantive questions?
Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of December, 1990.
JOHNSON, GAMBLE, MERCER,
HEARN & VINEGAR
By: ~ees ~.A-"rYt-
Charles H. Mercer, Jr. ~
Post Office Box 1776
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Telephone: (919) 832-8396
On Behalf of Campbell
University, Inc., Lynn R.
Buzzard, Patrick K. Hetrick,
and Donald C. HOllingsworth
c:\ow\harnett\statemt
JOHNSON, GAMBLE. MERCER. HEARN 8- VINEGAR . ATTORNEYS AT LAW . POBOX .776 . RALEIGH. N C. 27602
ATTACHlilENT B. (to public hearing)
Aita.c.hrne"t B
RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS RECEIVED FROM CHARLES H. MERCER, JR.
RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING
THE 201 WASTEWATER PLANT AMENDMENT
NORTHEAST HARl'u~..l.l COUNTY PLANNING AREA
DECEMBER 13, 1990
The following is a response to a statement of objections and
questions to the 201 Wastewater Facility Plant Amendment for the
Northeast Harnett County which was submitted at the public hearing
held at the County Administration Building in Lillington on December
3, 1990. The objections were submitted by Mr. Charles H. Mercer, Jr.
of Johnson, Gamble, Mercer, Hearn & Vinegar, Attorneys at Law. The
following responses to the objections and questions are sequenced to
match the submittal by Mr. Mercer:
1. The authors of the wastewater plant location along with I
County officials did pursue the questions of the cost
of locating the wastewater plant in an area that would
have less of an tmpact on Keith Hills. At least one
other site was under consideration on the north side of
the Cape Fear River that was in a closer proximity to
Keith Hills than the site finally selected. This site
was at the confluence of Buies Creek and West Buies
Creek but was dismissed partly because of its proximity
to Keith Hills. Therefore, the site, as selected, is
at somewhat greater cost to the 201 Plan than could
have been. The location of the plant site falls well
outside any of the clearances required by State or
Federal agencies relative to areas under habitation.
2. The plant is being designed to meet the 1tmits required
by the State of North Carolina. To design the plant
with speculative effluent l~its that are more
stringent than those required would be unwise since
there would be no guarantee that the design would be
adequate for any future limits. Additionally:
\ .-
L, J
(a) As previously stated, the plant location
exceeds requirements for buffers and
clearances as mandated by the State and
Federal agencies. Consequently, locating the
plant in an area of less population would not
allow a significant benefit to the selected
plan.
(b) Serving a larger area and population of the
County is not a requirement of this 201
Facility Plan. The 201 Plan is predicated
upon serving a specific area as designated in
the study.
(c) The plan does provide for the greatest
opportunity for the maximum number of people
in that it can adequately serve the expected
population growth of the planning area into
the year 2010.
(d) The 201 Plan permits the greatest opportunity
for growth in the planning area for the
planning period.
(e) The recommended plan was the result of
screening many alternatives and was selected
since it provides the most cost effective,
long range plan for the planning area.
In order to be cost effective, the selected
plan must meet the overall goals of the
project. That is, it must be technically,
socially and environmentally sound while
yielding an acceptable cost to benefit value.
3. Th~ wastewater treatment plant process has been
;~lected for its ability to be modified should the
e~fluent limits become more stringent in the future.
D~Signing the plant for speculative limits that would
b more stringent in the future, as previously stated,
i not cost effective and probably would not be
PGiciPated in financially by the State regulatory
a encies. The plant process and site as selected can
b modified if required in the future to meet more
s ringent limits and allow for the expected growth in
the planning area.
~. ulile the use of the word pristine, in the engineer's
~pinion, does not correctly apply to the Cape Fear
RLver, we do understand that a river can be attractive
t, individuals when purChasing property for a
r~sidence. Consideration was given in the exact
lbcation of this treatment plant site to surrounding
residences. However, we do not think the question of
tiLe location of the river with respect to Scotch Plains
i, applicable at all, simply because Scotch Plains is
a~proximately 7,000 feet from the river. At least one
other site under consideration was in fact closer to
the development of Keith Hills that the final site as
s$lected. The engineers feel that it should be pointed
oEt that this project will eliminate an existing
w stewater treatment plant that is contiguous to the
e isting boundary of the Keith Hills Subdivision and
o e that is currently visible from the driving range
atld club house of the golf course. The selected plant
slte will utilize a natural buffer of undisturbed trees
~ound the property perimeter to create a visual
barrier.
5. Engineers working for the County have met on several
~ccasions with engineers and representatives of
ampbell University for the specific purpose of routing
he interceptor lines along West Buies Creek through
~eith Hills Subdivision. The routing as selected and
agreed upon is one that exhibits the least impact to
existing and proposed development. The specific
routing of the interceptor lines will be only on
property currently owned by Campbell University and
none of the lots in Keith Hills will be traversed.
6. The particular geographic site for the wastewater
treatment facility was selected because it is located
below the confluence of Buies Creek and West Buies
Creek, thus placing it at the low end of the drainage
system. This location will allow the elimination of
two of the County's wastewater pumping stations and
also the elimination of two wastewater pumping stations
in Keith Hills should Campbell University desire to
eliminate them.
7. Since the Public Hearing on April 30, 1990, the Town of
Lillington has withdrawn its participation from the 201
Facility Plan. As a result of Lillington's withdrawal.
all of the wastewater in the 201 planning area is now
generated on the north side of the Cape Fear River.
Relocating the treatment plant from the south side to
the north side of the Cape Fear River is only logical
since it is no longer required to cross the river to
receive the Town of Lillington's wastewater.
,.) /
L.v
:
B. Information is available to assess the impact of odor
for the plant treatment process. Various text books
give guidelines as to what can be expected relative to
odors in wastewater treatment processes. Addi tionall y,
existing wastewater treatment plants very similar to
the one proposed are available for on-site
investigation by interested parties. The 201
Facilities Plan does make an assessment as to the type
of treatment for sludge at this wastewater treatment
plant. A supplement to the 201 has been written that
provides additional detail for the sludge treatment.
Basically, the sludge will be aerobically digested at
this plant for a minimum time allowed by the State.
After digestion, the sludge will be hauled either
directly to land application on permitted land or to
the existing wastewater lagoon in Angier. Based upon
current County operation at the existing wastewater
treatment plant and history from similar plants, there
will be no objectionable odor from this plant.
9. An environmental impact statement has not been
performed for this treatment plant alternative.
However, an environmental assessment has been performed
in the 201 Facilities Plan for this alternative.
Additi~nallY, detailed site inyestigations relative to
requir ments by the State Wildlife Commission and other
environmental agencies are being performed on this site
to insure that the environmental and archaeOlogical
quality of the site is preserved.
10. A finding of no significant impact (FONSI) has not been
issued at this time. However, one is expected once all
the necessary documentation and review comments have
been presented to the State regulatory agency.
11. The treatment plant process does conform to the best
practical wastewater treatment technology and carries
it even a step further in that it will treat wastewater
well beyond secondary limits.
12. Staff members of the County have visited the Erwin.
North Carolina plant.
13. See response No. S for disposal of sludge. County
has called and inquired to Clayton about their plant.
County staff are familiar with many plants in North
Carolina.
14. . The engineers feel that the location of this treatment
plant coupled with the type of process and the fact
that sludge will not be dried on site at this plant are
real grounds to believe that no objectionable odors
will result from the operation of this treatment plant
to neighboring residences.
15. No information was presented by the public at the
hearing to warrant the additional 30-day comment
period.
ATTACHMENT C. . (to public hearing)
At+~h~t...r C
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
DMslon of Environmental Health
P.O. Box 27687 . Raleigh. North CarolIna 27611-7687
James G. MartIn. Governor December 14, 1990 RIchard K. Rowe
W1UIam W. Cobey, Jr.. SecretaJy 01.._...
Lloyd G. stewart, Chairman
Board of COunty COmmissioners
Harnett County
Post Office Box 759
Lillington, North Carolina 21546
Dear Commissioner Stewart:
Re: Public Hear 1ng
Cape Fear Regional Wastewater
Treatment Facility
The proposed 11 1U1.111on 9allon ger day wastewater plant to be located near the
confluence of Buies Creek and the Cape' Fear River is sli9htly less than five miles
upstre8111 of the water intake for the Town of Dunn.
Over the years, it has been the policy of the Public Water Supply Section to
object to any wastewater discharge closer than five miles upstream of a public water
supply intake and especially if there is not an off-stream raw water impoundment at
the water plant. It is my opinion that if accidental untreated discharqes occur the
five mi~e separation will qive the water plant personnel time to determine if the
water intake must be shut down or if extraordinary water treatment processes or
other procedures can be put in place to protect the water customers.
\
-- - - ------- ----- - - -
2.7
;
-
We are currently reviewing the permit request for discharge of wastewater at
the confluence of Buies Creek and the Cape Fear River. At this time it is my intent
to endorse the permit application as submitted (Final recommendation will be from
our Division Director to the Division of Environmental Management).
If you have any questions regarding this letter please call me at (919)
733-2321.
S1"i7~4~4
w. E. Venrick, Chief
Public Water Supply Section
WEV:cf
cc: Rodney Tart
Debra Benoy
ATTACHMENT D. (to public hearing)
Iltto.eh l11el1f D
MR. CHAIRMAN, MR, POPE, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OF HARNETT COUNTY, FRIENDS:
FIRST, I WANT TO THANK DR. WIGGINS FOR HIS GRACIOUS iNTRODUCTION.
