Growth Management/Analysis of Water and Sewer Needs For East Pender and Rocky Point Areas-1989

PROPERTY OF
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
GROWTH MAN MMlT/ANALYSIS OF WATER AND SEWER NEEDS
FOR
EAST PENDER AND ROM POINT AREAS
OF
PENDER OOUNTY, NOME CAF IMa
BOARD OF =HEY OCHMISSICNERS
TIM BAIM, • ►•nM
ROBERT A. KING
NIXON
NEIL M. WOODOCICK
M . CREED ENGINEERS, P.A.
243 NORTH •.•STREET
WIIMINGICN,om•.• 1 I : ' •
FE RJARY, 1989
THE PREPARATION OF TMS REPORT WAS yjMCED IN PART THROUGH A GRAW
PROVIDED BY THE NORTH CAROLINA, COASTAL MUMG0UM PROGRAM, THROUGH FUNDS
PROVIDED By THE COASTAL zoNE MNWEME24T ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, WHICH IS
AU4INISIERED BY THEOFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL RESCkMCE MMPJMMU,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC AEMINISTRATION.
,,,�.McKM&CRUD

1
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
A
1
1
1
1
MOWIH MAI M=1ANALYSIS OF IQMR AND SEWER NEELLS
FOR
EAST PENDER AND ROCKY POINT AREAS
OF
PENDER COUIM, NOM CAROLM
TIM mm, cmumw
RD= A. KING
WIT T TF. B. NIXON
WIIYORD ROBBINS
NEIL M. WOODCOCK
NORTH243 -,• -M
WIIKDMW, NORTH CAML311A 28401
i �• • • • • t • �!•• •a r• t r «:It t • • I`i�t i�ri a•i��
I all
• u :+• DID • « • • « t •• - �. • • « r• ►• eta i�

DESCRIPTION PAGE
Introduction
1
A.
Suzy of Analysis and Recommerr3ations
3
B.
County Population and Economic Data
4
C.
'Ihe Study Areas Today
8
1. Rocky Point 'Township Base Data
8
2. Topsail 'Township Base Data
11
3. Public Meeting (Initial)
22
D.
Constraints to Growth and Development
24
E.
Analysis of Base Data and Constraints
28
1. Rocky Point Township
28
2. Topsail Township
31
F.
Water and Wastewater Alternatives
35
G.
Cost-effective Analysis of Alternatives
39
H.
Implementation Plan for Selected Alternative
46
1. Phasing Plan
46
2. Alternative for Managing and
Financing Proceed System
48
I.
Growth Management Policy
49
Appendices
A. August 1, 1988 Public Meeting Handout
B. Adopted Growth Management Policies
C. Organization and Financing Water and Sewer Projects
D. Outline of City and County Power in Financing
Water and Sewerage Services
E. Cost Estimates
A-1 to A-4
B-1 to B-9
C-1 to C-14
D-1 to D-13
E-1 to E-18

LIST OF NAPS
MAP
FOLLOWS
NUMBER
'TITLE
PAGE
1
Pender County & Townships
1
2
Existing Land Use
-- Rocky Point Township
10
3
Existing Land Use & Utilities
-- Topsail Township
11
4
Development Constraints
-- Rocky Point Township
34
5
Development Constraints
-- Topsail Township
34
6
Land Classification
-- Rocky Point Township
34
7
Land Classification
-- Topsail Township
34
8
Zoning Districts
-- Rocky Point Township
34
9
Zoning Districts
-- Topsail Township
34
10
Projected Development Areas
-- Rocky Point Township
34
11
Projected Development Areas
-- Topsail Township
34
12
(Water) Alternative 1A & 1B Without
Industrial Flow
Alternative 1AI & 1BI With
Industrial Flaw
36
13
(Water) Alternative 2 Rocky Point
Alternative 2I With Industrial Flaw
Alternative 2 Topsail
36
14
(Water) Alternative 3
Alternative 3I
38
15
(Sewer) Wastewater Alternative No. 1
Rocky Point & Topsail
38

LIST of MAPS, continued
MAP FOLLOWS
NUM= TITLE PAGE
16 (Sewer) Wastewater Alternative No. 2
Rocky Point & Topsail 38
I
1
L
�1

LIST OF TABLES
1
Pender Co. 1980 Population and Housing
Characteristics
4
2
Pender Co. Commuting Patterns
5
3
Pender Co. Employment of Persons
16 Years old or older - 1980
6
4
Pender Co. & North Carolina Per Capita
Personal IncmTie 1980-1984
6
5
Pender Co. Retail Sales 1983-1987
7
6
Pender Co. Tourism Income 1980-1987
7
7
Pender Co. Harvested Crop Land and
Estimated Farm Income
8
8
Rocky Point Township Population 1980-2010
9
9
Rocky Point Township land Use (Structure
Count) July 1988
10
10
Topsail Township Population (1980 Through
Build -Out, by Subareas)
12
11
Topsail Township Dwellings and
Non -Residential Strictures (1988)
13
12
Surf City Population (1980 Throcxjh Build -Out)
14
13
Surf City Existing land Use (1985-1988)
15
14
Surf City Melling Units, Existing and
Projected (1985 through Build -Out)
16
15
Surf City Dwelling Units by Type
(1985-July 1988)
17
16
Topsail Beach Population (1980 Through Build
-Out)
18
17
Topsail Beach Existing land Use (1984-1988)
19
18
Topsail Beach Dwelling Units by Type
(1985-July 1988)
20
19
Topsail Beach Dwelling Units, Existing
and Projected (1985 Through Build -Out)
20
20
Topsail Township Dwelling Units and lots
Served by Existing Water and Sewer Systems
22
21
Rocky Point Township land Suitability
30
22
Topsail Township, (Subareas), Land Suitability
33
23
Topsail Township Developable land Areas
Determination
34
24
Summary of Costs for Water Alternatives for
Residential Water Requirements
39
25
Summary of Costs for Water Alternatives for
Residential and industrial Water Requirements
40
26
Summary of Costs for Alternative No. 1 for
Topsail Township without Topsail Beach Flow
41
27
Summary of Costs for Alternative No. 1 for
Topsail Township with Topsail Beach Flow
41
28
Summary of Costs for Alternative No. 1 for
Rocky Point Township with Residential
Wastewater
42

LIST OF m=, continued
V F
NUMgM TEE PAGE
29 Summary of Costs for Alternative No. 1 for
Rocky Point Township with Industrial
Wastewater 42-43
30 Summary of Costs for Alternative No. 2 for
Rocky Point and Topsail Townships 43-44
31 C7ca parison of Present Worth Costs for
Alternatives 1 and 2 45-46

Introduction
Portions of Fender County are experiencing accelerated population growth
at rates that are causing concern among County Commissioners,
administrative staff and number of other residents. The Highway 17
corridor in Topsail Township of eastern Pender County and Rocky Point
' Township in south central Fender are the areas of rapid recent growth.
These two areas became the focus of a proposed planning and engineering
project. Refer to Map 1 for locations of the two study areas.
' Pursuant to that concern, in June 1988, Fender County entered into an
agreement with the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Commmity Development for a grant under the Coastal Planning and Management
Grant Program. The agreement calls for the joint fuming of a project
entitled "Growth Management/Analysis of Water and Sewer - East Pender and
Rocky Point Areas". The County subsequently subcontracted with McKim &
Creed Engineers, P.A. for technical and professional services in the
execution of the project.
This report separately examines the two study areas. Demographic data,
such as population figures and land use quantities, were all brought up to
a current common data base, either by actual field surveys or by
statistical methods. The land was examined to determine opportunities and
restraints to development. Soils, wetlands and flooding potential were
some of the elements studied. Existing water and sewer utility systems,
their service areas and capacities have been incorporated into the study.
Public c ccunents regarding the analysis phase of this study were solicited
at a public meeting held on August 1, 1988 at Rocky Point Elementary
school.
Based upon this background data, alternatives for water and sewer
service, along with cost estimates, were developed for the study areas.
The alternatives were presented at a public meeting held at Topsail High
School on January 3, 1989.
The provision of utility systems, particularly by public agencies, is a
couponent of local growth management. It is the policy of the County to
encourage growth, but only if accomplished in an orderly and controlled
manner that will not overtax utilities, roads, c= mity facilities, and
the envirm zent. This report has two objectives: to serve as a preliminary
engineering study to facilitate incremental implementation of the system,
and secondly, the timing, sequence, magnitude and location of future
systems will be a very effective growth management tool.
P
1

It
I
V i
N
-• A -% / r Ja� I\ J, M1 r' GAwI RAND
O va _ _, ♦ • ^ -gyp....
o
4 j ro..•^E. \ W
D - ":'%• _ _ t•� ..y. _ «p„r )./ ,. ' ..:ter =� ^...0
TOPSAIL �a 1111
TOWNSHIP
f'ROCKY4POIN7 e F PENDER COUNTY
TOWNSHIP NORTH CwROLINA - --i
f • - _ _ 4I, ," NORTH CAROUNA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
. � : �Wv� Q NwNON or lxcNw.n-nAw«c .ND ersl.Rcx MANCN
e � � ' • � 1 .. , 4 �\ ,�., fir. _ _��a
w`h _STUDY AREAS MA
OCKY POINT 8L 70PSAL TWPS 1
V PENDER COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT/ANALYSIS OF WATER S ]EWER NEEDS
9/28/88 w4W50.D h e IN
410
MgaM&CftE
WUM NGTON, NORTH •CAROLNABS -

P
Three alternatives were analyzed for furnishing potable water from
residents in the Rocky Point and Topsail Townships. The most cost
effective alternative included construction of two separate water systems
using groundwater as the source of its water supply.
The alternatives analyzed for disposal of wastewater included a
wastewater treatment plant and land treatment system. We also evaluated
alternatives for collecting sewage. The most cost effective combinations
of alternatives for collecting, treating and disposing of wastewater from
the two townships is a pressure sewer collection system and a land
treatment system for each township.
We recommend that the County establish a county water and sewer
district for managing the proposed systems. We also reccmw-ni that the
County issue general obligation bonds to pay any of the costs which are not
depayed with grants.
2

' A. of Analysis and Recommendations
Perrier County is becoming an increasingly desirable place to live -- for
working families and for those attracted to resort and retirement
' cc=nzi.ties. Much of this growth is occurring in Rocky Point and Topsail
Townships.
' Rocky Point is witnessing an influx of working families. It is
estimated that 3,071 people living in 1,059 dwellings inhabit this
township. By the year 2010, an estimated 5,577 persons will reside in
' 1, 992 dwellings. Fifty-nine percent of the dwellings are mobile homes.
Three industrial areas are located in the Township -- Martin Marietta
(stone quarrying), Ian's Ferry Industrial Community (971 acres) and
Bellhammon International Trade Centre (645 acres). Future development is
projected to occur along the U.S. 117 corridor and in the area along N.C.
210 and N.C. 133. Approximately 25 percent of the land area is subject to
a 100 year flood or has a "conservation" classification. Land with soils
having moderate to severe limitations for development comprise 37 percent
of the Township. This leaves 38 percent or 11,642 acres of land in the
Township considered generally suitable for development (Refer to Map 10).
'
Topsail Township development is more telex -- within the boundaries
are conventional housing and subdivisions manufactured housing, the
community of Hampstead, three golf course retirement/second home
coa anities and two incorporated resort towns (Surf City and Topsail
'
Beach). It is estimated that 6,706 permanent residents reside in 5,394
dwellings within the Township. A peak summertime population numbers about
21,249 persons. Some of the golf course ooamunities have full or partial
utility services. Surf City provides water and sanitary sewer service,
while Topsail Beach currently provides only water service. As in Rocky
Point Township, not all of Topsail is developable. Approximately 25
'
percent of the land area lies in the 100 year flood plain or has a
"conservation" land use classification. Approximately 21 percent of the
township has soils with moderate to severe limitations. The remaining
23,739 acres (54 percent) is considered, for the purposes of this study, to
be generally suitable for residential arxi commercial development. These
figures do not include Holly Shelter Game Land, the undeveloped barrier
islands, Surf City or Topsail Beach. Future development is projected to
continue at strong rates in those areas showing higher growth in recent
years. This area is virtually the entire corridor east of U.S. 17 from
Scott's Hill to N.C. 50. Scattered rural type develcpTelt should occur
along N.C. 210 west of Hampstead.
Three alternatives were analyzed for furnishing potable water for
residents in the Rocky Point and Topsail Townships. The most cost
effective alternative included construction of two separate water systems
using groundwater as sources of supply.
The alternatives analyzed for disposal of wastewater included a
wastewater treatment plant and land treatment system. Alternatives for
collecting sewage were also evaluated. The most cost effective
oombinations of alternatives for collecting, treating and disposing of
'
wastewater from the two townships is a pressure sewer collection system and
a land treatment system for each township.
3

