The URL can be used to link to this page

12171990 .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