SINCE 1958, I HAVE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING ON THE BOARD AT
CAMPBELL UNIVERSITY. I WAS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD WHEN WE WERE NOTI-
FIED THAT IF THE COLLEGE WAS TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE, IT MUST BUILD
A NEW WASTEWATER PLANT. I PARTICIPATED IN THE DECISION TO REQUEST
THE COUNTY TO BUILD THE PLANT MANDATED BY THE EPA. BECAUSE OF MY
PRIOR EXPERIENCE WHEN I WENT OUT OF OFFICE IN 1969, MY SUCCESSOR,
MR. M. L, EAKES, REQUESTED THAT I CONTINUE TO OVERSEE THE PROJECT
FOR THE BOARD. THUS, I WAS DEEPLY INVOLVED IN THE PLANNING, FUNDING,
MANAGEMENT OF THE PLANT AND OPERATION UNTIL THE COUNTY TERMINATED
ITS LEASE AGREEMENT IN ORDER TO USE THE PLANT TO SERVE ANOTHER
COMMUNITY THAT WAS HAVING DIFFICULTY. I WAS ALSO CHAIRMAN OF THE
COMMITTEE WHICH DEALT WITH THE PROBLEMS OF THE COUNTY TAKEOVER.
INASMUCH AS A NUMBER OF THE PEOPLE PRESENT DO NOT KNOW THE
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM, PERMIT ME TO MAKE TWO OR THREE POINTS
I THAT SHOULD BE HELPFUL. WHEN THE UNIVERSITY WAS MANDATED TO BUILD
A NEW PLANT, THE COUNTY WAS ASKED TO CONSTRUCT IT, THE COUNTY
DECLINED, BUT DID, UPON REQUEST, OFFER TO LEND ITS NAME FOR
SECURING FUNDS. IN OTHER WORDS, IN EXCHANGE FOR TWO TWENTY-FIVE
YEAR LEASES RUNNING BACK-TO-BACK, ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF THE
PROPERTY IF IT CEASED TO BE USED AS A SITE FOR THE WASTEWATER
PLANT, AND WITH THE UNIVERSITY GIVEN FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL IF
- - - - - ---
') .~
Lb
THE PLANT WERE SOLD, THE UNIVERSITY CONVEYED THE LAND TO THE COUNTY.
THE COUNTY DID GIVE $30,000 TO THE PROJECT, BUT THIS MONEY WAS
RETURNED TO THE COUNTY. THUS, THE PLANT WAS BUILT WITH GOVERNMENTAL
GRANTS AND FUNDS FROM CAMPBELL UNIVERSITY. IN EXCHANGE FOR THE
COOPERATION OF THE COUNTY, THE UNIVERSITY AGREED THAT THE PLANT
WOULD BE OF SUCH SIZE TO ACCOMMODATE THE THEN PRESENT AND FUTURE.
NEEDS OF CAMPBELL UNIVERSITY AND THE BUIES CREEK COMMUNITr.
AND THE COUNTY DID COOPERATE. THUS, WE WERE SURPRISED WHEN
IN 1981 AND 1982, WE WERE INFORMED BY THE COUNTY THAT THE LEASE
WOULD BE TERMINATED, AND THE COUNTY WOULD TAKE OVER AND ANOTHER
COMMUNITY WHICH WAS HAVING WASTEWATER PROBLEMS WOULD BE BROUGHT
ON THE SYSTEM. THE PRIMARY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE TAKEOVER WAS
THAT GOVERNMENT GRANTS HAD BEEN USED TO HELP DEVELOP THE PROJECT.
THE UNIVERSITY RESISTED ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WAS OPERATING
THE PLANT AND IN ACTUALITY, THE PLANT WAS REALLY OWNED BY THE
UNIVERSITY, THE UNIVERSITY ALSO FELT THAT THE TAKEOVER BY THE
COUNTY AND THE ADDITION OF OTHER COMMUNITIES AS USERS MIGHT
JEOPARDIZE THE FUTURE NEEDS OF THE UNIVERSITY AND THE BUIES CREEK
AREA RESIDENTS. AFTER MUCH NEGOTIATIONS AND ARBITRATION, A SETTLE-
MENT WAS REACHED, WHEREBY FUTURE CAPACITY FOR THE UNIVERSITY'S
GROWTH WOULD ALWAYS BE RESERVED AND TO ASSURE THIS RESERVATION OF
CAPACITY FOR THE UNIVERSITY, IT WAS AGREED THAT NO INDUSTRIAL WASTE
WOULD BE CONNECTED TO THE SYSTEM,
BEFORE I CLOSE ON THIS MATTER OF PAST HISTORY, LET ME NOTE
THAT THROUGHOUT THE NEGOTIATIONS, THE UNIVERSITY ADVOCATED THE
REGIONAL CONCEPT OF THE TREATMENT URGING AS IT DID SO. THAT THE
PLANT BE LOCATED AT THE PREFERRED SITE WHICH HAS BEEN SELECTED IN
THE EARLIEST 201 STUDY. I AM SURE THAT IN OUR ADVOCATING A REGIONAL
SYSTEM FOR THE TREATMENT OF WASTEWATER, YOU DID NOT EXPECT US TO
FORFEIT OUR RIGHT TO QUESTION THE MOST APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THE
LOCATION OF THE PLANT,
MR. CHAIRMAN, IN MY OPINION. THE MATTER BEFORE US IS CRITICAL,
ACROSS THIS STATE AND BEFORE THE WEEK IS OUT. THOUSANDS OF ALUMNI
AND FRIENDS AND MILLIONS OF OUR BAPTIST PEOPLE WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAMPBELL
- - - --- -..--- - - - - - - - -.---.-
."""~ "-',
~. ';I
UNIVERSITY AND THE ECONOMY OF HARNETT COUNTY WILL BE WAITING TO
SEE IF THE COUNTY WILL GO FORWARD WITH A PROJECT THAT COULD
IRREPARABLY IMPAIR THE PROPERTY VALUES OF CITIZENS WHO HAVE LARGELY
INVESTED THEIR LIFETIME EARNINGS IN THEIR HOMES AND WHICH WILL
GRAVELY DAMAGE, IF NOT TOTALLY DESTROY, A PROJECT THAT ANNUALLY
CONTRIBUTES BETWEEN $200,000 - $300,000 TO THE TAX BASE OF THE COUNTY
AND WHICH IF ALLOWED TO GO UNIMPENDED WILL ANNUALLY ADD ANOTHER
APPROXIMATELY $500,000 TO THE TAX BASE.
ONE CAN ALSO REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT PROSPECTIVE BUSINESSES
AND INDUSTRIES CONSIDERING THE LOCATION OF THEIR BUSINESS IN THE
AREA MUST CONSIDER THE PROBLEM WE ARE ADDRESSING TONIGHT. TWICE
NOW IN TEN YEARS, THE UNIVERSITY HAS, THROUGH NO FAULT OF ITS OWN,
BEEN MADE TO FIGHT BATTLES WHICH IT DID NOT CREATE. VALUABLE TIME
HAS BEEN AND IS BEING LOST, LARGE PROFESSIONAL FEES AND LITERALLY
THOUSANDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE HOURS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER SPENT
IN HELPING TO EDUCATE YOUNG PEOPLE ARE BEING USED TO DEFEND ITSELF
AND TRY TO FIND SOLUTIONS TO A PROBLEM NOT OF ITS OWN MAKING. I
SUBMIT SUCH MATTERS AS THIS WILL CAUSE PROSPECTIVE CITIZENS -- BOTH
CORPORATE AND INDIVIDUAL -- TO THINK TWICE BEFORE DECIDING TO LOCATE
HERE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, LADIES AND GENTLEMAN, I DEEPLY RESPECT YOU AND
YOUR POS IT IONS. I CAN EMPATHIZE WITH YOU. SINCE 1958, I HAVE HAD
THE WONDERFUL PLEASURE OF SERVING CAMPBELL. IN SO DOING, I, ALONG
WITH YOU, HAVE SPENT HUNDREDS OF DAYS AND DRIVEN MANY MILES IN DIS-
CHARGING MY DUTIES.
My JOB IS NOT WITHOUT BENEFITS. IF I AM ON THE CAMPUS AT MEAL-
TIME, I USUALLY GET INVITED TO ENJOY ONE OF THOSE GREAT BARBOUR
I DINNERS. IF THE PRESIDENT, OR SOMEONE IN HIS BEHALF, HOLDS A MEETING
IN SANFORD, I AM USUALLY GIVEN THE PRIVILEGE OF "PICKING UP THE
CHECK." NOTWITHSTANDING, THE ABSENCE OF MY MATERIAL BENEFITS,
NOTHING CAN EQUAL THE SATISFACTION I RECEIVE IN HELPING TO EDUCATE
YOUNG PEOPLE AND ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO MUST HAVE HELP AT CAMPBELL.
THAT INCLUDES ABOUT 80 - 90% OF THE STUDENT BODY, THUS, I CAN
IDENTIFY WITH YOU AS YOU SERVE THE CITIZENS OF HARNETT.
- - ---
"7 r'i
jU
TONIGHT, MY FRIENDS, WE ARE NOT TALKING JUST ABOUT "PLANT
ODORS," WE ARE HERE DISCUSSING "ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION." IN
HIS SEPTEMBER 17, 1982, LETTER TO PRESIDENT WIGGINS, MR, ROBERT
BROWNING, OUR ENGINEER, WHO IS PRESENT THIS EVENING, STATED IT WELL.
HE OBSERVED:
"THE PROPOSED ENLARGEMENT OF THE PLANT IN THE MIDST OF A RAPIDLY
EXPANDING UNIVERSITY CAMPUS AND A HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA
WILL CREATE PROBLEMS OF NOISE AND VISUAL POLLUTION, AND UNDESIRABLE
ODORS WHEN THE PLANT BECOMES OVERLOADED OR IS IMPROPERLY MAINTAINED."