' McKim and Creed recommends the County establish a county water and
sewer district for managing the proposed systems. It is also recommended
the County issue general obligation bonds to pay any of the costs which are
' not covered by grant funds.
B. Population and Economic Data
' Most published economic data is detailed only to the county or municipal
level. Very little data exists for township levels. The following
information is presented to give a general overview of the local economic
' base. County date has been taken from the 1980 census and from various
State agencies. other data has been extracted fran the 1986 Pender County
Land Use Plan and updated.
The table below shows certain population figures for the County.
' TABLE 1
Pender County
' 1980 Population and Housing Characteristics
Total Population 22,107
' Population Density 22.3 persons per sq. mi.
Households 7,511
Persons per Household 2.9
iSource: 1980 Census of Population
The County's population grew at a rate of 21.8 percent during the period
1970-80. That rate will be exceeded during the period 1980-90.
Pender County is dependent upon work opportunities in neighboring
counties to partially support the local population. Table 2 following
' shows that in 1980 4,593 workers commuted from Pender Canty and 910
workers emoted into Pender from other places. Fifty-nine percent (2,725)
of these journeyed from Pender County to New Hanover County. Certainly
this number has substantially increased since 1980.
�J
L

TABLE 2
Pender County
Commuting Patterns
1980
Out -Canners
In-Ccmmxters
Journey Frcm
Journey To
Cog=city
Pender To•
Fender From:
Bladen
Brunswick
78
183
13
42
C:abarnLs
19
Carteret
15
—
'
Columbus
13
10
Cumberland
5
Duplin
857
240
Durham
4
—
Johnston
12
Nash
3
--
New Hanover
Onslow
2,725
540
348
178
Orange
11
Robeson
it
—
Sampson
78
27
Wake
30
18
Wayne
5
—
Ur OF STATE
New York NY
3
—
Philadelphia PA
—
11
Kershaw SC
12
Work Outside U.S.
14
—
Total Reported Cmmuters
4,593
910
Percent of Employed Residents
59.9%
'
Percent of Employed in County
22.8%
Non-Ccu siting Workers
3,080
Persons working in County
3,990
Employed Residents
7,673
Net Commuting
-3, 683
'
Work place not Reported
Source:
1,179
'
North Carolina C7cmmuting Patterns: 1980 Census of Population and Housing
1

Employment
of Fender residents (16 years old or older) is shown on Table
3 below.
TABLE 3
Pender County
Employment of Persons 16 Years Old or Older
by Industry, 1980
2,229
Manufacturing
'
1,503
Wholesale and Retail Trade
881
Construction
768
Educational Services
669
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Mining
660
Transportation, Ctmuz ications, and
Other Public Utilities
536
Health Services
492
Public Administration
467
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Business, and
Repair Services
360
Personal, Entertainment and Recreational Services
129
Other Professional and Related Services
Source: Profile, North Carolina Counties
'
Per capita
personal income for the county and North Carolina is shaven
below.
' TABLE 4
Pender County & North Carolina
'
Per Capita Personal Inca
1980-1984
1980 1982 1982
1983
1984
Pender Co=ity
$ 6,054 $ 6,892 $ 7,046 $
7,403
$ 8,159
North Carolina
$ 7,780 $ 8,656 $ 9,153 $
9,929
$10,852
Source: Profile,
North Carolina Counties
Retail sales
for the past four reporting periods
reflect modest
'
increases except
in the areas of general merchandise
and automobile sales,
which have experienced declines.

TABIE 5
Pender County
Retail Sales 1983-1987
1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87
Total Gross
Retail Sales
$73,958,036
$82,985',244
$84,271,208
$85,406,700
Food
18,361,369
22,303,360
20,823,642
221853,345
General
21,171,629
22,135,952
25,051,631
22,853,345
Autos
11,932,701
10,268,369
9,829,329
8,066,422
Building Material
5,628,897
7,329,157
7,609,383
9,658,478
Apparel, Furniture
& Unclassified
Retail Sales
16,863,440
20,948,406
20,957,223
22,364,127
Source: North Carolina Dolt of Revenue
Tourism is a valuable and growing component of the County's economy.
The figures below in Table 6 are supported primary by expenditures for
food, lodging and fuel at Surf City and Topsail Beach.
Tourism Income
1980-1987
1980
$
5,787,000
1981
$
6,414,000
1982
$
7,710,000
1983
$
10,080,000
1984
$
18,264,000
1985
$
21,144,000
1986
$
24,141,000
1987
$
24,178,000
Source: N.C. Travel and Tourism Division, wit of Commerce
h]

Agriculture remains a major element in Pender County's economy. Table 7
shows trends in both cropland acreage and farm income.
'
TABLE 7
Pender County
Harvested Crop Land and Estimated Farm Income
1980-1987
Harvested Crcp Land (acres)
'
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987
52,500 57,000 51,800 44,100 46,800 54,932 51,764 52,995
Estimated Farm Inane (dollars)
'
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
36,473,000 31,787,000 28,959,000 26,130,000 28,069,000 25,891,652
'
1986 1987
26,408,917 31,172,363
'
Carolina Counties
Source: Profile, North
Major agricultural products in the County include tobacco, soybeans,
'
corn, nursery plants, timber, blueberries, swine and poultry.
C. The Areas
'
The two study areas consist of Rocky Point and Topsail Townships. Due
to their unique characteristics (both man made and natural) they will be
'
studied separately in this report.
1. Rocky Point Township Base Data
' The township is situated on the south central margin of the County,
adjoining the Northeast Cape Fear River and New Hanover County. Primary
road access is very good, with U.S. 117 and I-40 traversing north and
south and N.C. 210 serving as an east -west thoroughfare. The
unincorporated comnmity of Rocky Point sits at the intersection of U.S.
117 and N.C. 210. Several cmmercial establishments, Rocky Point
' Elementary School, Pender Academy and several churches and civic
buildings are located there.
a. Population and Land Use
gmt is significant about the study area is its recent surge in
residential growth, particularly mobile home parks. Table 8 on the
' following page shows population figures from 1980, 1988 estimates
and projections for 1990, 2000, and 2010.

TABLE 8
Rocky Point Township
Population (1980
- 2010)
PERSONS PER
YEAR
POPULATION
_% CHANGE
DWELLI14G UNITS
DWELLING UNIT
1980
1,941
(1)
+20.1 (Since 1970)
693
2.8
1988
3,071
(2)
+52.8 (8 year)
1,059
2.8
1990
2000
3,153
4,365
(3)
(3)
+63.3 (10 year)
+38.4
1,126
1,559
2.8
2.8
2010
5,577
(3)
+27.8
1,992
2.8
Sources:
(1) U.S. Census of Population
(2) Fender County Planning Department survey (1988)
(3) McKim & creed Engineers, P.A. projections
For the period 1970 to 1980, the population increased 20.1 percent
from 1, 616 to 1, 941 persons, similar to the overall County rate of
+21.8 percent. The source for this information is the 1980 Census
which also indicates 693 dwelling units in the Township. A dramatic
change occurred during the last 8 years with 52.8 percent increase
in population. It is estimated that 3,071 persons currently live in
1,059 dwelling units. That increase projects into a 10-year growth
rate of +63.3 percent, three times the previous decade. If present
trends continue, the township will have a population in 1990 of
3,153 living in 1,126 dwellings and by the year 2,000, there will be
4,365 people living in 1,559 dwellings. Similarly if the number of
new residents moving into the Township remains constant, there will
be 5,577 people living in 1,992 dwelling units by the year 2010.
' The persons per dwelling unit figure of 2.8 is typical for
neighborhoods of this type, and is used for all projections made for
the planning period in Rocky Point Township.
Ib. Iand Use
In July, 1988 the County Planning Department cmipleted a land use
' survey for the Township, resulting in a current inventory of
dwellings by type and condition, and non-residential structures.
The results of that survey are shown on the following page in Table
9, and on Map 2 entitled Existing land Use -- Rocky Point Township.
k
� 9

1
Rocky Point Township
Land Use (Structure Count)
July, 1988
Mcabile Homes
Single -Wide 542
Double -Tide 80
Conventional Dwellings
' Standard Condition 249
Deteriorated 119
Dilapidated 69
I
Total Dwellings 1,059
Vacant Dilapidated
8
Ccumercial
48
Churches
12
Fire Station
1
Post Office
1
School
2
Vacant Ccatmt.
2
Industrial
1
Total Non -Residential 75
• a •.Ir
-�-«�
58.7
41.3
100.00
Perrier County Planning Department July, 1988 Survey
Ninety-three percent (1,059) of the structures in the Township are
dwellings and of that number 58.7 percent (622) are mobile homes.
Over one-third of the mobile homes are located within the Township's
9 mobile home parks and 4 mobile home subdivisions. Recent permit
treads show an even larger percentage of mobile homes -- in 1987, 74
percent (155) of the total residential building permits issued in
the Township were for mobile homes. County -wide mobile ham permits
accounted for 53 percent of residences that same year. In 1986
mobile homes comprised 69 percent of the residential permits
compared with 53 percent cxunty-wide that same year.
Non-residential development is cmposed mostly of small retail and
service businesses, schools and governmental facilities (post
office, fire station) clustered around the Rocky Point catnnunity.
Industrial uses include the Carver Boat Manufacturing Plant on a 40
acre site located within an 880 acre industrial park being developed
by IP Timberlands Operating Co. Ltd. a division of International
Paper Company. Carver Boat provides its own water supply and waste
water treatment facilities. The industrial park called Bellik-mmn
FCC

T.
IT T`
�44T c
°
n
LANES FERRY
T
• o , INDUSTRIAL -
T arD j T?!t PARK
•T
.. ,, .• S+ t
T�
Tt�
.. , �•T Y?T`'. T..TAT
[! TOLP•
T;T
T '
. Y •v°T T.•�T
�,,,T IT .:
:.{
. ..
p
T.
T•
c � T
/T 1'!,
r •TT�
�7
,T
,r
T
.�
TTIT
ITTTTT'F
T T�
. T 0
IT
ITT •T\. Q TIT
-
.
.TT TT
TITT
T T777TTTT..
T r
-. ? ,�
_
:T,
IGT
IZT-
.TT TST
'ITT ".° °
N
Trr a i
I}
BELHAMMON
iaBT,
INTERNATIONAL
"';TRADE CENTRE,
r T r+•.
1\' ot
1 T ;• 1
2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000FEET
_
LEGEND
...+'.
ROCKY, POINT TOWNSHIP
r2�9/28/88 EXISTING LAND USE
THIS ORIGINAL BASE NAP WAS PREPARED BY THE PPNDER ODM'lY PLANNING
�SARI'M'r THE BASE NAP UPDATE AND FAWEI,T n*'CF IICN WERE PREPARED BY
.• HOUSE
-
PENDER COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT/ANALYSIS OF WATER A SEWER NEEDS
MCJ@I 4 CREED ENGDNNS, P.A..
- T . MOBILE HOME
.
THE PREPARATION OF THIS NAP (THE UPDATE AND PRW= INVOdATTON) WAS
FIIANMD IN PART Tf0[EM A QWM PRO✓IDED BY THE NURIH CARTLIIA NASAL -
- 13 COMMERCIAL
�
_
�MCIQM&MM
HANAGD•OIT PROGRAM, THAWM FMW PROVIItD BY THE Q1A3'TAL ZONE FNNAGE!ffil!'
..
ACT OF 1972, AS AMEtJIM HIICN IS ACHIRITIUM BY THE OFFICE OF OCEAN AND
- -
COASTAL RESOURCES NAHAGM TT, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMSPERIC -
AO(uai F/OTON.
-
ENGINEERS •PI.ANNCRa.SVRVSYORa
WINEERS O L. WORTH SURCASGE O

International Trade Centre,
is located between N.C. 133
and the
'
Northeast Cape Fear River, and between Turkey Creek
and
Creekside
subdivision. Refer to Map 2 for location of the
park.
Current
plans reflect a mixed use
development, including
644.5
acres of
'
manufacturing in 5,10 and
20 acre parcels, 22 acres
for commercial,
10.6 acres for community
facilities, 10 acres as a
park,
12 acres
for open space, 15 acres
for waterfront development and
164 acres
' for residences. Water and sewer facilities (except for Carver Boat)
have not been installed.
t The other major industrial facility is the Cincinnati Thermal Spray
Co. (CIS) plant located in Ian's Ferry Industrial Cmmunity. This
park comprises 971 acres and is located on N.C. 210 at SR 1518, and
adjoins the Northeast Cape Fear River. CIS is classified as light
' manufacturing and presently employees about 20 persons. The plant's
utility needs are provided on -site.
' c. Utilities in Rocky Point Township
Utility service throughout the Township is provided through
' individual wells and septic tanks. The only exceptions to this are
mobile hones located within mobile hone parks. Parks typically have
on or more systems providing water. If a system has 15 or more
customers, it is considered a public water supply and is regulated
' by the North Carolina Division of Health Services. The number of
mobile hones connected to a public or private water system (as
apposed to an individual well) is estimated to be approximately 200.
' 2. Toopsail Township Base Data
Topsail Township, sometimes referred to as East Pender County, is
' bisected by Highway U.S. 17 and is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean to the
east, Northeast Cape Fear River and Holly Shelter Game Land to the west,
Onslow County to the north and New Hanover County to the south. Surf
City and Topsail Beach are growing, incorporated beach resort
municipalities. Hampstead is a growing unincorporated community
at the intersection of U.S. 17 and N.C. 210. A number of residential
' developments have been created in the 15 mile long corridor between U.S.
17 and the Intracoastal Waterway. Some developments have golf courses,
sane have water frontage and densities range frrm condan.iniums to 6 acre
"estate" lots.
Due to the intensity and diversity of growth, and the availability of
detailed land use information this township was subdivided into 8
' subareas plus the towns of Topsail Beach and Surf City. Refer to Map 3.
0
P
1
11