IN OTHER WORDS, EVEN IF THE PREVAILING WINDS WOULD CARRY AWAY
THE ODOR OF THESE "ODORLESS" PLANTS OR EVEN THE NEARBY RESIDENTS
OF A SEWAGE SYSTEM EVENTUALLY GET TO WHERE HE OR SHE DOESN'T NOTICE
THE ODOR, THIS DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
As YOU KNOW, I HAVE SPENT ALL OF MY BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL
LIFE IN REAL ESTATE. IN SO DOING, I HAVE SEEN PROPERTY VALUES
AND PREVENTED DEVELOPMENT UNTIL IT WAS MOVED. As SOON AS I TWAS'
MOVED, AN OUTSTANDING SHOPPING CENTER WAS BUILT. THE INCOME FROM
THE CENTER AND THE PEOPLE IT ATTRACTS FAR OFFSET THE COSTS
OF MOVING THE SEWAGE PLANT. AT TIMES, YOU MUST SPEND MONEY TO MAKE
MONEY OR PRESERVE THE INCOME YOU ALREADY HAVE.
My SECOND EXAMPLE IS PROBABLY WELL KNOWN TO MANY OF YOU.
NOT LONG AGO, BETWEEN CHAPEL HILL AND DURHAM, THERE WAS A PLACE WE
ALL DREADED TO DRIVE PAST BECAUSE OF THE ODOR. IT WAS ABOUT LIKE THAT
AREA OF HIGHWAY 301 IN FAYETTEVILLE WHERE CITIZENS WERE DRIVEN OUT OF
BUSINESS BECAUSE OF A MALFUNCTIONING PLANT, IN THE CASE OF THE CHAPEL
HILL PROPERTY, IT WAS VIRTUALLY WORTHLESS UNTIL THE PROBLEM WAS
SOLVED,
MR. CHAIRMAN, IN 1969, THE UNIVERSITY WAS PRESENTED WITH A
LONG-RANGE PLAN FOR THE BEAUTIFICATION OF ITS ENVIRONMENT AND THE
BUILDING OF CAMPBELL UNIVERSITY INTO ONE OF THE NATION'S FINEST SENIOR
COLLEGES. ASA PART OF THE PLAN, PRESIDENT WIGGINS PREVAILED UPON
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO ENGAGE IN A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING
A GOLF COURSE THAT HE CONTENDED WOULD CONTRIBUTE GREATLY TO THE
BUILDING OF A PREMIER UNIVERSITY AND TO THE ECONOMIC, CULTURAL,
----- -
3 r
AND SPIRITUAL LIFE OF THE COMMUNITY. ONCE GIVEN THE GREEN LIGHT"TO
MOVE WITH THE PROJECT, DR, WIGGINS AND I WENT FORTH IN SEARCH OF FUNDS
NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THE TASK. ONE BY ONE, BRILLIANT BANKERS,
INTELLIGENT FINANCIERS AND WISE REAL ESTATE AND GOLF COURSE DEVELOPERS
GAVE US A CATALOGUE OF REASONS WHY YOU COULD NOT BUILD A COURSE THAT
WOULD ATTRACT PEOPLE FROM OTHER AREAS. FINALLY, AT LAST, WE PRESENTED
OUR PLANS TO MR. LEWIS uSNOWu HOLDING AND HIS BROTHERS ROBERT AND
FRANK. BUCKING THE ODDS AND ALL THE UNBELIEVERS, THEY QUICKLY
AGREED TO FINANCE THE PROJECT. THE REST IS PAST HISTORY. GOLFERS
FROM ACROSS THE NATION NOW KNOW OF HARNETT COUNTY, KEITH HILLS
AND CAMPBELL UNIVERSITY. TRAVEL IN CANADA AND MENTION THE NAME
uKEITH HILLSu AT ANY GOOD GOLF COURSE, AND YOU WILL PROBABLY FIND
SOMEONE WHO HAS VISITED THE COUNTY AND PLAYED THE COURSE. ANNUALLY,
SOME OF THE LEADING CORPORATIONS OF AMERICA BRING THEIR OFFICERS AND
STAFF TO HARNETT COUNTY FOR AN OUTING AT KEITH HILLS.
SEVEI~ YEARS AGO, WE URGED COUNTY OFFICIALS TO GO FORWARD WITH
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AT THE PREFERRED
SITE. FAILURE TO DO SO HAS BEEN HIGHLY COSTLY TO THE COUNTY AND TO
THE TAXPAYERS. ALTHOUGH I DO NOT HAVE THE FIGURES IN FRONT OF ME,
I BELEIVE THE ADDITIONAL COST WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT $1,000,000, IF I
AM CORRECT, THE FAILURE TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT IN 1983 HAS COST THE
TAXPAYERS ABOUT $1,000.000 A YEAR.
IN 1986, DR. WIGGINS REPORTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES THAT
IT APPEARED THAT THE COUNTY WAS GOING TO DEVELOP A REGIONAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. WE WERE PLEASED TO SEE THINGS MOVING
IN THAT DIRECTION, WE WERE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE SITE, SINCE IN
THE 1960's THE PREFERRED SITE WAS AT A LOCATION THAT WOULD HAVE
ONLY MINIMAL IMPACT, IF ANY, UPON BUIES CREEK, THE UNIVERSITY AND
THE KEITH HILLS DEVELOPMENT.
IN 1989, NOT HAVING HEARD FROM THE COUNTY AND THINKING THAT
SUFFICIENT CAPACITY OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM HAD BEEN RESERVED FOR AN
ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF CAMPBELL UNIVERSITY INCLUDING KEITH HILLS,
WE MOVED FORWARD WITH THE CLEARING OF THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF
KEITH HILLS. THE TIMBER WAS CUT. FAIRWAYS, GREENS, AND ROADWAYS
WERE CLEARED. NEAR THE END OF 1989, THE COUNTY NOTIFIED THE BUSINESS
MANAGER THAT WE WOULD BE WISE TO HOLD UP ON THE PROJECT INASMUCH
AS THE AREA WAS BEING LOOKED UPON AS A POSSIBLE IMPACTED AREA IF
- ------
32
AND WHEN A REGIONSL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT WAS BUILT.
REALIZING THAT AS GOOD CITIZENS, WE SHOULD COOPERATE WITH THE
COUNTY, WE REQUESTED THE BUSINESS MANAGER AND THE ENGINEER TO
FURNISH WHATEVER INFORMATION WE HAD THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO THE
COUNTY PLANNERS IN CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVE SITES. THROUGHOUT THE
PERIOD. DR. WIGGINS REPORTED THAT UPON INQUIRY CONCERNING THE NATURE
OF THE PROJECT THAT HE HAD BEEN INFORMED BY THE ENGINEER AND THE
BUSINESS MANAGER THAT THE COUNTY PLANS HAD NOT BECOME SUFFICIENTLY
FIRM TO WARRANT HAVING TRUSTEES AND ADVISORS TO COME TO A MEETING.
NOT UNTIL OCTOBER 17, DID WE KNOW WITH CERTAINTY WHAT THE
COUNTY WAS PLANNING AND HOW IT INVOLVED CAMPBELL UNIVERSITY.
JUST AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER THAT DATE, WE CALLED A MEETING
OF OUR TRUSTEE COMMITTEE AND THE PRESIDENT AND BUSINESS MANAGER
WERE DIRECTED TO REQUEST THAT THE UNIVERSITY BE GIVEN SUFFICIENT
TIME TO STUDY THE MATTER. WE STILL BELIEVE THAT IT WAS A REASONABLE
REQUEST, AND WE SINCERELY REGRET THAT IT WAS DENIED.
IN ORDER THAT THERE BE NO MISUNDERSTANDING, LET ME SAY WHAT THE
UNIVERSITY HAS SAID MANY TIMES. THE UNIVERSITY DID NOT JOINTLY
PLAN THIS PROJECT. You CANNOT AND ONE MUST NOT CONSTRUE "COOPERATION"
TO MEAN CONSENT. INDEED, NEITHER THE ENGINEER, THE BUSINESS MANAGER
NOR THE PRESIDENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SPEAK FOR THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
IN A MATTER THAT COULD IMPAIR A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR PROJECT THAT
HOLDS SO MUCH HOPE FOR HARNETT COUNTY AND THE UNIVERSITY,
LADY AND GENTLEMEN, I DO APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS
YOU. IN CLOSING, LET ME REMIND YOU THAT PEOPLE WILL LIVE IN AN
ENVIRONMENTALLY POllUTED AREA UNTIL THEY CAN MOVE AWAY. PEOPLE,
WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS, ALMOST NEVER BUY PROPERTY IN SUCH AREAS.
BUSINESSES AND INDUSTRIES DO NOT DEVELOP IN SUCH AREAS. THIS I KNOW.
TELLING PEOPLE THAT PREVAILING WINDS WILL TAKE AWAY THE ODORS AND
TO THE EXTENT IT DOESN'T, THEY WILL EVENTUALLY GET USED TO THEM IS
A MARKETING DEVICE THAT HAS YET TO RECEIVE ACCEPTANCE!
YES, CAMPBELL U~IVERSITY SUPPORTS THAT REGIONAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT CONCEPT! WE STAND READY TO JOIN HANDS WITH THE COUNTY
IN SOLVING THE PROBLEM. IF WE DO SO, WE BELIEVE IT WILL WORK TO
THE MUTUAL ADVANTAGE OF THE COUNTY AND THE UNIVERSITY. I TIS Tl ME
WE SUBSTITUTED "COOPERATION" FOR "CONFRONTATION" AND GOT ON WITH
THE TASK OF MAKING HARNETT COUNTY A HEALTHIER, HAPPIER PLACE IN
WHICH TO LIVE.