0

I
L
a. Population and Land Use
With the exception of houses on Topsail Beach and Surf City all
dwellings within the Township are regarded by this study as
permanent year-round homes. The two beach towns, because of their
primary utilization as summer resorts, were analyzed differently --
peak summer population was estimated along with the permanent
population. Table 10 on the following page reflects 1980 population
figures for the Township, estimates for the present population and
projections for the years 1990, 2000 and 2010, and the theorical
population at build out at existing densities.
12

TABLE 10
Topsail Township
Population (1980 through Build -Out, by sub -areas)
Subarea 1980 1988 1990 2000 2010
1 3,905 744 781 920 1,439
2 605 635 1,212 1,082
3 759 797 1,175 2,468
4 955 1,003 1,314 3,568
5 183 192 212 295
6 634 666 803 939
7 1,520 1,596 1,994 2,431
8 319 308 480 653
Sub Total 3,905 5,719 (4) 5,978 (4) 8,110 (4) 12,875 (4)
Topsail Beach
Perm 220 (1) 252 (4) 260 (2) 300 (2) 340 (4)
Peak 6,100 (4) 7,807 (4) 8,494 (4) 12,537 (4) 13,296 (4)
Surf City
Perm 390 (1) 735 890 1,390 1,637
Peak 4,726 (4) 7,723 (4) 8,394 (4) 11,447 (4) 13,539
Beaches
St. Perm 610 987 1,150 1,690 1,977
St. Peak 10,826 15,530 16,888 23,984 26,835
Twp.
Tot. Perm 4,515 6,706 7,128 9,800 14,852
Tot. Peak 14,508 21,249 22,866 32,094 39,710
Notes:
Build -Out (or development potential) acreage is based upon total
developable land areas being developed at the average density rate
of existing projects within each sub -area.
Sources:
(1) U.S. Census of Population
(2) Land Use Plan Update, The Town of Topsail Beach, N.C. 1986
(3) Land Use Plan Update, The Town of Surf City, N.C. 1986
(4) McKim 8 Creed Engineers, P.A. Projections
Persons per
Build -Out Dwelling Unit
3,771
2.2
1,826
2.2
2,347
2.2
4,475
2.2
810
2.2
1,696
2.2
2,995
2.2
4,735
2.4
22,655 (4)
511 (2) 2.2
13,296 (4) 7.5 (2)
1,637 2.2
13,539 (4) 6.0 (3)
2,148 2.2
26,835 --
23,913 --
48,600 --

P
7
The figures shown for 1980 are based upon U.S. Census information
and peak beach populations were estimated according to methods
described in the respective updated land use plans. The estimates
for 1988 were based upon building permit activity for Topsail Beach
and Surf City; and estimates for the balance of the Township were
determined by a dwelling count made in July, 1988 by the County
Planning Department. These counts are reflected in Table 11. The
dwelling count was multiplied by a person per dwelling unit factor
of 2.2 (except for subarea 8, the portion of the Township northwest
of Hampstead along N.C. 210 and S.R. 1002 where a factor of 2.4 was
used). The 2.2 persons per dwelling unit factor was used for
subareas east of U.S. 17 because of the concentration of homes
occupied by retired persons. Subarea 8 contains a more traditional
composition of family types and correspondingly a factor of 2.4 was
OWW� # pM
Topsail Township
Dwellings and Non -Residential Structures
1988
Subarea Dwelling Units Non -Residential Structures
1
338
14
2
275
23
3
345
21
4
434
17
5
83
6
6
288
8
7
691
8
8
133
9
2,587 106
Surf City 1,685
Topsail Beach 1,122
Sub-Tbta1 2,807
Total Study Area 5,394
Population estimates and projections for the non -beach portions of
the Township were made to identify trends unique to that area. The
area east of U.S. 17 is characterized by neighborhoods and
developments attractive to persons of retirement age. Three of the
developments (Topsail Greens, Belvedere and Olde Point have golf
courses as amenity features. These and other developments have
other amenities such as tennis courts, swimming pools, club houses,
and boating facilities creating very attractive living environments.
Some of these developments, particularly in the higher density
portions, are served by central water and sewer systems (refer to
Map 3). The population for the mainland part of Topsail Township is
estimated to be 5,719 this constitutes an increase of 46.5 percent
since the 1980 decennial census, or an average annual growth rate of
13

4.6 percent. In 1987, 256 building permits were issued for
conventional housing and 150 permits were issued for mobile homes
for a total of 406 new dwelling units. The 'Township population
projections for 1990 and 2000 and 2010 are 5,978, 8,110 and 12,875
' respectively (excluding Topsail Beach and Surf City).
Table 10 also indicates population projections for at "build -out".
' These are theorical population figures based upon a scenario that
involves all developable land areas being developed at densities
that are typical for existing projects platted in those subareas.
H
L
The densities used varied between 0.5 - 0.3 dwelling units per acre.
If future developnent varies substantially from past trends (a
higher percentage of large "estate lots" or multi -family projects)
these built -out projections will not be accurate.
Topsail Beach and Surf City population estimates for 1988 and
projections for 1990, 2000, and 2010 were updated in accordance with
building permits issued during the last 2 years. The 1988 permanent
populations of Surf City and Topsail Beach are estimated to be 735
and 252 respectively. Table 12, for Surf City below shows permanent
population, dwelling units and peak seasonal population for 1980,
1985, estimates for 1988 and projections for 1990, 2000, 2010 and
ultimate build -out at current densities (same as for year 2010).
Surf City
Population (1980 Mu-o dYi Build -Out)
PEMANENT'(1)
UMMLIJG (1)
PEAK SEASONAL (1) (2)
YEAR
POPUTATION
UNITS
POPULATION
1980
390
1,037
4,726
1985
503
1,571
7,445
1988 (add'1 bldg.
permits)
735
1,685
7,723
1990 (Projections)
890
1,851
8,394
2000 (Projections)
1,390
2,551
11,447
2010 (Projections)
1,637
3,005
13,539
Ultimate build -out
@ current densities
(2) 1,637
3,005
13,539
Notes:
Figures shown are for the Pender County portion of Surf City only.
Basis of Peak Seasonal Population Projections: Peak seasonal visitor
per non -permanent dwelling unit averages 6 persons. Motel room
occupancy was estimated at 3.6 persons (avg.) during the peak period.
These assumption ccmbined with a 90% occupancy rate yield the peak
seasonal population figures above.
Sources for Table 12:
(1) Land Use Plan Update, The Town of Surf City, N.C. 1986
(2) Projections by McKim & Creed Engineers, P.A.
[I
14

Table 13 below shows existing land use figures for Surf City for 1985
and 1988. The 1988 update was based upon building Permit information
supplied by the Town. Approximately 60 percent of the Town's developable
land remains vacant.
TABLE 13
Surf City
Existing Land Use (1985 - 1988)
USE 1985 ACRES 11 1988 UPDATE ACRES 121
Residential, Single family 111.0
Duplex 5.1
Multi -family 20.4
Mobile Home/
Travel Trailer 67.1
Seib -Total 203.6 219.3
Non -Residential
CcmTexoial
29.2
Public/
Institutional
19.4
Transportation &
Utilities
101.9
Sub -Total
150.5
150.5
Undevelopable
Spoil Islands
146.0
Water & Wetlands
2,152.0
Beach
34.0
SubJIbtal
2,332.0
2,332.0
Vacant (developable)
339.6
Sub -Total
339.6
323.9
TOTAL TOM
3,025.7
3,025.7
Notes:
Figures shown are for the Pender County portion of Surf City only.
Sources:
(1) Iand Use Plan Update, The Town of Surf City, N.C. 1986
(2) Update by McKim & Creed Engineers, P.A. based upon building
permits.
15

' Table 14 below shows dwelling unit counts for 1985 and 1988 and
projections for 1990 and 2000. These counts and projections apply only to
the portion of Surf City within Pender County. The recently annexed (July
1, 1988) portion of Town that lies in Chislow County contains approximately
' 725 dwelling units and 9 commercial, establisrm ants.
TABLE 14
' Surf City
Dwelling Units, Existing and Projected
(1985 through Build -Out)
YEAR
DWELMM UNITS
1985
1,571
(1)
1988
1,685
(2)
1990
1,851
(1)
'
2000
2,551
(1)
2010/
Build -Out
3,005
(1)
'
Notes:
' Figures shown are for the Pender County portion of Surf City only.
Sources:
(1) Land Use Plan Update, The Town of Surf City, N.C. 1986
(2) Town of Surf City
Regarding dwelling unit types in Surf City, approximately 39% are
conventional single family, 23% are duplex or multi -family, 29% are mobile
' homes or travel trailers and the balance (9%) are motel rooms. Table 15
shows this breakdown. The annual growth rate of the number of dwelling
units during the last two years has averaged 3.6%.
16

1
'
TABLE 15
Surf City
Dwelling Units by Type (1985 - July, 1988)
'
'TYPE UNITS BLDG. PEf=
(DEC. 185)(1) (1985 - JULY, 1988)(2)
'
Single family 619
Duplex 70
'
Malti-family 286
Nubile Hane/Travel Trailer 454
Motel Rooms 142
TOTALS 1,571 d.u. 114 d.u.
'
TONAL DUELING UNITS, JULY, 1988: 1,685
Notes:
Figures shown are for the Pender County portion of Surf City only.
Sources:
(1) Land Use Plan Update, The Town of Surf City, N.C. 1986
(2) Town of Surf City, N.C.
17

' The permanent population of Topsail Beach is currently estimated to be
252, with a peak seasonal population of 7,807. The basis for peak seasonal
population estimating is the same used in the 1986 Land Use Plan Update
(7.5 persons per non -permanent dwelling unit at an occupancy rate of 100
' percent). Table 16 below shows population (permanent and peak seasonal)
for 1980, 1985, 1988 and projections for 1990, 2000, and 2010. Ultimate
build -out (at current densities) figures are also shown. When the build -
P
J
out level is reached, the population (permanent and peak seasonal) will
roughly double in quantity.
TABLE 16
Topsail Beach
Population (1980 through Build -Out)
PERMANEW
I7WMLIM
(1)
PEAK SEASONAL
(1) (2)
YEAR
POPULATION
UNITS
POPULATION
1980
220
(3)
884
(3)
6,100
(4)
1985
240
(4)
1,071
(3)
7,454
(4)
1988
252
(4)
1,122
(4)
7,807
(4)
1990 (Projections)
260
(3)
1,216
(4)
8,494
(4)
2000 (Projections)
300
(3)
1,768
(4)
12,537
(4)
2010 (Projections)
340
(4)
1,937
(4)
13,296
(4)
Ultimate build -out
@ current densities
511
(2)
1,937
(4)
13,296
(4)
Notes and Sources:
(1) Includes motel
roams
(2) Peak seasonal population is
based upon an
estimated 7.5 persons per
dwelling unit at 100%
occupancy rate.
(3)
(3) Land Use Plan Update,
The Town of Topsail
Beach, N.C. 1986
(4) McKim & Creed
Engineers,
P.A. interpolations, projections and
updating.
Table 17 on the following page reflects existing land use figures for
1984 and 1988. The 1986 Land Use Plan U date for Topsail Beach contains
the 1984 figures. These were updated to reflect construction through July
1, 1988. The only change during this period was the construction of 51
single family dwellings on approximately 6 acres. Approximately 33% of the
Town's land area that is considered developable remains vacant.

TABLE 17
Topsail Beach
Existing Land Use (1984 - 1988)
USE 1984 (ACRFS)(1) 1988 UPDATE (ACRES)(2)
Residential, Single family 139.7 145.7 +/-
Duplex 9.3 9.3
Multi -family 12.4 12.4
Sub -Dotal 161.4 167.4 +/-
Cial
Public/Institutional
Streets
Sub -Total
Vacant (developable)
Sub -Total
Vacant (not developable)
Marsh
Beach
Sub -Total
TOTAL TOWN
12.7
3.1
43.0
58.8
180.0
180.0
2,247.0
98.0
2,445.0
2,845.2 AC
12.7
3.1
43.0
58.8
174.0
2,347.0
98.0
2,445.0
2,845.2 Ac
Sources:
(1) Land Use Plan Update, The Town of Topsail Beach, N.C. 1986
(2) Town of Topsail Beach, N.C.
Table 18 on the following page indicates dwelling units by type, based
upon a survey nade for the Land Use Plan Update in 1985. Fran December
1984 through July 1988 a total of 51 single family houses were built,
giving a total of 1,122 dwelling units currently existing within the Town.
19

h
1
C
i
k
TABLE 18
Topsail Beach
Dwelling Units by Type (1985 - July, 1988)
TYPE UNITS DEC. 185 BLDG. PERMITS 1986 = JULY, 1988
UNITS
Single family 669 51
Duplex & Multi -family 185 --
Motel Roans 217 --
1,071 51
TOTAL DWELLIM UNITS, JULY, 1988: 1,122
(1) Land Use Plan Update, The Town of Topsail Beach, N.C. 1986
(2) Tbwn of Topsail Beach, N.C.
Table 19 below existing dwelling unit counts for 1985 and 1988, and
projections for 1990, 2000 and 2010. A build -out at current densities is
estimated to yield 1,937 dwelling units.
TABLE 19
Topsail Beach
Dwelling Units, Existing and Projected (1985 through Build -Out)
1985
1,071
(1)
1988
1,122
(2)
1990
1,216
(3)
2000
1,768
(3)
2010
1,937
(3)
Build -Out
1,937
(3)
(1) Land Use Plan Update, The Town of Topsail Beach, N.C. 1986
(2) Town of Topsail Beach, N.C.
(3) Update by McKim & Creed Engineers, P.A.
b. Utilities in Topsail Township
A substantial percentage of development in the Township is served by
municipal or private water and sewer systems, although individual
wells still serve approximately 38% of the homes and individual
septic serve about 59% of the haanes (including both beach
20

Tile Towns of Surf City and Topsail Beach both provide water service.
'
Surf City is presently constructing a wastewater collection and
treatment system with a treatment capacity of 525,000 gallons per
day. Topsail Beach has initiated planning for a municipal
'
wastewater system. Two developments within Topsail Beach, Queens
Grant and Serenity Point have package treatment plants. Table 20
shows both the number of existing dwellings that are presently being
served and the mmber of potential dwelling unit custcmers, as
'
determined by capacities of the individual systems.
'
Several developments between Highway 17 and the Intracoastal
Waterway provide water and/or wastewater utility systems. These
include:
'
1. Olde Point. 96 patio or villa homes and 30 single family homes
are served by a package treatment plant now operating at
capacity. The multi -family units are served by a
central water system. Utilities for the balance of the
'
development will be individual wells and septic tanks.
2. Jensen Coastal Plantation. This develognent presently serves
28 dwellings and an additional 12 lots with central
water and sewer systems. An additional 40 lots are
expected to be available by the fall of 1988, with a
build -out of approximately 150 lots in 3 years. All
lots will have full utility service.
3. Belvedere. The entire development is served by a ccmmnity
'
water system. A few homes have individual wells for
irrigation. Presently 210 homes are served. Sanitary
sewer service is provided for the higher density areas
'
(patio homes, condominiums, sales office, marina). The
treatment plant presently in service has a capacity of
40,000 gallons per day. The highest recorded flow is
22,000 gpd. A plant expansion of 100,000 gpd is
planned. No sanitary sewer service is planned for the
development south of SR 1565. Ultimately, 507 dwellings
will be served by sanitary sewer and 1,252 will be
served by a central water system.
4. Topsail Greens. The development presently provides water and
'
sewer service to 120 existing dwellings with capacity
for an additional 120 dwellings. Individual wells and
septic tanks will be required to serve an additional 30
'
future lots.
Excluduig Surf City and Topsail Beach, water systems are presently
'
providing service to about 565 dwellings, with capacity to serve as many as
1,808 dwellings. Sanitary sewer service is being provided to 466
dwellings, with capacity to serve 903. Refer to Table 20 on the following
page.
21

'
TABLE 20
Topsail Township
Dwelling
Units and Lots Served by Existing Water and Sewer Systems
1988 1988
Total D.U.'s Served Total Lot/D.U's Cap.
tSubarea
Water Sewer Water
Sewer
1
0 0 0
0
2
90+(2) 40(3) 200(3a)
150(3b)
3
145(5) 96(4) 356(7)
126(11)
4
330(6) 330(6) 1,252(8)
627(a)
5
0 0 0
0
6
0 0 0
0
7
0 0 0
0
8
0 0 0
0
'
S.T. 565+ 466+ 1,808
903
Topsail
Beach 1,115 57(1) 1,937
181(10)
'
Surf City(12) 1,629 1,209(13) 3,395
2,930(18)
S.T. 2,744 1,732 5,332
3,111
Tbt.Twp.
3,309 2,198 7,140
4,014
'
Notes:
'
(1)
Queens Grant (54 units), Serenity Point (89 units approved 3 units
constructed.)
(2)
Trailer park (50+), Jensen (40)
(3)
Jensen's (40)
'
(3a)
Jensen's (150) Trailer Park (50)
(3b)
Jensen's (150) 1991 plan
(4)
Olde Point (96)
(5)
Olde Point (96), Belvedere (49)
(6)
Belvedere (210), Topsail Greens (120)
(7)
Belvedere (230), Olde Point 126
(8)
Belvedere (1,012) lots, Topsail Greens 240
(9)
Topsail Greens 120, Belvedere 507
(10)
Serenity Pt. (54) Queens Grant 127
(11)
Olde Point (126)
'
(12)
Does not include part of Town in Onslow County
(13)
Surf City W.T.P. Phase I
3. Public Meeting (Initial)
In order to inform the citizens of the study area about the study's
scope and purpose, a public meeting was held at Rocky Point Elementary
' School on August 1, 1988. The engineering consultants presented an outline
of study, and displayed maps of the two townships. A copy of the handout
distributed at the meeting is included in this report as Appendix A. The
' following is a list of questions raised during the meeting.
22

U
what are the projections for population7
mere is growth occurring?
It is ccemnon for a county to install water lines first, and then
sewer lines?
How have spaces in mobile home parks that have been approved,
accounted for in population projections? .
Will the engineer determine the availability of water?
Mat are the land use plan classifications for the areas?
Will the engineer consider existing facilities?
What are the engineers ideas about various methods of wastewater
disposal?
Does the land use plan address growth issues?
Is stormwater being considered?
Men will the study be oompleted7
Will our plan include consideration for the Carver Boat CcUPany
plant?
'These questions were taken into ao=mt during the preparation of the
study.
4. Public Meeting (Second)
A second public meeting was held at Topsail High School on January 3,
1989. Backjround population land use data and quantified environmental
Alternatives for water and sewer services for presented and the meeting was.
opened for discussion. Some of the questions and issues raised during the
meeting include:
- Is there a need for water or sewer services in these neighborhoods?
- My was the study initiated?
- Should capacities for future industrial growth be allowed for in
these systems?
- Which governmental unit(s) would be most appropriate for
installation and operation of the systems.
- Should the sanitary sewerage treatment needs of Topsail Beach be
taken into account in the County's plans?
- What would be the fate of existing water and sewer systems (i.e.
the golf course developments)?
The technical questions were answered either verbally or in the text of
this study. The policy issues were discussed again during a County
Ccamuissicners meeting held on. February 6, 1989. The Cc mnissioners'
directives regarding there issues are incorporated into the final revision
of this study.
23

'
D. Constraints to Growth and Development
Land development, particularly in rural coastal areas, has been shaped
by natural features of the land such as soils, topography and wetlands.
'
Governmental regulations are demanding that even more respect be given to
environment. Additionally, land use regulations such as zoning and
subdivision regulations, utility policies and public concerns impose
additional layers of constraints to future land development. This study
'
identifies constraints having a bearing upon planning for future utility
systems. These descriptions of constraints apply to both study areas
except as noted. Map 4 graphically shows growth constraints in Rocky
'
Point; Map 5 similarly applies to Topsail Township.
1. Environmental Constraints
'
Classification
a. Conservation
The 1986 Pender Land Use Plan U date contains 5 general
'
land use classifications in accordance with Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) regulations; Developed, Transition,
Community, Rural and Conservation. The "conservation"
'
classification is reflected in this study due to its nature --
the classification reflects an amalgamation of environmental
concerns that are truly constraints. The following is taken
directly frcam the 1986 Plan:
The purpose of the conservation class is to "provide for the
1
effective long-term management and protection of significant,
limited, or irreplaceable areas." Consequently, urban services
(whether public or private) should not be provided to those
areas as an incentive to "stimulate" more intense development.
'
The "conservation" class provides for effective long-term
management of significant, limited, or irreplaceable resources.
However, beyond the presence of AECs, other areas within the
County, because of natural, cultural, recreational, productive,
or scenic value, may also require similar "effective long -terns
management." Examples could include major wetlands (other than
'
statutorily defined coastal wetlands); essentially undeveloped
shorelines that are unique, fragile, or hazardous for
development; lands that provide necessary habitat conditions
(especially for remnant species) or publicly -awned water supply
watersheds and aquifers.
' The designation "Conservation" should not be misconstrued to
imply "non-use," but does imply a need for careful and cautious
mana eq ment of any allowable use. For example, within a
"conservation" area, there may be high ground areas which are
' suitable for "development," in which case development should be
allowed to take place under carefully managed conditions. The
term "preservation," on the other hand, implies total
' restriction on all uses. Within lands designated Conservation,
each proposal, or application for any "developed" use will be
reviewed on a case -by -case basis.
24

' AEC areas, soils subject to floodjM, anti larcte natural areas,
such as Angola ay Gameland and Holly Shelter Gameland, are
included in the conservation class. The overall premise for the
designation "Conservation" in Pender County will be to strike
' the delicate balance between careful long-term management of
sensitive or valuable resources and the freedom of landowners to
utilize their properties.
Lei
Since, as stated previously, "Conservation" does not imply
"Preservation," specific allowable uses in the Conservation
class shall include:
1. Drainage: Adequate drainage as permitted by County, State,
and Federal regulations.
2. Low density residential development in accordance with
future zo ordinance, and as allowed by County, State,
and Federal regulatory agencies. However, water and/or
sewer services will not be extended to such a residential
area.
3. Water -oriented uses such as piers and docks, and bulk -heads,
if they are shown not to cause detriment to estuarine waters
and riverine waters or the Conservation lands and if
M+;tted by fit- State, and Federal regulations.
4. Necessary utility service lines, such as water, sewer,
electrical, natural gas, etc., when it is demonstrated that
the ecological system of the Conservation area will not be
adversely altered.
5. Roadways, when construction of roadways can be conducted
without adversely altering the ecological system, and in
compliance with existing federal, state, and local
regulations.
6. Timber harvesting.
7. Barge landings.
8. Marinas (in cmplianoe with Federal, State, and County
Regulations) .
mle conservation areas of Pender County include all soils in the
County that are subject to flooding,* as designated by the Soil
Conservation Service in Burgaw using the recently completed detail
soils survey maps of the County, or as defined W the Federal
Emergency Management Agmm�, specifically, land area susceptible to
be inmdated by water from any sauroe which is a general and
temporary condition of partial or ggMlete inundation of normally
do land areas from the overflow of inland or tidal waters. In
addition to soil types subject to flooding, the "Conservation"
classification includes all CAMA-regulated areas of environmental
concern, as discussed in the 1986 land Use Plan and Flood Insurance
Plan, as applicable to Pender County.
25

n
*Specific soil types included in conservation area are:
Bohicket Silty Clay Imam
Carteret Fine Sand
Chewacla loam
Croatan Dick
Dorovan Muck
Muckalee loam
(End of extract from 1986 Plan)
The municipalities of Surf City and Topsail Beach have similar CAMA
- related land use plans. Within Surf City, three classifications
from the land use plan have provisions that are considered
constraints. The following classification descriptions are taken
from the Land Use Plan ate for Surf City:
Developed - Maritime Forests. This subclass is intended to
protect the Town's maritime forest areas while providing for
reasonable development as allowed by the Town's Zoning Ordinance
and other developnent regulations.
Conservation - Marshland. This subclass includes coastal
wetlands, estuarine waters, estuarine shorelines, public trust
areas and spoil islands. It is intended to implement estuarine
system policies and AEC guidelines.
Conservation - Public Access. This subclass is intended to
protect the public's riot of access to and along the beach
while protecting dune areas and related wildlife. It is
intended to implement the following policies: Recreational
' Fisheries, Off Road Vehicles, Beach Access, Preservation and
Erosion Control.
1
These classifications are shown on Map 5.
The Land Use Plan pdate for Topsail Beach contains four land
classes considered constraints. These are:
Developed - Future service/constraints. The purpose of this
subclass is to establish certain areas within the Developed -Future
service class that are subject to constraints and thus should be
developed with additional caution. These areas are the Inlet Hazard
Area, Ocean Hazard Area, and Flood Hazard Area. It is the intent of
this classification to permit all types of development allowed under
the current zoning ordinance while implementing applicable policies
of this Plan, specifically, the Resource Protection policies
covering Ocean Hazard Areas.
Conservation - Public Access. The purpose
to preserve the public rights of access
to protect the dunes and wildlife.
classification is designed to implement
of this classification is
to and along the beach and
Specifically, this
the following policies:
26