---
.~. -
jj
Atta.ch~el'1t E
. ATTACHMENT E. (to public hearing)
SUHKARY:
STATEMENT OF OBJECTION TO ADOPTION OF NORTHEAST HARNETT
201 WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN AMENDMENT AND PROPOSED WASTEWATER
FACILITY SITE
The Northeast Harnett County 201 Wastewater Facility Plan
amendment and current location of the wastewater plant should not
~e adopted, and an alternative plan should be considered for the
followinq reasons:
1. The current proposed plan may not be the least cost
alternative as a result of:
(e) The cost of locating interceptor lines through
Keith Hills Golf Course will be substantial.
(b) The cost of land for the current plant location
versus another less expensive location.
(c) Construction of the plant may have a severe impact
on property values Of neighboring landowners. If the plant causes
an odor, which is a distinct possibility, this may create a
nuisance, and, ultimately, cause a loss of value to neighboring
properties, which may constitute a legal taking of said properties
and, therefore, cause the county great tinancial cost.
2. The current proposed site i. not environmentally sound
and, in tact, would have a negative impact on the environment.
(a) The U.S. Department of the Interior opposes the
proposed plan of interceptor lines and recommends alternatives
that are better for the environment such a8 existing highway
rights-ot-way.
(b) The North Carolina wildlite Resources Commission
expresses environmental concerns about the proposed plan similar
to those ot the U.S. Department of the Interior.
(c) Environmental concerns have also been expressed by
other agencies.
3. Investigation to date has revealed reasons for further
study, possible inaccuracies in the 201 Plan, and new findings.
4. Implementation of the plan may result in a breach of an
existing contract between the county and campbell University.
!S. Rerouting of interceptor line. along highway
rightS-Of-way and relocation of the waste treatment plant will
enhance the long-term economic development of the County.
c:\ow\harnett\summary
statement on Behalt of campbell University, Inc.
and Harnett county citiZens
December 17, 1990 PUblic Hearing
Northeast Harnett county 201 Wastewater
Facility Plan Amendment
Campbell UniverSity, Inc. and other Harnett County citizens
o~ject to the current Northeast Harnett county, North Carolina 201
Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment (201 Plan) for reasons stated
at the December 3, 1990 and December 17, 1990 public hearings on
the 201 Plan. Objections filed with the Harnett county Board of
Commissioners at the December 3, 1990 meeting and all other
objections, written and verbal, at both the December 3 and
December 17, 1990 hearings are incorporated herein as objections
by Campbell University and certain citizens of Harnett County.
In support of the request for continuance and in support of
objections to the 201 Plan, the document entitled "Discussion of
201 Plan, December 10, 1990 Public Meeting, Summary of Keypoints"
is hereby incorporated for the purpose of demonstrating that (a)
further information of the study is need prior to the County's
making a decision on the 201 Plan; and (b) the 201 Plan and the
current proposed site are not via~le from the standpoint of
economic, environmental, and service opportunity factors.
We further adopt herein by reference that volume of
materials contained in the December 12, 1990, memorandum, with
attachments, to Harnett county commissioners, from Norman A.
Wiggins, President of campbell University, that was submitted to
the Board of Commissioners to demonstrate that the proposed 201
Wastewater Facility Project (a) violates a contract entered into
between Harnett County and Campbell University: (b) is the not the
best alternative from the economic, environmental and service
standpoints, (c) provides objections, including the need for
further environmental study, prior to the adoption of a 201 Plan
and selectiOn of the current wastewater facility site.
We further adopt by reference written and verbal statements
by Steven Cavanaugh, of HobbS, Upchurch' Associates, P.A.,
Engineers: Robert Browning, Enqineer; Joseph A. Robb, MAl,
appraiser: and other representatives of Campbell university, Inc.
In support of our position that the existing site i8 harmful
to the environment, we cite a letter, dated August 1, 1990, from
the United States Department of the Interior to Mr. Reginald R.
sutton from L. K. Mike Gantt, supervisor, Fish and wildlife
service, United states Department of the Interior, copy provided
- ----
- ----
74
.)
to Harnett County by letter of september 26, 1990, said August 1,
1990 letter stating that "ttlhe Service strongly recommends that
an alternative be selected to minimize the adverse environmerital
impacts, including wetland alterations. Such an alternative could
be selection of alternative 1, the upgrading of existing
facilities, or a new alternative that calls for installation of
inceptor lines along existing road rights-of-way or other existing
rightS-Of-way." We support the statement in this August 1 letter
that "the Service strongly recommends that a more environmentally
acceptable alternative be selected which avoids or minimizes
impacts to wetlands." In this letter, the Service states that the
granting ot any federal tunds for the proposed project should be
conditioned to requirs implementation of the least environmentally
damaging alternative. We submit the County's plan does not
satisty this requirement. We also reference the August 3, 1990,
memorandum to Reginald R. sutton from Fred A. Harris, Chief,
Division ot Boating and Inland Fisheries, North carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, which expresses concerns about the
properties impact on wetlands and the environment. We also point
out that the 201 pran ignores the impact ot the proposed
interceptor lines and wastewater facility on recreational areas,
and this needs to be studied.
The County has tailed to consider the cost of land
associated with the current 201 Wastewater Facility site. The
county has not conducted appraisals of the costs of locating the
site at the current proposed location and the costs of locating
easements across property of Campbell University. The 201 Plan
does not provide federal and state grant monies tor the purchase
ot such lands either through agreement between Harnett County and
landowners or through the legal process ot eminent domain.
campbell University is stUdying the value of lands that would need
to be purchased by the County. Campbell university also is
studying comparison of cost of the current 201 Plan, including
purchase of property, versus an alternative site with interceptor
lines crossing existing rightS-Of-way. Inasmuch as the 201 Plan
is not the best alternative trom the standpoint of the environment
and does not provide for the cost of purchasing land tor
interceptor lines and the plant aite, it may not be, and we submit
it is not, the least costly or best alternative to the citizens of
Harnett County.
Based on the foregoing reasons and the commitment of
Campbell University, Inc. et a1., to establish the best regional
wastewater treatment facilities plan tor Harnett County, and based
upon campbell University's and others' desires to work in a
cooperative effort to establish a regional wastewater tacility and
do what i. in the best interest of citizens ot Harnett County, we
submit these objections to the current 201 Plan, and atUrm. our
etfort. to work to provide a better wastewater tacilitie. plan
that will provide the be.t pos.ible wa.tewater facility in the
most efficient and cost-effective aanner and tor the continued
advancement and opportunity ot all the citizens ot Harnett County.
Respectfully submitted this 17th day ot December, 1990.
JOHNSON, GAMBLE, MERCER, HEARN & VINEGAR
BYI
Charles H. Kercer, Jr.
Post ottice Box 1776
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Telephone: (919) 832-8396
On Behalt ot Campbell University,
Inc., Lynn R. Buzzard, Patrick K.
Hetrick, Donald C. HOllingsworth, and
other citizen. of Harnett County
c:\ow\harnett\.tatmt2
"
Discussion of 201 Plan
December 10, 1990 Public Meeting
Summary of Key Points
The Buies Creek-Coats Water and Sewer District Advisory
Committee held a public meeting on December 10, 1990 to provide
information concerning the Northeast Harnett county North Carolina
201 Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment and the planned site for
the wastewater facility plant.
The meeting was limited to county representatives providing
information about the 201 Plan and planned wastewater facility.
Questions from the audience were permitted, but people were not
allowed to make comments concerning ideas and proposed
alternatives.
Major points regarding the 201 Plan and the proposed
wastewater facility site are as follows:
1. The County's engineer stated that some wastewater
facility plants have an odor and some do not. He stated words to
the effect that for every three or four such plants that do not
have an odor, you can find one that does.
2. The County's engineer stated his opinion that there
would be sound caused by the plantJ and that while he thought it
would not be heard more than 1,000 feet away, he was not certain
of his opinion.
- --- --- -- - - - - - -
., 5
J
3. The County's engineer stated that, while he doesn't
know exactly how far such an odor would travel, he estimated it
would travel 2,000 to 2,500 feet. No study has been done on this,
and the county has provided no information regarding wind currents
or other factors that could cause the odor from the plant to be
spread to neighboring land owners.
4. The County plans to haul sewage to the plant location
for treatment. The County estimates that 9,000 gallons per day of
septic waste will be delivered to the site for treatment.
Currently, no septic waste is treated at the current Bules Creek
Wastewater Plant.
5. There has been no study concerning the cost to the
County for any taking under the concept of eminent domain.
Therefore, one does not know whether placement of the plant at its
planned site would be more expensive or less expensive than moving
the plant downstream to Thornton's Creek or some other location.
(Note: The 201 Plan does not provide money for purchase of land
or taking land under eminent domain. Campbell University is
studying whether another plant location might be more cost
effective for Harnett County citizens.)
6. The county's engineer admitted that effluent discharge
limits will be more severe in the future. (Note: This raises the
question as to whether the existing 12 and 2 effluent discharge
limits really present the "least cost" alternative and are in the
County taxpayers' and users' best interests.)
7. The County's engineer admitted that there is no
technical reason not to move the discharge point.
8. Neither the County's engineer nor the county have
provided figures or attempted to quantify the cost for moving the
plant downstream with or without the same discharge limits.
9 . The county has not quantified the cost of an
alternative site in the Thornton's Creek area, nor have they
quantified the cost of relocating interceptor lines along a
different route. Therefore, the County cannot possibly know
whether it is pursuing the "least cost" alternative.
10. The County's engineer stated that if he could construct
a wastewater facility plant at Thornton's Creek, which is a
location downstream, for the same or less cost as you could
construct the plant at the existing site, he would move the plant
downstream to Thornton's Creek.
11- One of the alternative sites for the wastewater
facility in a 1986 plan was Thornton's Creek.