Cmnnercial and Recreational Fisheries, Tourism, and Beach,/Waterfront
Access, and Off -Road Vehicles. It covers the area between mean low
water and the first line.of stable vegetation on the dunes.
'
Conservation - Marshland. This classification is established to
include the coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, estuarine shorelines
and public trust areas. It is specifically included to implement
the Estuarine System Policies and covers all the marshland areas.
Conservation - Maritime Forests. This classification is intended to
include the maritime forests. It is specifically intended to
implement the Fragile Land Areas policies but is not intended to
restrict or limit any of the uses currently permitted under the Town
Zoning Ordinance but rather to insure that these uses are consistent
'
with the values represented by the maritime forests.
In addition to the six soil types listed in the County Land Use Plan
for the conservation area, this study regards 8 additional soils as
'
having constraints to develcpment, primarily due to drainage and
high water table characteristics. These additional soils include;
'
Grifton Fine Sandy Loam
Meggett Loam
Rains Series
Torhunta Fine Sandy Loam
'
Woodington Fine Sandy Loam
UmbBe Loam
Liddell Silt Loam
Grantham Silt Loam
These soils are sham on Maps 4 and 5.
' There are soils in addition to the 8 listed above (and the 6 listed
in the 1986 plan) that impose constraints to development, although
' less severe. Sane of these have a lowered water table due to
drainage ditches, and other soils have constraints only frcen a
standpoint of septic tank suitability. Depending on individual and
' localized conditions of specific soils, some can be developed and
some cannot. Examples of these "questionable" soils include;
Foreston Series
Goldsboro Series
Leon Fine Sand
Mandarin Fine Sand
Pactolus Series
Determination of any constraints associated with these soils will
necessitate field investigation at individual sites under
consideration.
b. Flooding Potential
' The "Conservation" classification from the 1986 Land Use Plan
reflects soils subject to flooding. In addition to that
' classification this study recognizes the areas subject to a 100-year
27

' flood (Zone A). These were taken from Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM) prepared for Pender County by The Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMN). The boundaries of Zone A are shown on
Maps 4 and 5.
2. Regulatory Constraints
Zoning. Three separate zoning ordinances are in effect. Pender County,
Surf City and Topsail Beach have adopted and enforce these codes. Zoning
controls land use, density, building heights and setbacks, off-street
' parking, signage, etc.
Subdivision Regulations. Surf City and Topsail Beach have adopted and
enforce these ordinances to control the subdivision of land, quality of
' improvements, density, etc. Pender County is in the process of drafting a
similar ordinance.
3. Physical Constraints
The man-made environment imposes constraints (and opportunities) upon
future development. Some can be barriers -- Interstate 40, major power
transmission lines, the railroad right-of-way, the Intracoastal Waterway.
Existing land uses establish the character and quality of a
' neighborhood. Depending upon the proposed development, roads and land uses
already in place could be a constraint or an advantage.
' 4. Other Constraints
Many other factors will play roles in the future development of these
Townships. Most are not as easily quantified or defined as environmental
' factors and some constraints are site specific.
Constraints which do not lend themselves to quantification in this
' report, but will have a direct or indirect impact upon growth in Pender
County.
' - Aesthetics of the natural environment and of man-made features.
Public road system.
Property ownership Patterns.
- Future environmental regulations (more stringent regulations may be
adopted by governing bodies dealing with stormwater management,
marinas, solid waste, etc.)
E. Analysis of Base Data and Constraints
1. Rocky Point Township
' a. Land Use
Existing development within the Township, which has been mostly
' residential has occurred primarily in narrow roadside corridors
along Highways US 117, NC 133 and NC 210, and along State Roads
1411 (Ashton), 1426 (North and South of _NC 133), and 1518
(Mooretown) . C=iercial establishments, two schools, the fire
28

' station and the post office are clustered around the community
of Rocky Point. Two industrial parks, Bellhammon Industrial
Centre and Ian's Ferry are being developed. Carver Boat
Corporation is located in the Bellhammon park and Cincinnati
' Thermal and Spray is in production at Ian's Ferry. The Martin
Marietta Aggregates quarry is the Township's other industry.
Interstate 40 connecting Wilmington and Raleigh bisects the
' Township. The CSX Transportation railroad paralleling US 117
has been abandoned and the trackage removed.
1
F
Residential development has most recently been in the form of
mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions. Within the past
three years 74 percent of new residences in the Township have
been mobile homes. Of all dwelling types in the Township mobile
homes comprise 59 percent of the total.
b. Population
The current population of the Township is estimated to be 3,071.
This indicates an increase of 52.8 percent in the eight years
following the 1980 census. The current population estimate was
determined by multiplying number of dwellings (1,059) by the
average number of persons per dwelling unit (2.8).
This study predicts a continuation of the growth trend raw being
experienced. By the year 2010, this projection indicates the
Township will have a population of 5,577 persons living in 1,992
dwelling units. An accompanying increase in retail and service
establishments will most likely occur. Plans for the Bellhammon
Industrial Centre include commercial and residential areas in
addition to industrial sites.
c. Utilities
With the exception of public water systems serving mobile home
parks there are no utility systems in the Township other than
individual wells and septic tank systems.
d. Developable land
Map 4 shows development constraints, which are mostly
environmental. These include:
- flood prone land
- conservation land use classification
- areas having soils with moderate to severe limitations for
development
29

' Table 21 below shows a tabulation of environmental constraints
by acreage.
TABLE 21
Rocky Point Township
Land Suitability
Land Type
Area(Acres)
Percent
Land subject to 100 yr. flood and/or
having conservation classification
7,800
25
land with soils having moderate to
'
severe limitations
11,150
37
Generally suitable for develcpment;
no critical environmental constraints
11,642
38
TOTAL TOMSHIP
30,592
100
Source: McKim & Creed Engineers, P.A. Map Measurements
1
Some portions of these soil groups listed in Table 21 having moderate to
severe limitations are suitable for low density development, particularly
if drained. At least 20 percent (2,300 Acres) of soils in this
classification can be utilized for development. The determination of
suitability must be made through individual field investigations.
Based upon existing development, environmental constraints and
population projections, Map 10 indicates areas most likely to be developed.
These areas are, in general, expansions of existing corridors or areas of
development. The west central part of the Township (the triangle formed by
US 117, NC 210 and NC 133) appears to be the largest area of potential
growth. Within the Township, approximately 13,872 acres are suitable for
development. this acreage figure includes lands having no critical
environmental constraints (11,642 acres) and 20 percent of the lands having
soils with moderate to severe limitations.
The 13,872 acre figure is for gross land area which contains most of the
development existing today. A determination of the theoretical net acreage
available for development is shown in the tabulation below:
Gross developable land area
less developed land area
less industrial parks
less rights -of -way
Land area available for development
13,872 acres
-1,200
-1,550
-450
10,672 acres
30

' The 10,672 acres is not without constraints or restrictions. The County
has zoned most of these areas RA Rural Agriculture, requiring a mininum lot
area of 20,000 square feet (or 15,000 square feet with central water or
sewer systems). The same density restriction apply to mobile homes. other
' constraints, which are virtually impossible to quantify must be applied to
individual development proposals. Some of these constraints are:
aesthetics of the natural and man made environments
awnexship patterns
- barriers, such as drainageways, roads and highways, rail and
' powerline rights -of -way. -
additional government regulations such as subdivision
regulations, mobile home park ordinance
' 2. Topsail TownshiU
a. Land Use
Due to its diversified development; the Township, for the purpose of
this study, has been divided into eight subareas. The municipalities
of Surf City and Topsail Beach were considered separately because these
Towns have their own planning programs and utility systems. Two areas
were excluded from the study.
Foys Island, Lea Island and the marshland west to the Intracoastal
Waterway (about 5,700 acres) was excluded. Additionally the Holly
Shelter area (about 51,450 acres) was excluded. Refer to Map 3.
Highway US 17 traverses the Township in a northeast - southwest
direction. The unincorporated coammuty of Hampstead lies at the
intersection of US 17 and NC 210. Land uses associated with NC 210 west
towards Rocky Point are very low density rural residential developments.
The development that has occurred in the 43 square mile area lying
between US 17 and the Intracoastal Waterway is a factor causing concern.
Several housing developments are established in this area, capitalizing
on the beauty of the coastal area. Three of the developments have golf
courses as their central feature. Table it in Section C.2 indicates the
number of dwellings in each subarea.
Topsail Township is leading the other gips in the County in
residential growth. In 1986, Topsail had 58 percent of the residential
permits ($11,278,777 valuation) and in 1987 Topsail had 43 percent
($13,178,939) of the County's permits. These figures do not include
construction activity in Surf city or Topsail Beach.
Within the Township, including the beaches there are approximately 1,607
mobile homes, sited individually or in parks. Mobile homes account for
31 percent of the total dwelling units.
31

b. Population
The current population of Topsail Township is estimated to be 6,706
indicating an increase of 49 percent in the last eight years
following the 1980 census. The estimates of current population was
made by multiplying the number of dwelling units by the average
number of persons per dwelling unit.
This study expects a continuation of present growth trends. 1 at
means by the year 2,010 the Township will have a permanent
population of 14,852. Table 10 shows Township population figures by
subareas 1-8, Topsail Beach and Surf City for 1980, 1988, 1990,
2000, 2010 and at build -out.
c. Utilities
Utility systems are described in the preceding section C.2.b. Refer
to Map 3 showing service areas of the systems.
d. Developable Land
Map 5 shows development constraints, which are mostly environmental.
These include:
- flood prone land
- conservation land use classification
- areas having soils with moderate to severe limitations for
development.
32

H
Table 22 below shows a tabulation of envirorll ental constraints by
acreage.
TABLE 22
TOPSAIL TOWNSHIP (By Subarea)
LAND SUITABILITY
LAND SUBJECT TO
SOILS
W/MODERATE
GENERALLY
100 YEAR FLOOD AND/OR
TO
SERVERE
SUITABLE FOR
CONSERVATION CLASSIFICATION
LIMITATIONS
DEVELOPMENT
PERCENT OF
SUBAREA
ACRES PERCENT
ACRES
PERCENT
ACRES PERCENT
TOTAL ACRES
STUDY AREA
----------------------------------------------
•------------•---•---...----------------------
......
------ ••-----....-----..
1
1,117
20%
490
9%
3,976
71%
5,679
11%
2
846
23%
296
8%
2,476
69%
3,500
7%
'
3
758
24%
359
12%
2,005
64%
3,075
6%
4
983
20%
202
4%
3,636
76%
5,317
16%
5
338
15%
126
6%
1,767
79%
2,197
4%
'
6
925
25%
456
13X
2,255
62%
3,989
8%
7
1,490
35%
679
16%
2,055
49%
4,485
9%
8'
4,424
26%
6,903
41%
5,569
33%
17,285
34%
'
'--'"S.T.---•------....10,881-------------24X
...---9;511---._....-'21X
............
•---�:�9 -----.....5�
.. .45,527--------------
SURF CITY
2,332
77%
0
0X
694
23%
3,026
6%
'
TOPSAIL BEACH
2,045
84%
0
0%
400
16%
2,445
5%
............................................•............._..._...._.........-_.....-----.....--------•-•---••--.....--•--
S.T.
4,377
0
0
0
1,094
0
5,471
11%
'
TOT. STUDY AREA
--•--....----••-•--------------------••----....._._.....----------------.._.....------------....__..._....._....--........
15,258
9,511
24,833
50,998
EXCLUDED
FROM STUDY AREA
0
0
0
0
0
0
57,150
0
'
.... ......... .•------...------•--_-...__._....
TOT. TOWNSHIP
0
0
0
0
0
0
1D8,148
0
I---------------------- 11 --------- *1-1; .....................................................................................
NOTES:
(1) PENDER COUNTY PART ONLY
(2) LAND USE PLAN UPDATE, THE TOWN OF SURF CITY, N.C. 1987
(3) LAND USE PLAN UPDATE, THE TOWN OF TOPSAIL BEACH, N.C. 1986
(4) FOYS ISLAND, LEA ISLAND, HOLLY SHELTER AREA
33

r
' the Township areas most likely to be developed are shown on Map 11.
This determination is made upon the basis of the existing land uses and
road system, enviromental constraints, and population projections.
' Subarea 8, along NC 210 west of Hampstead, will most likely continue to
be developed at low densities typical of other rural areas of the County.
Subareas 1-7 between US 17 and the Waterway should witness a continuation
' of higher value and density. Diversification of housing types -- mobile
homes, modular hones, villas, condominiums, conventional homes on various
size lots -- will most likely continue. Development will continue to be
' heavily dependent upon amenities, both man-made such as golf courses and
marinas, and the natural environment.
Topsail Township contains approximately 26,735 acres suitable for
development. This acreage figure reflects lands having no critical
enviroment constraints (24,833) acres and 20 percent of lands with soils
having moderate to severe limitations. This figure should be considered as
gross land area, and includes most existing development. A determination
'
of theoretical net acreage available for new development is shown in Table
23 below.
'
TABZE 23
Topsail Township
'
Developable Land Areas Determination
Land Type Area (Acres)
'
Gross Developable Land Area (1) 26,735
Less Developed Land Area ( 4,100)
Less Rights -of -Way ( 2,150)
Latxi Area Available for New Development 20,485
'
Notes:
'
(1) From Table 22. Includes Surf City and Topsail Beach
Zoning and other constraints or restrictions apply to the areas
determined to be developable. Both Surf City and Topsail Beach enforce
'
zoning ordinances. Topsail's ordinance enforces a minimum lot size of
5,000 square feet for the first dwelling unit on a lot, plus 3,500 square
feet for each additional dwelling unit. These requirements yield a maim m
density of 12 dwelling units per acre.
Surf City's zoning ordinance requires, in most zones, a minimum lot size
'
of 5,000 square feet for the first dwelling unit plus 2,500 square feet for
each additional unit. These requirements establish a maximum permitted
density of 16 dwelling units per acre. In the R-10 zone, 10,000 square
feet are requ.ixed for the first dwelling unit and 3,500 square feet are
required for each additional unit. The R-10 zone has a maximtm, density of
'
12 units per acre.
34

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
':
_:. _ c <:_ _ __.

s
\�
if1
_r
• �•� is ,! },_ ..
I
N
2000 - 0 2000 4000 6000 BOOOFEET
LEGEND
CONSERVATION POINT TOWNSHIP r679/28/88 LAND CLASSIFICATION
THIS ORIGINAL BASE NAP WAS PREPARED BY THE PENDER COUNTY PLANNING PENDER COUNTY
DEPAr DSW nM MSE NAP UPDATE AND PROJECT INFRGUTCH WERE PREPARED BY TRANSITION GROWTH MANAGEMENTIANALYSIS OF WATER 6 SEWER NEEDS
WJaM L CREFD MCINEE S. P.A. .
FIN PREPARATION or IRIS NAP (ITS ADAIL AND E NOT IIARDLI 03 WAS - RURAL �* �(CIG i(r,i�[1�'[+r'1
IM PRO R PALS F TVI S A Q+ANI' PH Pmr A P mc?r CmaLBN Ooi SD.L l�Ij �jl�Il�^Jl.lt[.'[.,'�.f
NMald•UM PRXRAN• 7AXM RMD% PROVIDED BY THE CDA4DIL - NANMHW -
ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, NHICH IS AUM S ERD BY THE OFFICE OP OCEMI AND SOURCE I 1666 PENDER COUNTY ENGINEERS -PLANNERS. SURVEYORS
COASTAL RESOURCES FIAlAGEMENP, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC LAND USE PLAN UPDATE. WILMINGTON• NORTH CAROLINA
ADTQNL411UTi07. _ - -

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

I
1
I
In the non -incorporated portions of the Township, County zoning is in
effect:
- most of the Highway 17 and NC 50 corridors are zoned B-2, Business
District (Highway)
- Olde Point, Belvedere and Topsail Greens are zoned PD, Planned
Develapment District
- The balance of the Township is zoned RA Rural Agriculture District.
The mininun required lot area in the RA zone is 20, 000 square feet or
15,000 square feet for lots served by central water or sewer systems. The
minimaun lot area in the B-2 Highway Business District is one acre.
Densities in Planned Development Districts are at the discretion of the
Planning Board and Commissioners.
F. Water and Wastewater Alternatives
Scene of the developed areas within the study area are served by public
and private water and wastewater facilities. These facilities have been
described in preceding sections of this report. Numerous areas are served
by individual wells and septic tanks. As growth continues to occur in the
study area, dependence on individual wells and septic tanks will became
less and less desirable. The County records indicate that many areas are
already being stressed by septic tanks being used in locations where soils
are not suitable. Also many individuals have water which has to be treated
prior to being used.
It appears that the County .has two options as related to water and
wastewater facilities. First, County officials can enforce strict
regulations preventing development from occurring in areas where the soils
are marginal for septic tanks or they can construct public water and
wastewater facilities which will alleviate existing and future problems.
Strategic location of water and wastewater facilities can result in
development occurring in the less sensitive environmental areas.
Several alternatives have been developed by which the County can serve
the existing and future water and wastewater needs within the Rocky Point
and Topsail Townships. Since implementation of water supply and
distribution system is not dependent on the existence of wastewater
facilities, and vice versa, alternatives related to water and wastewater
will be presented separately. Alternatives for water facilities are
described in the following paragraphs:
' 1. Alternative No. 1 (Water)
The basic concept of this alternative is to obtain a supply of water
' from the Cape Fear River. There are two variations by which this source
of water can be used. In Alternative 1A, it is assumed that the County
would purchase untreated water from the Lauver Cape Fear Water and Sewer
' Authority. The County would construct a water treatment plant near the
U.S. Highway 421 and the Pender County/New Hanover County line. The
treated water would then be p raped through a water, main which will be
' constructed from the treatment plant along U.S. Highway 421 to N.C.
35

Highway 210 and thence along N.C. Highway 210 to the Rocky Point and
1
Topsail Townships. A network of smaller water lines will distribute
water from the water transmission main to developed areas in each
1
gyp.
There will also be two elevated storage tanks constructed. One will be
located near the intersection of N.C. Highway 210 and N.C. Highway 117.
The second elevated storage tank will be constructed adjacent to U.S.
1
Highway 17 near its intersection with SR 1565. A booster pump station
will be required in order to maintain adequate pressure in the pipe
1
network to fill this tank.
Alternative 1B is the same as Alternative 1A except, the County would
purchase treated water from either the City of Wilmington or Brunswick
1
county. The County would also need to construct a booster pump station
at the County line on U.S. Highway 421 in order to provide adequate
system pressure to fill the elevated storage tank at Rocky Point.
1
A schematic layout of the major components of Alternative No. 1 (1A &
1B) is presented on Map No. 12.
1
2. Alternative No. 2 (Water)
In Alternative No. 2, it is awmned that a sufficient number of wells
1
can be constructed in the study area to satisfy existing and future
water usage. Three wells and an elevated storage tank will be
constructed in Rocky Point area. Ten wells will be required to supply
both residential and industrial water needs for this service area.
1
Water transmission mains will be constructed along the major roads to
connect the wells to the tank and to distribute water to the more
densely developed areas. Smaller water mains will be constructed along
1
the minor roads.
In Topsail Township, ten wells and one tank will be constructed. The
tank will be located adjacent to N.C. Highway 210 near its intersection
1
with SR 1561.
The basic concept of this alternative is to construct two separate water
1
systems which will serve the developed areas of each township. This
concept is depicted on Map No. 13.
1
Also shown on Map No. 13 is a variation of this basic concept whereby
the two systems could be connected by constructing a water transmission
main along N.C. Highway 210. This water transmission main is shown as a
dashed line. The advantages of interconnecting the two systems include
1
provision of a supplemental supply of water by being able to transfer
water from one system to the other and the possibility of a saving in
the cost of treating the water. One specific disadvantage would be the
1
cost of constructing the transmission main along a segment of N.C.
Highway 210 which is very sparsely developed.
1
36

i
A .
j Yh. - .,ry: -rr, "} tP. 1t`5,- - - - ff e - '. - •\ I, f• •�
-
- . w
,
�r
,f
,s .w
_
l`
`t 1
C.. i'I � -r 4"'Sti T • .`\�� �. � _. - // `y\ ..
y,i:. i „ 'O. of v _. ...•\:. f JY � -' f. .. a
Iti x..,. ,.'p-j ,: fr,1 a F'F�' i ?o t.,.:'r",• ': �.T,, `� �/ f _ SCALE
... 5S. .: :X � '': •. �, . , . ]i ,:..• a,S. T' � r M t. - .,✓ . �„f? ky ,. , i _ / il. . _
S-'. f.- Y. t.... ! - S ie•t° _ _3: 9>-. _ fig {j. f 6a -
slf F ', •^''• �` \2\ 8 1 1 :1 r)
y
,
,
f J
,
�.
, i �.
�,. r f
� 4� � T Opp q i L ,\ 2
''-..(, d �,
1� .
1 TOWNSHIP 1`
-
J.
r ,
,
ELEVATED ,' _
E ..
3 z•.... �` n r
� -
a. STORAGE TANK 8 ELEVATED
4 .
S t, :>
n -:: . ..,.. z •...._;' 11 - _ ,...fr , f...,=' y
12. .,. Sl'OR�kGE TANK'
w•- = _:,
;.gip..✓• � • r
6 .`� .
°
.. .{� -✓ate .: ,.� a•, `aP `ji-21'
't.<. ,} '•- .. .6 � f
f 4 F 11 7: 4-
! $ > y + ar
10 ., . •< ,Ft
114. 1/
a ', n 2 -
:
„
, .. 10 — f.
0 _
!::•'. _ ,
^y
,,, ,r• _. 10.
{{
8
4 . �r ,
liN
F�
rr
1
L
�i
8
r�>S
1
,
y'
1
PIPES SIDE DESIGNATION
, �
,
IAL
8 NON :INDUSTR _� WATER SYSTEM
,
121 ` i[�USTRIAL r ` �, ' , r :; r f '1 w►P No.
6
v; RO KY POINT
� ALTERNATIVE 2I W/ INQ: 13 '
ALTERNATIVE 2. TOPSAIL
PENDER' COUNTY
OF,WATER
A -SEWER NEE08
BASE GROWTH MANAGEMENTIANALYSiS O
t;
NORTH CAROUNA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
. DIVISION CM HIGHWAYS—PIANV OWG AND RESEARCH
ME PFEPARATTCN OF as MI1P (PRDTDCP naaa wo W FQ'ANCin IN PAI>T �
TKPOJCH A C2tM PAOVIM, BY 'III$ NCRTS CATCLM C hSM )AIMMUE TT PFIOM M.
Ttlta = FZRffi PPW=ED BY -'M COASTAI..7r M !Al MMM ACP OF 1972, AS 1
ENGINEERS*PL"NERS SdR1EYO
WILMINGTON, NORTHCA80LINAR:;SAL I MENDED, � IS A(TQLII2ID 8Y T!M OFCS OOCN AND COL3
HA AGE ENT, W=CQAL OCEANIC AND ATlQSF4iE'RIC AafylSllWTW.
v

16"
16 16
r,
16
QM
E
'
a*
b
16
�^{11
-
---WATER TREATMENT'��
{°-
.-BOOSTER PUMP,
PIPE SIZE DESIGNATION
STA. (ALT. IB).
16"
NONINDUSTRIAL
t 24
INDUSTRIAL
°N
. BA S"F A41P
_
NORTH CAROUNA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION '
OMStOM Of MGNWAPS—RAN omG AMO RESEARCH PAWN
>7� PRFYARATICN "OF mm MAP (PRO7HCT IrIFawnw) WAS F1rA 4m) IN PART
TffiiOtJCii A MANP VF0,r LM BY 7 E NMM CAROI22A COASTAL DAfPMUM PROM M..
THRmcH Emm PACJVIIxD BY mm C nh=L ZCNE lANACEMETT ACT OF 1972, AS
AMMM, WTICH IS AEmxNl T m BY Tm OFFICE OF OCEAN AND OOASTAL RE50Ui»S
KWAGDOM, NATIC2AL OCEANIC AND ATM3SPEMC AEMINISlRATICN.

' 3. Alternative No. 3 (Water)
Alternative No. 3 is based on the concept of using the Northeast Cape
Fear River as the source of water for the two townships. In this
' alternative, the County would construct a water treatment plant adjacent
to the Northeast Cape Fear River near N.C. Highway 210. Water would be
pumped frcen the river to the treatment plant. The potable water would
' be pumped from the treatment plant through a water transmission main to
two elevated storage tanks. One of the tanks will be located at Rocky
Point. The second tank will be located near the intersection of U.S.
' Highway 17 and SR 1565.
Water will be distributed to individual users through a network of
smaller diameter water mains.
A schematic layout of this alternative is shown on Map No. 14.
' In addition to the three alternatives presented in the preceding
paragraphs, an alternative whereby Pender County would purchase water
from Onslow County was investigated. Preliminary discussions with
representatives of Onslow County indicated that they would not be
' capable of furnishing the quantity of water required to satisfy the
water demands of Pender County.
t Also in each alternative, the future water requirements of the Towns of
Surf City and Topsail Beach have not been included because discussions
with representatives of the two Towns indicted that the Towns will
' furnish water necessary to satisfy their existing and future needs.
The Town of Topsail Beach may need to locate future wells on the
mainland. If the Town officials decide to pursue this alternative in
' the future, the County may be able to sell water to the Town, if the
Countv's water system is operational at that time.
H
Alternatives pertaining to collecting, treating and disposing of
wastewater are more complex than those pertaining to water systems.
Almost everyone will accept a water treatment plant, an elevated storage
tank or a booster pump station being located near them. However, very
few people will accept a wastewater treatment plant or wastewater pump
station being located near them. Hence, the reader is advised that the
locations of wastewater facilities shown on Maps 15 and 16 are
conceptual only. The exact location of any of the wastewater pumping
stations or treatment plants will have to be determined during the pre -
design phase of the project if the County decides to implement either of
the two alternatives described in the following paragraphs.
4. Alternative No. 1 (Wastewater)
The concept of this alternative is to collect the wastewater from the
developed areas of each Township and convey it through a network of pump
stations and force mains to a land application treatment facility
located in each Township. The wastewater collection system will be
either a conventional gravity sewer system or a pressure sewer system.
The conventional gravity sewer system will consist mostly of 8-inch
diameter sewers located within the right-of-way of existing roads and
37