12. The County applied for an effluent discharge permit
before the public hearing was held.
13. The current site for the plant location was selected on
October 17, 1990.
14. The County's engineer stated that the plant is designed
for 20 years, will have a capacity of 2 million gallons per day,
and originally will be utilized as a 1.5 million gallon per day
wastewater facility. It can be expanded. When asked whether it
would be expanded, the engineer stated, "Your guess is as good as
mine."
~ 15. The authors of the 201 Plan were not in attendance.
Respectfully submitted this 17th day of December, 1990.
JOHNSON, GAMBLE, MERCER, HEARN & VINEGAR
By:
Charles H. Mercer, Jr.
Post Office Box 1776
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Telephone: (gIg) 832-8396
On Behalf of Campbell University,
Inc., Lynn R. Buzzard, Patrick K.
Hetrick, Donald C. Hollingsworth, and
other citizens of Harnett County
c:\ow\harnett\keypoint
- - - -
- -.--
36
EFFECT OF WASTEWATER PACXLXT~ ~~~~RCEPTOR LXNES LOCATED
ON KEXTH HrLLS GOLF COURSJLM!D LOCATXON OF PLNl'l' NEAR GOLF COORSB
Campbell University, as well as some citizens in Harnett
county, are concerned that the current 201 Wastewater Facility
Plan provides for interceptor lines being located on Keith Hills
Golf Course. Further, Campbell University and others who desire
the most economically and environmentally efficient plan are
concerned that the current 201 Plan has not calculated the costs
of running interceptor lines through Keith Hills Golf Course and
locating the plant so near the golf course. The cost of buying
easements through Keith Hills Golf Course and any partial
permanent taking associated with a sewer plant being near the golf
course must be considered. This is especially true since the 201
Plan does not provide money for the purchase of land for easements
or taking land under eminent domain.
As part of its effort to work cooperatively to help
establish the best possible regional wastewater facility, Campbell
University has retained an appraiser to examine the effect of the
current proposed 201 Plan on Keith Hills Golf Course and the cost
to the county for purchase of required lands for interceptor lines
in the plan.
Joseph A Robb, MAl, of Joseph A. Robb and Associates,
Wilmington, North Carolina, is an appraiser with a distinguished
reputation and particular expertise in appraising golf courses and
golf course communities.
According to Mr. Robb, placement of interceptor lines
through the golf course may provide a costly alternative to the
county. Placement of such lines can damage the golf course in
three specific ways:
(1) Loss of income:
(2) Extra maintenance expense: and
(3) Loss of reputation.
Keith Hills Golf Course is a public course and charges green
fees and cart fees for golfers. To the extent that placement of
interceptor lines and associated construction disrupts play, it
will decrease income of the golf course.
Construction of interceptor lines can disrupt the
maintenance schedule of the greens superintendent. It may effect
application of grass, placement of pre-emergents, verticutting
fairways to maintain a properly strengthened root system, and it
could create drainage problems, alter elevation and create scars
in the fairway, and create uneven surfaces. Extra money would be
needed to return the course to its condition prior to the taking
of land for interceptor lines. Additionally, this could effect
the aesthetics of the golf course.
During the time of construction, and perhaps after
construction, golfers who enjoy playing golf in a comfortable,
pastoral and tranquil setting would not be inclined to play at
Keith Hills. This could have a dramatic effect on the golf course
and its economic viability.
Placement of the wastewater facility plant so near a 1.5
million gallon per day wastewater facility plant that could be
increased to a 2 million gallon per day plant, or more, could have
a dramatic effect on golf course play. This would be particularly
true if the plant caused an unpleasant odor. Given that
unpleasant odors can constitute a nuisance and a permanent partial
I taking of nearby land under North Carolina law, this could create
additional cost for locating the plant at its current site.
It should be pointed out that, even with proper
coordination, the current 201 Plan will have a disruptive effect
on the golf course and will cost the county additional dollars.
We look forward to having the opportunity to present further
information in this regard.
Respectfully submitted this 17th day of December, 1990.
JOHNSON, GAMBLE, MERCER,
HEARN , VINEGAR
By:~G-S"~~-
Charles H. Mercer, Jr. U
Post Office Box 1776
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Telephone: (919) 832-8396
On behalf of Campbell
University, Inc., Lynn R.
Buzzard, Patrick K. Hetrick,
Donald C. Hollingworth and
other citizens of Harnett
county
c:\ow\harnett\effect
-''7
.J/
lames G. Martin. ~mor George T. Everett. Ph.D.
1M1U.vn W. Cobey, Jr~ SecretAIY D1~tor
Pec~.':"....r 13, 1990
Mr. Dallas H. Pope
County Managcr
County of Harnett
P. o. 20x 159
Lillington, NC 27546
SUBJEX:'l' : Funding Schedule
Project No. CS3704S4-03
Harnett county, Me
Dear Mr. Pope:
As per our tclephonG conversation of Dec__.l.~,r 11, this office has
approximately $7.0 million Ul loan fUndR reserved for Harnett Cowlty' s
was~ter treatmant project through March 3J, 1391. In the event that
a bindin9 OC1lmit:mmt for. these funds cannot be finalbed by that date,
this office will work with the county in an effort to establish a
revised schedule in order to avoid tbe 108S of the SRF low interest
loan funds. However, due to Federal requi.. ...,~nts regarding the
ocmniL..._.L of 5m"' funds, this office CMnot guarantcc3 their
availability beyond March 31, 1991.
It is my understanding that the revisions to the 201 plan and the
preparation of plans and specifications for the proposed project will
oontinue forward in accordance with the cunent schedule. Therefore, a
final decision by the COWlty regarding the iJrplerrentation of tho
selected plan can be delayed as long as January 31, 199J. and still ~t
the March 31, 1991 deadline assuming that all Wlviro'M...:...tal cattlBnts
can be adequately resolved.
If thiti office may 00 of further assistance, pleaSE: advise.
Sincerely, ~
. .~/.
holm H. RlOWP., Chicf
BB/nw COnstruction Grants & Loans
cc: Coy Batten
All.en Wahab
Dan Blui:;dell
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND '''ILDLIFE SERVICE ~
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 - .
- I
August 1, 1990 ~~JJhRW1]1
:.~~ .IJ~:[
~o(.'
r1UG 6 1990
Hr. Reginald R. Sutton local Plannilli Man~llemenl U
I North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources OEM. DNRCD
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 26711-7687
Dear Nr. Sutton:
As requested in the memorandum Io/e received from your office on July 9, 1990,
the U. S . Fish and \.,?ildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the June 1990
Northeast Harnett County 201 Facilities Plan Amendment I Harnett County,
North Carolina, with regard to the effects the proposed project may have on
fish and ,o/ildlife resources. Our comments are submitted in accordance I~ith
provisions of the Fish and '~ildlife Coordination Act (48 stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and Section 7 of the EnWulgered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). structures.
In general, the Service finds that the document adequately describes impacts
to fish and Hildlife resources from facility construction, except for
potential impacts to Federally-listed endangered and threat.ened species.
However, the document fails to address the impacts to fish and Hildlife
resources, including ,...etlands and Federally-listed species, from the
installation of necessary interceptor lines.
The Service believes that extensive adverse impacts to fish and ,~ildlife
resources, including palustrine forested wetlands, would result from
implementation of the preferred al ternati ve, construction of a subregional,
1.5 million gallon per day waste-water treatment facility with interceptor
lines along East Buies and ''lest Buies Creeks. The Service strongly
recommel1Cis that an alternative be selected that minimizes adverse
environmental impacts, including wetland alterations. Such an alternative
could be selection of Alternative 1, the upgrading of existing facilities,
or a nel, alternative that calls for installation of interceptor lines along
existing road rights-of-way or other existing rights-of-I~ay.
- - --- -.-.--
78
'"
oJ.
Pa.lustrine fore:;ted 'vetland .losses are occurring at a high rate on :::..
national basi.s. It is esti.mate<;l that over half of the wetlands originall~'
present in the Uni ted States had been converted to other categori.es by th~
early 1970's (Frayer, \<i. E., T. J. Honaban, D. C. Bowden and L A. Graybill.
1983. Status and Tl-ends of \,etlands and Deep'.:ater Habitats i.n the
Conterminous United States Betlveen the earl:.' 1950's and 1970's. U.S. Fish
and h'i Idlir~ Service, \<ii1shingj~on, D.C. 32 pp. I. In the 1I:0 decade f,~ r i ocl
het\~eell the eurl,' 1950's and 1970's palus tl"ine forested IJe Llanos ,':Cl'e;:
r.cc.u<:;ed n;\tiona 11y by 10.8 percen l. l'ully 92 percent ot the nut:u:J/1aJ lossc~.
after July 31 of each year to prevent undue disturbance of ground nesting
birds and inammals.
The attached page lists the Federally listed endangered (El and/or
threatened (T) which may occur in the area of influence of this action. Any
assessment of potential impacts to Federally-listed species should include
an assessment of appropriate habitat available for the speCies I~i thin the
project impact area and, if appropriate habiat is available, the results of
surveys conducted Ni thin that area fOI" Federally-listed species.
If the proposed project will be removing pines trees greater than or equal
to 30 years of age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat, surveys should be
conducted for active red-cocltaded Ioloodpecker cavity trees in appropriate
habitat (pine trees ~ 60 years of age) Iolithin a 1/2 mile radius of the
project impact area. If red-cockaded Hoodpeckers are observed within the
project impact area or active cavity trees found, the project has the
potential to adversely affect the red-cocl~ed woodpecker, and you should
contact this office for further information.
In vieH of the Service' s ~1i tigation Policy and the above-described value or
the project area to fish and wildlife resources, the Service strongb-
recommends that a more environmentally acceptable alternative be selected.
w'hich avoids or minimizes impacts to Ioletlands . Regardless of t.he
alternative selected, we believe that authorization of an alternative
Hithout adequate mitigation for project-related wetland losses would result
in significant adverse loss and alteration of important fish and l-lildiife
resources and their habitats. Accordingly, the granting of any Federal
funds for the proposed project should be conditioned to require: (1)
implementation of the least environmentally damaging alternative; and (2 )
Initigation for unavoidable loss of palustrine forested wetlands impacted by
the project, such that in-kind value of the lost habitat is replaced. An;,'
agreement for funding should be condi ti;oned to specify that any plan for
mi tigation should be revieloled and approved by th~ Service priol' to the
beginning of any construction activity and that the mitigation plan shall be
implemented prior to or concurrently with project construction.
\ve appreciate the opportunity to provide these comment.s to you and encourage
your consideration of them. Please continue to advise us of the progress of
this project.
Sincerely ~'ours, .
ltL~~~
L. Ii:. 1-Ji ke GUll tt
Sllperd~o[.
REVISED APRIL 5, 1990
Harnett County
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Small lVhorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) - E
Cape Fear shiner (Notrocis meltistocholas) - E (Neal's Creek)
TIlere are species which, although not nOH listed or officially proposed for
listing as end.angered or threatened, are under status review by the Service:
"Status Revie'"'' (SR) species are not legall}' protected under .the Act, and
are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they
are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are
providing the belOh' list of status revieH species which may occur wi thin the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they Hill be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we I.;ould appreciate anything you might d.o
for them.
River~, sand grass (Calamovilfa brevicilis) - SR
Barratt's sedge (Carexbarrattii) - SR
Lewis' heartleaf (Hcxastylis lewisii) - SR
Sarvis holly (Ilex amelanchier) - SR
Nestronia (Nestronia urnbellula) - SR
Carolina grass-of-parnassus (Parnassia caroliniana) - SR
'''ell's pixie-moss (Pvxiclanthera barbulata var brevi folia ) - SR
Sun-facing coneflrn.er (Rudbeckia heliocsidis) - SR
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Solida~ verna) - SR
Pine barrens treefrog (Hyla andersoni) - SR
Resinous thoroughwort (Euoatorium resinosum) - SR
Long-tailed shrew (Sorex disP8.r) ~ SR
~ .,-
0/
~
i~~L1W~H
AUG 8 1990
Progr
~ North Carolina Wildlife Resources Co~~~,ion ~
512 N Salisbury Street, Rlueigh, North Carolina 27611. 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood. Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Reginald R. sutton
Division of Environmental Management,DEHNR
FROM: Fred A. Harris, Chief/{~ 11. ~
Division of Boating and Inland Fisheries
DATE: August 3, 1990
SUBJECT: Environmental Review for Northeast Harnett County,
N. C. , 201 Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment,
March 1990.
The wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) has reviewed
the subject Plan Amendment and biologists on our staff are
familiar with habitat values of the project area. Our
comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions
of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G. S. 113A-l
et seq., as amended; 1 NCAC 25) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et
seq. ) where a Federal action is involved.
The WRC recognizes the need for adequate sewage
treatment for public health benefit and to reduce negative
impacts to surface water quality. The documenth~s provided
a good description of proposed project alternatives and
economic analysis. While the document (Table 6.3) notes
that the project, with the exception of Alternative 1, will
have some impact to wetlands and wildlife habitat, these
impacts are not discussed. The WRC is concerned about
impacts of the proposed interceptor line on wetlands
associated with Buies Creek and at other locations.
Forested wetlands are especially important due to a 1055 of
this habitat type on a regional and national basis.
Forested wetlands are valuable habitat to a wide variety of
terrestrial and avian wildlife species. Wetlands also act
as a buffer between surface waters and adjacent uplands and
serve to filter sediment and other pollutants associated
with runoff. The clearing of right-of-ways and other
construction activities within forested wetlands can reduce
their value to wildlife by habitat fragmentation, alteration
of hydrological patterns, and loss of habitat by filling.
Loss of canopy over Buies Creek may increase stream
temperatures and affect the distribution and abundance of
fish species. Increased sedimentation and turbidity during
and subsequent to construction may further degrade instream
habitat and surface water quality.
To complete an assessment of project impacts on fish
and wildlife habitat we request the applicant provide the
I following information concerning the project.
1- Description of project activities that will occur
within wetlands. Figure 6.2 lists wetlands at the
project site, however, a key and description of
types should be provided.
2. Acreage of wetland types impacted by the project
for the various alternatives.
3. Potential impacts to fisheries and wildlife
resources.
4. Any mitigative measures proposed to compensate for
possible loss of wetland areas.
The WRC also requests that the applica~t consider
I placing the interceptor line adjacent to existing road
right-of-ways and avoid forested wetlands. Should this not
be feasible, we recommend that the applicant minimize
i~pacts to Buies Creek we~lands by locating the interceptor
l~ne as far from the stream as possible, minimize stream
crossings and any filling, and limit the width and
maintenance of the corridor.
Thank you for the opportunity.to review and comment on
this project. We look forward to working with you to
minimize adverse project impacts to wildlife habitat and to
develop a satisfactory mitigation plan.
FAH/lp
cc: Kent Nelson, Fisheries Research Coordinator
Keith Ashley, District 4 Fisheries Biologist
Debbie Scruggs, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
-.------
40
"
ROBERT C. BROWNING. P. E.
CONSULTING ENGINEER
- RALEIGH. NDRTH CARDL'NA 276D5
5'D ST. MARV'S STREET
PDST Df"f"ICE BDX .D452
TELEPHDNE: 9'9 - B34-.44.
December 17, 1990
statement relating to the June 1 qqO 201 WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN
AMENDMENT for the Northeast Harnett Countv 201 Wastewater Facilities
PlanninlZ Area. Harnett Countv. North Carolina
I speak as the consulting engineer for Campbell University who designed
the original wastewater treatment plant located and constructed on the east
bank of BUie's Creek in the 1960's. This plant was included in the master
plan for the County as a temporary installation until a regional treatment
plant could be constructed at Thornton's Creek.
For 30 years we have had the goal of constructing the regional V'v'asteV'v'ater
treatment plant on Thornton's Creek, with the discharge of treated effluent
into the Cape Fear River and l am surprised to learn that the site has now
been changed to one on lower Buie's Creek. What has dictated this change?
On pages 8-4 and 8-5 of the 201 folder, I find some confusion in the
numbers given for the capacities of the Town of ErWin treatment plant and
those of the Erwin Mills plant. "Expansion of the town plant is not practical
becallse very little capacity is now available. A 2 mgd addition v.nll be
required. . ." On page 8-4 the expansion of the service district would
increase Ule flow to 0.60 mgd in a 1.2 mgd treatment plant, leaving 0.60 mgd
available for the 1.5 mgd initial needs of the Harnett County regional system.
This appears to contradict the numbers given in the Conclusion on page 8-5,
and no other reason is given for the statement "This alternative .....nll not be
considered furUler."
In my opinion, the citizens of Harnett County ha,'e a man'elous opporturnity
to construct a sewage collection system and a regional treatment plant to
take advantage of the growth that will come with the opening of I -40 and
the four-Ialling of US 421. A number of the people moving into the Raleigb-
Durham-Research Triangle area are affluent, accustomed to commuting a fair
distance to work, and desirous of getting amy from the growing congestion
of the cities and into a more rural setting.
As we have seen with Caryand Morrisville, the growth of industry and
homes follows the corridors of the highways and the extension of water and
sewer lines to the adjacent land.
It appears to me that the taxpayers of Harnett County need time to evaluate
the several proposals included in the amended 201 submission, and seriously
review other options. It may be that such planning will suggest more
attractive alternatives at little or no additional cost.
Respectlu11y submitted,
I \JM.~~
ATTACHMENT F. (to public hearing)
A tta.~h rnent F
RESOLUTION ENDORSING
CAPE FEAR REGIONAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM PROJECT
THAT WHEREAS, as part of the Buies Creek-Coats Water and Sewer
District of Harnett County (hereinafter sometimes referred to as I
the -District.), the Town of Coats receives its sewer services
through the system of ,aid District, with its wastewater being
treated at a wastewater treatment facility operated by the County
of Harnett and located near Buies Creek; and
WHEREAS, said existing treatment facility is reaching its use
capacity and as a result thereof the County of Harnett has
previously caused a Comprehensive Wastewater Study to be conducted
for the purpose of examining and analyzing the wastewater
facilities needs of Harnett County; and
" 1
4,
WHEREAS, one of the results of that study was the
identification of a need for a regional sewer collection and
treatment system to serve several local governmental units existing
in the central portion of Harnett County; and
WHEREAS, in order to meet the demands of the existing and
future wastewater disposal needs as identified, the construction
.
of a wastewater facility system, designated as the cape Fear
Regional Wastewater System, has been recommended; and
WHEREAS, the plans for the system include the replacement of
the existing waste treatment facilities serving the Town of Angier
and the said Buies Creek-Coats Water and Sewer District, the
construction of a new regional wastewater treatment facility and
the construction of main interceptor pipelines to connect the above
named local governmental units to the new treatment facility; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the system plan the County of
Harnett entered into an agreement with the District dated July 2~
1990, which agreement among other things, provides for the
treatment of wastewater from the District (and thereby the Town of
Coats) at the new regional treatment facility; and
WHEREAS, a similar ogreement has been entered into between the
County' of Harnett and the Town of Angier relative to the same
matters; and
WHEREAS, as part of the requirements of the processing of the
Regional System Plans, the County of Harnett, as the lead local
governmental unit participating in the system, has caused the
appropriate engineering and related studies to be conducted
culminating in a document entitled "Northeast Harnett County, North
Carolina 201 (the -
Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment" , "201
Amendment"); and
WHEREAS, as an additional requirement of the appropriate
federal and state agencies, it is necessary for the Board of
Commissioners of the County of Harnett, sitting in its capacities
as the governing body of the County and the District to agree to
.
implement the selected alternative as set f.orth in said 201
Amendment; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Board of Commissioners of the
Town of Coats, in the interest- of improving and providing for
additional wastewater facilities for the Town, to recommend to the
Board of Commissioners of the County of Harnett, in its capacities
as described above, that it agree to implement the selected
alternative as is set forth in said 201 Amendment and as
hereinbelow described.