streets. Each house will be connected to the 8-inch sewer with a 4-inch
'
diameter service line. Pump stations will be constructed at strategic
locations in order to keep the sewers from being extremely deep and to
pump the wastewater to the treatment site.
'
The pressure sewer system will consist of a network of small diameter
pressure pipes and small pump stations. Most of the pressure pipe will
be less than 8-inches in diameter. The pressure sewers will be
'
constructed within the right-of-way of existing roads and streets. Each
customer will install a small pump station and discharge his wastewater
to the network of pressure sewers through a 1-inch or 1-1/2-inch
diameter pipe. A few large pump stations will be located throughout the
system in order to collect the wastewater and pump it to the treatment
site.
'
After the wastewater is collected, it will be conveyed to one of two
land application treatment sites. The site which will serve the Rocky
Point area will need 250 acres of spray fields plus buffer areas and an
'
area for the oxidation lagoon and storage pond. The area required for
spray fields will increase to 830 acres when industrial flow is
'
included. The land application site which will serve the Topsail
Township will need to have 800 acres of spray fields plus buffer areas
and an area for the oxidation lagoon and storage pond. The area of the
spray field for this treatment site will increase to 1600 acres if the
'
Town of Topsail Beach's wastewater is treated at the site.
A conceptual layout of this alternative is shown on Map 15.
'
5. Alternative No. 2 (Wastewater)
Alternative No. 2 includes the same wastewater collection concepts as
'
were included in Alternative No. 1. However, the concept for treating
and dispensing of the wastewater is different. In this alternative the
wastewater will be conveyed to a tertiary treatment plant which will be
located near the Northeast Cape Fear River bridge on N.C. Highway 210.
'
The wastewater will be subjected to chedcal, physical and biological
treatment processes which will remove greater than 95% of the pollutants
from it prior to the effluent being disinfected, aerated and discharged
'
to the Northeast Cape Fear River. The sludge which will be removed from
the wastewater will be disposed of on a land application site.
'
The conceptual layout of this alternative is depicted on Map 16.
on both alternatives 1 and 2, the wastewater from the Town of Topsail
Beach will be collected and punTed to the mainland to a treatment
'
facility. The wastewater from Surf City, has not been included because
results of discussions with representatives of the Town indicate that
the Town will have adequate capacity in the new wastewater treatment
'
plant to serve the wastewater needs of the Town.
I
38

F'l

.
. -I�,., 'I �,.�.I. 1��I ,I .I- .,,. �� . .1.
w ,h .°
�,I_.,­I_.. II, .'�"I I .. . _ - II ��.IIII� : � ,t d, I I., � " I. '_ .I. I�,,. 1I� ; ;-�".��.,_
II
1' .r
z, �... ,,,♦, :.. .,. it-'.: - .�. N �; �� r'
,., ,.. ,+
-_- , .,
- •\ .II
X, _ s"r ty
II
�>-, ,. •1
t H r. j�i5 ♦ 'I
i - .. -
i, L. Vl_
, , t .. r
"w I :;.era- 9. 't . s.- -. „ . 1) •�s,,� ,..
,
i4.
i 1;.: .,. , . .
r, : . -
+ ,,: :' t
vp, .a ! _ .
,
»� `
.l ... R
,} i _a "
t" �`• . /
Is. - .:L.
r
r
o- tom' t¢
"<o( R
r
r .
9, y. - k..I � f ,. k , a' tF. 4.. �, t% ` a F.4. - . '� i rr . .
c , .. ,, �i. L ♦ ' . v 4
�. . -
p
i �
,> . -r,.. l a r : ,•, ,�... � . m + .,: s , a i..f -, r 4 MILES - :`ri
f i i _ -
Z: 1"
S-i,.,..
l -
.u♦y..?
'w♦/ .. _
Y
t -
i'IL. -
-
- .
_ w j
'w.. - { -..
s
y r^
r @, 1'
i
4 `� •J
^ 1
'dVi.
I 4TO AIL
3 l s t a' ' -
'. , _ P S
w• ♦
xt T�W:NSH�P
.t.. .. t /.. ..v. , F.. , j. }
A. .. .: • .2 . .: _ TL, . ],... -.. I , < ,ram . C,• "x.'
3'
,
pp { !'
..
r
y•t AST TR s
�. _ _ . 1 W E �y t ti.`r
II
THE TM� 1; :,: > - A NTr PLANT II
• .a�
III
III
! ,"
.o
,
I.
t, i. ..
-
♦' ., t+ tY' ...Y
{ X I IN
i ! J
:1 - ,K -!) F do
e 5{
k [
J .
j;
K 1 �. .•
aa t�. ,
k .": rhr
f)
E� . , : { "
.>,. $ .ti. ,. 3L{
t - 3. i
? r ;
,d
.. r. -. ''� .:. a:.m„'aa,a vn,.r+ ,t .- _ ....._:. E -r.'.. . ; ' . ' -."; `s...._ o w ..J' • h .
1 s , - ..: > - . t „ r y .'..xq -... - '.t t `s'1 K �... ?" / ., L,.
.. ...,. .. .:,i1-1: : .. .X.
a- r
r `'
'i -
3
'ti ,
i' ,,
ar.
y > i
AREA:"
y RV CE
z
f S E
t
. 4
--, , 1 -
• ' a' .`
w' '9 !' !!!
' , ' :: 'tom
..+ , , r -tea, # �.. ,,..'pa -� tt- ,:d 1. . - 'fir. �', i r "•'v*'" l - 1
:, g s 1, m t
l a. �F:M..r . , r ik 1
Y`."
�l c ' .� t
!t, /' i
f "t
f
".
J:
k. E •!.�
..
t t
a
r �
l
nn: t
�'N
+'
,o 4 "
`f::
A
s {a': �.
ARE 1: r �.,.
SERVICE _
>�
3 , J �:
n re:' '
�.x , � . a. _
V 3: :L:.
,, : n -
:
,, : ,F , l i , - a r'�
.:.a<. ,
_ } .r - ,-
G: "' "Mae. 4- .
« > 5 L f
ti, a r
-
a k'`
•i' -i.-
av � -.:.
f; '0. F. ..
1, SER1/ICE AREA
7 s .�
:. '''
,� ,.. n.,l a- t'
` ,r
�� : - � ,., c
,� ,•, r n
_ .a If. .'f c r'- 1
a
`I'
'ti . i - .9' -' - \ ._ 1
I-
.
d
.. ..
t
:. ,t:, �, . )"
s �`S
. - -�
> ..
. ,
', .'t r S
-,< yy jj
... C r, ,11 _ Y , .�� .,, `, 1i y
.. rr
x r ,- , a ,,, •+
3 ` -.. -
,'� . y % "t" , sF t' ° '"', /j<r I-- J' MAP NO.
�' ..� >r {L ... h� ;, ./l, {": WASTEWATER ALTERNATIVE NO.2
. r I F . ROCKY POINT &TOPSAIL 16
lII II lI I:II I.,' � , � ..I,� � ,-).�, I _
, , .<I �t` ', : r I LINTY
. . Y " `. ,I� A.,_�'� .-I , 1-
4 1 , � PENDER CO
1 � >x , , : '��<, F WATER 6 SEWER NEED.
8
�' -�I. ,_ .__ I. , ,...1I. " . .*I. ., ., I 1 . ._ l�I�I .�l. . ,..�. -1�..t.4: 1.,� " -. :, ,6 I, I �'.-��. �
. '
1_'"" " ,A �_. ." ";,= +; ^ ROWTH MANAGEMENT/ANALYSIS O
. BASE MAP ; `L 5 r ? / ,
{
} Q
NORTH CAROUNA DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION t t
r
omsow or wGnw.Ys—turllwG u+o RESFAeCM bRuKM - . - '*\/`,/� �I;JJj��,'\/`�
. - Irf y�.--" ,vim. ,,` tr /` ( 'r �1�'1. 1tL1-1
• `'IIE PFMRATICN OF UM MAP (Pl2n= naxpgmcN) . FRS FIID1i M IN PAIa <
TFWa ii A' G2tATTP PBDVMM BY M NOM CAV41MQ C MSIAL Mmmmm . pFaw M, 4. I r ? , . , r`
IIIIiODCii FtVW PRO = BY 'LIE 'COASTAL zCtsE MAAG1O7P ACT OF 1972, AS : i ! ENGILMI NS •PLANNERS A R LINA
Al9SdM FEDCH IS Ax@TLTm= BY MM OFFICE OF OCEAN AND OOAS`ML RISOIIRCESS I r1� WILI[INdTON, NORTH CAROL.
)!4�t'D1GEMW, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND A'II'DspHMC �• , e ti'r 9 / 21d /8g

R
G. Cost-effective Analysis of Alternatives
The cost-effectiveness of alternatives will be based on preliminary
estimates of probable project costs and annual operation and maw
costs for major carponents of each alternative for a period of 20 years.
An interest rate of seven percent was used to complete the economic
analyses. Major cmqxonents are defined as those parts of an alternative
which will vary in size or cost in different alternatives. Minor
cc%ponents such as service lines are not included in these analyses. These
costs will be included in the more detailed estimate of costs presented for
the selected alternative.
1. Water Alternatives
Detailed estimates of probable project costs and annual operation and
maintenance costs are presented in Appendix E of this report. These
costs are summarized in Table 24.
Table 24
Smmmry of Costs for Water Alternatives
for Residential Water Requirements
'
Description of Costs
'
Alternative
Project
Annual
Present Worth Costs
No.
cost
O&M
Project
O&M
Total
'
1A
$14,309,824
$ 736,500
$14,309,824
$ 7,802,481
$22,112,305
1
9,255,824
1,249,578
9,255,824
13,238,025
22,493,849
2
8,224,175
506,946
8,224,175
5,370,586
13,594,761
'
3
12,085,292
372,230
12,085,292
3,943,404
16,028,696
Based can the cost effective analyses of alternatives, Alternative 2 will
be the most economical of the four alternatives to construct, operate and
maintain for the 20 year planning period. The total cost of Alternative 2
' will increase if the two separate systems are connected. However, this
alternative is the least costly of the alternatives evaluated.
n
The County should consider the impact on costs if a water system is
constructed having adequate capacity to serve future residential and
industrial water needs. The costs for a water system which will serve
these needs are presented in Table 25 on the following page.
39

C
0
I
II
u
Table 25
Summary of Costs for Water Alternatives
for Residential and Industrial Water Requirements
Description of Costs
Present Worth Costs
Alternative
Project
Annual
No.
cost
O&M
Project
O&M
Total
im
$18,776,804
$ 900,925
$18,776,804
$ 9,544,400
$28,321,204
1BI
12,871,804
1,530,746
12,871,804
16,216,721
29,088,525
2I
10,056,376
696,120
10,056,376
7,374,695
17,431,071
3I
13,646,035
434,025
13,646,035
4,598,060
18,244,095
The results of the cost effective analysis of alternatives which will
furnish adequate water to satisfy both residential and industrial water
needs indicate that Alternative 2I has the least present worth cost. These
results also show that the County can increase the water supply frcm 3.03
MGD to 4.72 MGD or a 56% increase to serve the industrial water
requirements while incurring only a 28% increase in present worth costs.
Based on the results of the cost-effective analyses, it is reccmre-nded
that the County select Alternative 2 for implementation.
2. Wastewater Alternatives
The basic wastewater alternatives have several variations when cost
effective analyses are performed. In Alternative 1, it is assumed that
a land application system would be the method of treatment and disposal
and that the wastewater collected in each Township would be treated on a
site in that Township. In the Topsail Township, the land application
system was analyzed with and without the wastewater flaw from the Town
of Topsail Beach. The results of these analyses are presented in Tables
26 and 27.
40

Table 26
Summary of Costs for Alternative No. 1
for Topsail Township without Topsail Beach Flow
Description of Costs
in Millions
Description
Present Worth Costs
of Project
Annual
Variation Cost
O&M
Project
O&M Total
Land treatment
plus cozen-
tional collec-
tion system 24.995
.395
24.995
4.191 29.186
Land treatment
plus pressure
sewer collec-
tion system 17.195
.502
17.195
5.325 22.521
Table 27
Summary of Costs for Alternative No. 1
for Zbpsail Township with Topsail Beach Flow
Description of Costs in Millions
Description Present Worth Costs
of Project Annual
Variation Cost O&M Project O&M Total
Land treatment
plus conven-
tional collec-
tion system 34.388 .690 34.388 7.310 41.698
Land treatment
plus pressure
sewer collec-
tion system 28.450 .753 28.450 7.975 36.425
41

In the Rocky Point Taamhip, there are two variations of Alternative 1.
The first variation provides for the collection and treatment of wastewater
from, only residential customers. The second variation provides for
collection and treatment of wastewater fran both residential and industrial
customers. Me results of this analyses are presented in Tables 28 and 29.
Table 28
Summary of Costs for Alternative No. 1
for Rocky Point Township with Residential Wastewater
Description of Costs in Millions
Description
Present Worth Costs
Of
Project
Annual
Variation
Cost
O&M
Project O&M
Total
Land treatment
plus conven-
tional collec-
tion system
10.754
.151
10.755 1.600
12.354
Land treatMermt
plus pressure
sewer collec-
tion system
8.878
.198
8.878 2.105
10.984
Table 29
Summary of Costs for Alternative No. 1
for Rocky Point Township with Industrial Wastewater
Description of Costs in Millions
Description Present Worth Costs
Of Project Annual
Variation cost O&M Project O&M Total
Land treatment
plus conven-
tional collec-
tion system, 16.943 .346 16.943 3.674 20.618
42