I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners
of the Town of Coats that:
The said Board of. Commissioners does hereby endorse and
recommend to the Board of Commissioners of the County of Harnett,
in its capacities as governing body of the County and the District,
that it agree to and otherwise implement the selected alternative
as identified in the above referenced 201 Amendment, to wit:
Alternative No. 4, Proposed Subregional system; the same being a
wastewater treatment facility consisting of an activated sludge
42
oxidation ditch process with an influent pumping station and
residual solids storage facilities located on the North side of the
Cape Fear River with interceptions along East Buies Creek and West
Buies Creek to serve the County of Harnett, the Town of Angier, the
Town of Coats, and the Village of Buies Creek.
Duly adopted this the ~~~ day of December, 1990.
. Board of commissioner of the
Town of Coats
BY:.\'~~_~CY' 0>-. ~~~
:;.... I ~imot~CKinnie, Mayor' ~J
ATTA~ ~u~,regular meeting minutes)
NORTH CAROLINA.
RESOLUTION N&~ING MEMBERS OF THE
AVERASBORO TOWNSHIP TOURISM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
THAT WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly did, on the 5th day
of May, 1987, ratify legislation entitled "An Act to Authorize the Levy of a
Room Occupancy and Tourism Development Tax in Averasboro Township in Harnett
County"; and
WHEREAS, the Harnett County Board of Commissioners by resolution adopted
on July 6, 1987, did levy the tax therein authorized in Averasboro Township,
Harnett County, North Carolina, effective on the 1st day of September, 1987; and
WHEREAS, in said resolution so adopted on July 6, 1987, the Harnett County
Board of Commissioners established the Averasboro Township Tourism Development
Authority as provided in the above referenced act of the North Carolina General
Assembly; and
WHEREAS, the Harnett County Board of Commissioners is charged with the
responsibility of appointing the chair of such Tourism Development Authority
as prescribed in the above referenced act; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Ray Weeks has been recommended to replace Mr. Joseph M. Giles,
Jr., as chair for the Authority, effective January 15, 1991.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Harnett County Board of Commissioners
that Mr. Ray Weeks, incoming President of the Dunn Area Chamber of Commerce,
is hereby designated as chair for the Authority as set forth in the above
referenced act, effective January 15, 1991.
Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 1990.
HARNETT COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
~d/7~
<./' / Ll01 G. ~Si:ewart. Chairman
ATTEST:
-~j. ~J ~/\
r ~/l f.<W"---' '. (VL.c~'
Vanessa W. Young, clefJ to t Board
43
ATTACHMENT 3.
HARNETT COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
I ORDINANCE AMENDING AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE NAMES OF ROADS
IN HARNETT COUNTY AND A PROCEDURE FOR THE FUTURE NAMING AND
RENAMING OF ROADS IN HARNETT COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners for Harnett County adopted
a Road Naming Ordinance February 19, 1990, and:
WHEREAS, the Board is of the opinion that the amendments set
forth below are necessary to the clear and efficient working of
the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners for Harnett has pursuant to
General Statute 153A-240, duly advertised and held a public hearing
to gain citizen input into the following amendments.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Harnett County Board of
Commissioners, as follows:
1- That Section 3.0 (b) be revised to read as follows:
b. The petition should contain the existing road name, the
proposed road name, and the signatures of at least 75%
of all landowners on the entire state road who own real
property which abuts the road for which the change is
being requested.
2. That State Road 2088, Highland Dr., be added to the list of
road names in Harnett County.
Duly adopted this 17th day of December 1990.
~ ~'
-- --- -~- ~~----------------
LI yd Stewart, Chairman Harnett County
Board of Commissioners
ATTEST:
-----.
--l~>~d""-- 'uJ L.-; ~ L~
Vanessa W. Young, Clerk J the ard
ATTACHMENT 4.
A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING PERSONS TO ACT AS SIGNATORIES
FOR REQUESTING FUNDS FOR HARNETT COUNTY'S
CDBG - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
BOYT DIVISION LOAN
PROJECT
WHEREAS, Harnett County has received a preliminary 1990 CDBG-
ED Grant Award: and
WHEREAS, at least two authorized signatures are required on all
forms for Requisition of Funds: and
WHEREAS, Harnett County shall authorize three persons including
the Chief Elected Official and the Finance Officer as designated
signatories.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HARNETT COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS:
1. That the following persons are designated and
authorized by the Board to sign Requisition forms for Harnett
county:
Dallas H. Pope. County Mana~er
or Vanessa W. Youn2. Finance Officer
THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED THIS THE 17th DAY OF December , 1990.
A7~-
J~'~7 (SEAL)
- ---
--------
"4
Ll
I
ATTACHMENT 5.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF
THE I
CDBG - ED
BOYT DIVISION LOAN PROJECT
WHEREAS, Harnett County made application in August 1990 for funds
from the North Carolina Department of Economic and Community
Development - Division of Community Assistance for the purpose of
assisting Soyt Division and
WHEREAS, Harnett county has received notice of funding for a 1990
CDBG-Economic Development Grant from the North Carolina Department
of Economic and community Development - Division of Community
Assistance; and
WHEREAS, Harnett County desires to proceed with the project as
described in the funded application (ECD Grant No.: 90-C-8066 ED).
1
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HARNETT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS:
That the County accepts the Grant Offer and will execute a
Grant Agreement to that effect with the North Carolina Department
of Economic and Community Development.
THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED THIS THE 17th DAY OF December , 1990.
~. /! /Jt;;r-J--
tCtlAjIRMAlK
t[U(J~Qo...~ 'iJ. '-tltVL{/v.-<.1 (SEAL)
CLERK d ~
ATTACHMENT 6.
HARNETT COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT BUDGET ORDINANCE
Be it ordained by the Harnett County Board of Commissioners,
pursuant to North Carolina G.S. 159-8 and 159-13.2, the fOllowing
grant project ordinance is hereby adopted:
~ect:1on U The prcij ect authorized includes the loan to Boyt
Division and administration as contained in the grant agreement
'90-C-S066 ED between this unit and the North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development- Division of
Community Assistance and is known as the Boyt Division Loan
project.
Sectiol'l 2: The offi'cers of this unit are hereby directed to
proceed with the gral1t project within the terms of the grant
documents, the rules!nd regulations of the Division of Community
Assistance and the budget contained herein.
:;ection 3: The following revenues are anticipated to be available
to complete the project:
Community Development Block Grant $
Community Development Block Grant
Program Income S
Total $379,282
~ect12P 4: The following line items are created for this project
and appropriations:
Acquisition $ 31,215 *
Construction $295,000
Working Capital $ 10,567
Machinery and Equipment $ 11,000
Administration $ 28,000
Planning $ 3,500
Total $379,282
,45
Section 5: The finance officer is hereby directed to maintain
within the Grant Project Fund sufficient specific detailed
accounting records to provide the accounting to the grantor agency
required by the grant agreement and federal, state and local
regulations.
Section 6; Funds may be advanced from the General Fund for the
purpose of making payments as due. Reimbursement requests should
be made to the grantor agency in an orderly and timely manner.
$~ction 7: The finance officer is directed to report monthly on
the financial status of each project element and on the total grant
revenues received or claimed.
~actio!} 8:, The budget officer 1s directed to include a detailed
analysis of past and future costs and revenues on this grant
project in every budget submission to the Board of Commissioners.
~act:i-on 9: Copies of this grant ordinance shall be made available
to the budget officer and the finance officer for direction in
carrying out this project.
This ordinance adopted this 17th day of December, 19 ~i) .
~ ~~-n:r-
eba rm,n
"~dJ '11 J '-(/k~
Clerk .. '(J .
A TT ACHMENT 7.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
GRANT AGREEMENT
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING RENOVATION FUND
project Name: Bqyt Divil:dnn WQ,.,h <:;1''';;''9 ("-JYV'I,,,
Upon execution of this grant agreement, the North
Carolina Department of Economic and Community Development
agrees to provide to the recipient Industrial Building
Renovation Fund grant assistance under Section III Part XXII
of Chapter 830, 1987 Session Laws, and the North Carolina
administrative rules, applicable laws and all other
requirements of the North Carolina Department of Economic and
Community Development now or hereafter in effect. The grant
agreement is effective on the date it is signed by the North
Carolina Department of Economic and C~..u...mi ty Development.
The grant agreement consists of the approved application,
including commitments, maps, schedules, and other submissions
in the application, any subsequent amendments to the approved
application, and the following general terms and conditions:
1. DEFINITIONS. Except to the extent modified or
supplemented by the grant agreement, any term defined in the
North Carolina Department of Economic and Community
Development Administrative Code, Subchapter 11 - Industrial
Building and Renovation Fund, shall have the same meaning
when used herein:
(a) Agreement means this grant agreement, as described
above, and any amendments or supplements thereto.
( b) Recipient means the entity designated as a
recipient for grant assistance in the grant agreement.
(C) Assistance provided under this agreement means the
grant funds provided under this agreement.
(d) Project means the project name or the participating
private entity for which assistance is being provided under
this agreement.
2. OBLIGATION OF THE RECIPIENT. The recipient shall
perform the project as specified in the application approved
by the North Carolina Department of Economic and Community
Development. The recipient shall also comply with all lawful
requirements Statutes of the state of North Carolina and any
other applicable laws and Executive Orders currently or
hereafter in force. The recipient shall be responsible for
ensuring that all project jobs are created in accordance with
.
- - -- - -- --
46
the approved North Carolina Department of Economic and
Community Development application. In the event of a finding
by the recipient or by the North Carolina Department of
Economic and Community Development that a participating
private entity has failed to fulfill its responsibilities
under the project application and project agreement,
including its responsibilities to create jobs, the recipient
shall promptly exercise its rights and remedies to require
repayment of the North Carolina Department of Economic and
Community Development funds, or to assess such other penalty
as provided by the project agreement and applicable state
laws.
3. OBLIGATIONS OF RECIPIENT WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN
THIRD PARTY RELATIONSHIPS. The North Carolina Department of
Economic and Community Development shall hold the recipient
responsible for complying with the provisions of this
agreement even when the recipient designates a third party or
parties to undertake all or any part of the program. The
recipient shall comply with all lawful requirements of the
North Carolina Department of Economic and Community
Development necessary to insure that the program is carried
out in accordance with the recipient'S certifications.
4. INTEREST OF MEMBERS, OFFICERS, OR EMPLOYEES OF THE
RECIPIENT, MEMBERS OF LOCAL GOVERNING BODY, OR OTHER PUBLIC
OFFICIALS. No member, officer, or employee of the recipient,
or its agents, no member of the governing body of the
locality in which the program is situated and no other public
official of such locality or localities who exercises any
functions or responsibilities with respect to the program
during his tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any
financial interest, either direct or indirect, in any
contract or subcontract, or the proceeds thereof, for work to
be performed in connection with the program assisted under
this agreement. Immediate family members of said members,
officers, employees, and officials are similarly barred from
having any financial interest in the program. The recipient
shall incorporate, or cause to be incorporated, in all such
contracts or subcontracts, a provision prohibiting such
interest pursuant to the purpose of this section.
The assistance provided under this agreement shall not
be used in the payment of any bonus or commission for the
purpose of obtaining the North Carolina Department of
Economic and Community Development approval of the
application for such assistance or the North Carolina
Department of Economic and Community Development approval of
applications for additional assistance, or any other approval
or concurrence of the North Carolina Department of Economic
and Community Development required under this agreement.
S. REIMBURSEMENT TO THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR IMPROPER EXPENDITURES.
The recipient will reimburse the North Carolina Department of
Economic and Community Development for any amount of grant
assistance improperly expended. In addition in the event of
a finding by the recipient or by the North Carolina
Department of Economic and Community Development that a
participating business organization has failed to fulfill its
responsibilities under the project application and project
agreement, including its responsibilities to create jobs, the
recipient shall pay to the North Carolina Department of
Economic and Community Development any amount which it is
able to collect under the terms of the project agreement and
Section 2 of this Agreement.
6. ACCESS TO RECORDS. The recipient shall provide any
duly authorized representatives of the North Carolina
Department of Economic and Community Development and/or the
Office of the State Auditor at all reasonable times access to
and the right to inspect, copy, monitor, and examine all of
the books, papers, records, and other documents relating to
the grant for a period of three years following the
completion of all closeout procedures.
Upon execution of this agreement by the North Carolina
Department of Economic and Community Development, the
recipient hereby accepts the assistance on the terms of this
grant agreement, effective on the date indicated below, and
further certifies that the official signing below has been
duly authorized by the recipient's governing body to execute
this grant agreement.
7. REIMBURSEMENT TO STATE FOR UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS,
SUCH AS ELECTRICAL SUBSTATIONS OR EXTENSION OF NATURAL GAS
LINES. Where a grant is made to a unit of government for
utility facilities or for extension of such facilities and
the lines are subsequently sold to a private utility or
private industry, the unit of government shall first apply
any such sales proceeds to repay the grant. This requirement
shall not apply if the purchaser is a municipality or county
which is a supplier or distributor of such energy or
services. Additionally, where grants are requested to build
natural gas lines, the local unit of government must have
received Legislative authority to build and own such lines.
~7
..
8. PAYMENT OF INCOME GENERATED BY THE GRANT. The
recipient shall have the responsibility to pay to the North
Carolina Department of Economic and Community Development
certain income generated by the Industrial Building
Renovation funds. Such income includes but is not limited to
the following: (1 ) payment of principal and interest on loans
made using Industrial Renovation funds; and ( 2) interest
earned on the income in this part pending disposition of such
income. Payments of income included in this part shall be
made to the North Carolina Department of Economic and
Community Development within five days of receipt of same by
the recipient. Costs for collecting such income need not be
repaid to the North Carolina Department of Economic and
Community Development provided that they are the actual costs
for reasonable and justifiable collection activities and
shall first be approved by the North Carolina Department of
Economic and Community Development in writing.
Upon execution of this agreement by the North Carolina
Department of Economic and Community Development and the
recipient in the spaces below, the recipient hereby accepts
the assistance on the terms of this grant agreement,
effective on the date indicated below, and further certifies
that the official signing below has been duly authorized by
the recipient's governing body to execute this grant
agreement.
Date: Secretary of the North Carolina
Department of Economic and
Community Development
By:
(Title)
Date: 12-17-90 Harnett County
Name of ReciP~
By: &~)J_ ~-
5 gn~ture ot Recipient
Lloyd . Stewart, r.hair~an
Harnett County Board o~ Commissioners
(Title)
ATTACHHENT 8.
RlCRlB Irrevocable -
I Documentary Letter of CrecIt 7
NCNB N8tIona1 hnk of North Carol.... "'1'" r
Charlotte, NC 28255 ~ ""I, "".
Anewerbllck NCNBBenk _"'ell
Telex Number 881-151 ......, ".,.-
or 8811-115
Page 1 of 1
ISSUE DATE 26NOV90
LIC NUMBER 37467
APPLICANT
HOME INVESTMENTS, INC. OF
HARNETT COUNTY
P. O. BOX 206
DUNN, NC 28335
BENEFICIARY EXPIRY DATE I PLACE
HARNETT COUNTY
102 EAST FRONT ST. 26NOV91 CHARLOTTE, NC
LILLI NGTON, NC 27546
CURRENCY AMOUNT
USD *******20,000.00
We hereby issue this irrevocable letter of credit in your favor
which is available at sight by drafts drawn on
NCNB National Bank of North Carolina, Charlotte, NC 28255
bearing the clause drawn under Irrevocable Letter of Credit
37467 accompanied by:
BENEFICIARY'S SIGNED STATEMENT STATING THAT HOME INVESTMENTS, INC.
OF HARNETT COUNTY FAILED TO PERFORM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR
AGREEMENT TO PAVE THE ROADS IN ITS MIRE BRANCH ESTATES SUBDIVISION
WITHIN THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS.
Documents to be forwarded to NCNB National Bank of North Carolina
One NCNB Plaza, International Dept, T21-3, Charlotte, NC 28255,
in one ma i 1 .
SUbdect to UCP400.
ISS ED BY MAIL
We hereby. engage with the bona fide holders of all drafts drawn
under an~ in compliance with the terms of this LIC that such
dt'afts will be duly honored upon ~resentation to us. This is
the orerative instrument to be ac ed on.
This s IRREVOCABLE Letter of Credit number 37467 issued on 26NOV90
by NCNB National Bank of North Carolina, Charlotte, NC 28255 USA.
- -. -- - --. ____.u _
of North,Carollne
~ ORIGINAL
- - - ---------
48
ATTACHMENT 9.
HARNETT COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
HARNETT CENTRAL MIDDLE SCHOOL WASTEWATER
LINE INTERCEPTOR
PROJECT ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of tbe County ot
Harnett.
Section 1. Tbe Harnett Central Middle Scbool Wastewater
Line Interceptor project consists of tbe installation ot
approximately 12,600 lineal feet of wastewater collection lines,
interceptors, force mains, manboles, pumping stations,
acquisition ot land and rigbt-ot-ways along witb engineering and
legal services. Tbis project is consistent with the long range
Wastewater Comprebensive Plan approved by tbe Harnett County
Board ot Commissioners. 'lbe facility will initially se rve the
Harnett Central Middle and Higb Scbool campuses, along with
various areas contiguous to tbe collection lines within tbe
associated drainage basin. The purpose of this project 1s to
improve the immediate and long term water quality in tbe
immediate community area and Harnett County. This project is
anticipated to take six (6) months to complete and is financed by
school construction funds made available through the Borth
Carolina Department of PUblic Education and county revenues. The
total estimated project cost is $347,000.
Section 2. It is estimated that the following revenues
will be available in the Harnett Central Middle School Wastewater
Line Interceptor Fund for this project,
School Construction Revenue $ 297,000.
Advance from General Fund 50.000.
TOTAL $ 347,000.
Section 3. The following amounts are bereby appropriated
in the Harnett Central Middle Scbool Wastewater Line Interceptor
Fund for the construction at tbis project.
Construction $ 269,500.
Contingency 20,000.
Geotechnical Services 3,500.
Right-Of-Ways 5,000.
Technical Fees 39,000.
Legal & Administration 4,000.
Surveying 6.000.
TOTAL $ 347,000.
Duly adopted this 17th day ot Oecemher , 19 ..2Q.
~d)7~
~Llo d . S~ewart, Chairman
Ha n~ County Board ot Commissioners
ATTEST.
~:~<J~ '-( ~1. '1J\~_u v-r: /
Vanessa W. YOUng,~lerk l
Harnett County 80 rd of ommissioners