Table 29, continued
Summary of Costs for Alternative No. 1
'
for Rocky Point Township with Industrial Wastewater
Description of Costs in Millions
'
Description
Present Worth Costs
of
Project Annual
Variation
Cost O&M Project O&M Total
'
Iand treatment
plus pressure
sewer collec-
tion system
13.467 .378 13.467 4.009 17.477
In Alternative 2, the caparisons of the results of the cost effective
analyses are
more ccuplex then for Alternative 1. Basically it is
necessary to
compare the results of cost effective analyses for various
ccobinations of flows. The results of these analyses are presented in
'
Table 30.
Table 30
'
Summary of Costs for Alternative No. 2
for Rocky Point and Topsail Townships
'
Description of Costs in Millions
'
Description
Present Worth Costs
of
Project Annual
Variation
Cost O&M Project O&M Total
Residential
'
flow only
conventional
collection
system
35.231 .836 35.231 8.863 44.094
Residential
flow only
'
pressure
sewer system
28.506 .945 28.506 10.013 38.519
1
43

Table 30, continued
summary of Costs for Alternative No. 2
for Rocky Point and Topsail Townships
Description of Costs in Millions
Description Present Worth Costs
of Project Annual
Variation Cost O&M Project O&M Total
Residential
plus Topsail
Beach flow,
conventional.
collection
43.988
1.156
43.988
12.247
56.236
Residential
plus Topsail
Beach flow,
pressure
sewer
39.148
1.295
39.148
13.718
52.866
Residential
plus
Industrial
flow,
conventional
sewer
37.999
1.142
37.999
12.102
50.102
Residential
plus
Industrial
flow,
pressure
sewer
29.958
1.223
29.958
12.952
42.911
Residential
plus
Industrial
and Topsail
Beach flaws
conventional
sews
46.716
1.462
46.716
15.487
62.203
Residential
plus
Industrial
and Topsail
Beach flows
pressure
sewers
40.488
1.573
40.488
16..658
57.146
44

In order to ccepare the present worth costs of Alternative 1 and 2 the
information presented in Tables 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 was reformatted and
is presented in Table 31 below.
Table 31
Comparison of Present Worth Costs for
Alternatives 1 and 2
Present Worth Costs in Millions
Description Alternative 1 Alternative 2
of
Variation Topsail Rocky Point Total
Residential flow
only (conventional
collection system)
29.186
12.354
41.54
44.094
Residential flow
only (pressure
sewer system)
22.521
10.984
33.51
38.519
Residential plus
Topsail Beach
flow, (conven-
tional collection)
41.698
12.354
54.052
56.236
Residential plus
Topsail Beach
flow, (pressure
sewer)
36.425
10.984
47.409
52.866
Residential plus
Industrial flow,
(conventional
collection)
29.186
20.618
49.786
50.102
Residential plus
Industrial flow,
(pressure sewer)
22.521
17.477
39.998
42.911
Residential plus
Industrial and
Topsail Beach
flows, (conven-
tional collection)
41.698
20.618
62.316
62.203
45

Table 31, continued
Comparison of Present Worth Costs for
' Alternatives 1 and 2
Present Worth Costs in Millions
Description Alternative 1 Alternative 2
of
Variation Topsail Rocky Point Total
Residential plus
Industrial and
Topsail Beach
flows, pressure
' sewers 36.425 17.477 53.902 57.146
It is evident from the present worth costs presented in Table 31, that
' Alternative 1 is most cost effective for the 20-year planning period.
H. Implementation Plan for Selected Alternative
1. Phasing Plan
a. Water system
Alternative No. 2 is reccamnended for implementation. The proposed
water distribution system shown in Figure 13 represents only the major
' water lines within the system. It is not feasible to construct all of
those water lines and appurtenances during the initial phase of
implementation. Therefore, construction of the proposed water mains
' should be undertaken only as areas develop to a density sufficient to
pay the debt service and operating and maintenance costs for the
sections being constructed.
' In the Rocky Point Township, Phase 1 construction would include
water mains along the sections of NC Hwy. 210 and US Hwy. 117 and
possibly to the two industrial parks, an elevated water tank and at
least one well. Future phases would include extensions of water mains
from the basic system constructed in Phase 1 to residential and
coamercial customers in the Rocky Point and Ashton areas. Additional
' wells would be constructed as needed to keep the supply greater than the
maximum day water demand.
In the Topsail 'Township, Phase I would include the 12-inch water
' main along US Hwy. 17 from Hampstead to NC Hwy. 210, an 8-inch water
main along NC Hwy. 210, an elevated storage tank and at least one well
with a treatment unit. Water lines can be constructed from the basis
46

system to serve areas with higher density development. In Phase I,
these areas would include Gabe's Point, Beckys Creek and Hampstead on
the Sound development.
During future phases, water lines would be constructed to serve
Watts Landing, Sloop Point, Topsail Greens, Belvedere, Olde Point,
Washington Acres and Scotts Hill areas. Additional wells will be
constructed as required to keep the supply greater than the maximum day
demand.
Prior to implementing a water system in either Rocky Point or
Topsail Township, the County should determine those residents who will
definitely utilize the service. Then the estimates of probable
construction costs presented in this report should be updated to the
' period during which construction will occur. The cost of constructing
water lines along the roads which are not shown as having water lines in
this report will have to be added to the cost of basic system. Based on
these costs and the estimate of operating costs during the first years
of operation, the County will be able to establish water rates for its
custarners.
1 b. Wastewater Facilities
Ewen though the results of the present worth cost analysis indicate
that Alternative No. 1 along with the use of pressure type sewage
collection system is the least cost alternative, we recommend that these
analyses be updated when the County is more certain about the timing of
' the construction of wastewater facilities. The recommended alternative
is more sensitive to the cost of electricity, lard and personnel than
Alternative No. 2. The analyses were based on conditions existing in
late 1988. If these conditions change, the results of the cost
effective analyses would vary significantly.
Assuming that the results of the updated analyses show the same
results, it is reccumerded the County purchase lard for a lard treatment
facility in the vicinity of Rocky Point. The number of acres purchased
will depend on the results of a hydrogeologic analysis of the proposed
' site and the volume of industrial wastewater the County decides to
treat. A wastewater collection system will be constructed to serve the
densely populated areas along NC Hwy. 21, US Hwy. 117 and areas adjacent
to these roads during Phase 1. If sufficient need exists, the Phase 1
' collection system could also be extended to one or both industrial
parks.
' As new areas develop in the Rocky Point Township, the basic system
would be extended in one or several phases of construction.
Again in the Topsail Township, the County would need to purchase
1 lard for the land treatment system. The acreage will depend on the
final decision regarding serving Topsail Beach and the areas to be
served in Phase 1. The Phase 1 collection system should include service
to the Hampstead areas and possibly to the Town of Topsail Beach, Olde
Point, Belvedere and Topsail Greens.
47

During future phases, the County would w&kn i services nouthwardly
'
to Sloop Point, Snug Harbor and Gabe's Point and southwardly to
Washington Estates, Scotts Hill and other development which may occur
'
along and near US Hwy. 17.
As the County officials plan to implement each phase of the proposed
wastewater system, they should to update the estimates of probable
construction costs presented in this report. 'These updated costs plus
estimates of the operating costs for the first few years should be used
to calculate the user charges each custcmer will need to pay.
'
2. Alternatives for Managing and Financing Proposed System
Several alternatives are presented in Appendices C and D for
'
managing and financing the water systems and wastewater facility
proposed in this report. It is reccatmended the County establish a
County Water and Sewer District to encompass all of the areas in which
water and wastewater facilities will be constructed. The Board of
County Commissioners would be the governing body of the district. Any
bond referendum required to finance construction of the proposed
facilities would be voted on by only the voters living in the district.
The County can finance the utilities proposed through the issuance
of general obligation bonds or revenue bonds. Prior to issuing general
'
obligation bonds, the County would have to obtain approval from the
State, local Government C7cmmission to hold a bond referendum. The
voters within the boundaries of the water and sewer district would vote
on the bonds. If a majority of voters approve the bond referendum, the
County Ccmnni.ssionen s can proceed with the sale of the bonds and pay the
construction costs of the water and sewer facilities from the revenues.
If the bond referendum is not approved, the County Commissioners will
have to postpone construction or find an alternative source of funding.
The County Ccmnissioners may decide to issue revenue bonds instead
of general obligation bonds. If this alternative is selected, the
'
Cannissioners will need a detailed financial analysis completed for the
proposed facilities. This analysis must show clearly the revenues
generated from proposed custaners will be adequate to pay the annual
'
debt service on the bonds, an additional coverage of 20 to 50 percent of
the debt service payment and all operating costs. This report must to
be approved by the local Government Commission and bond attorneys
specializing in the sale of revenue bonds.
In addition to issuing the bonds, the County is eligible to apply
for federal and state grants. The amount of funding available from
'
these sources has been diminishing over the past several years. Today
grants are small or not available. Hence, the potential for obtaining
grants to defray part of the construction costs will have to be
evaluated for a specific project and at the time the County is ready to
proceed with a project.
48

■ The County also has the authority to levy assessments and impact
fees in order to pay part or all of the cost of constructing water and
sewer facilities. 'This method of financing is not used normally since
it places the total financial burden on existing residents.
' It is recommended the County apply for any state and federal grants
or loans which are available. Any part of the construction costs which
■ are not defrayed by these funds should be paid by issuing general
obligation bonds.
■ I. Growth Management Policies Related to the Provision of Water and
Sanitary Sewer Services.
In order to establish a background for the development of policies
■ reflecting the findings of this water and sewer study, a review of relevant
existing policies, as shown in the 1986 Fender County Tend Use Plan, was
made and is shown as Appendix B of this report.
■ Reviewing the existing policies gives a clear message that it is best
summarized in a statement from the Plan under the heading, local Objectives
■ Concerning Growth.
"The primary objective of County officials is to encourage development
and growth that does not adversely affect the environment or other existing
■ development. The County will encourage and support growth and development
that provides improved job and housing opportunities for County citizens."
■ Upon examination of specific county policies stated in response to
specific issues the same basic concerns hold true; allow the market place
.to establish the need for an location of future residential and commercial
development, as long as this development meets all local, state, and
■ federal agency requirements, and the environment is not harmed.
More specifically the following is a list of cmponents that should be
■ considered in the modification or expansion of existing policies, in light
■ of the preceding water and sewer study.
1. The policy should not discourage growth - rather, growth should be
■ encouraged in areas that:
a. the growth will not harm the C ounty's environment.
b. will not be a detriment to existing development.
c. will be in harmony with Chanty and nunicipal land development
plans and land use classifications.
d. would upgrade existing development.
e. help correct existing utility problems.
f. help correct existing utility problems such as:
1. septic tank problems
2. well water problems, quality and quantity
3. private treatment plant problems or limitations
1
49

C�
g. would not cause growth to occur beyond the capacities of other
Ccum pity facilities such as:
1. roads
2. fire protection
3. schools
4. emergency evacuation standards
2. The policy should yield complete flexibility for the County
Administration in determining financing plans for utility
improvements.
3. A specific ccauponent should be: that once a basic water or sewer
system is in place, developers would be permitted to connect to the
basic system only under certain conditions such as:
a. the payment of an impact fee that would generate funds and allow
the County to continue expansion of the basic system.
b. any improvements or extensions to the utility systems made by
developers would be done in ompli.ance to County standards and
would be dedicated to the County once the improvements are
installed and accepted.
1
50

Gd
m m m m m m m m

'
Public Meeting
August 1, 1988
Pender County
Rocky Point and Topsail Townships
Growth Management/Water & Sewer Needs Analysis
Project Scope and Description
This project is a planning and engineering study to determine the water and
'
sewer needs and a growth management policy for 2 rapidly growing portions
of the County -- Rocky Point and Topsail Townships.
In June 1988, the Pender County Board of Ccamissioners contracted with
'
McKim & Creed Engineers, P.A. of Wilmington, to prepare the study, which is
to be completed by September 30, 1988. The study is being jointly funded
by Pender County and a grant from the State Coastal Planning and Management
'
Grant Program, administered by the N.C. Department of Natural Resources and
Ccmmmity Development.
The following is a generalized outline for the study:
A. 1. Collect & review base data (population, land use, utilities).
2. Preliminary assessment of key issues.
'
3. Establish public participation program.
4. Communicate with County staff and COM issioners, and representatives
'
of the Office of Coastal Management.
B. 1. Revise base data.
2. Prepare base maps.
3. Analyze and assess current and future trends in:
a. population
b. land use
C. economy
d. utilities
4. Establish geographic, physical, environmental and social Constraints
on development.
'
*5. Conduct initial public meeting & obtain public consensus on desires
for future growth and development in each study area.
6. Prepare water and sewer system alternatives to match future growth
projections.
7. Re-evaluate analysis.
8. Address water quality and other environmental issues.
'
9. Begin formulation of policies for water and sewer services and for
growth management-
C. 1. Finalize preliminary work (land use and environmental studies).
2. Finalize water and sewer needs.
3. Present most feasible alternatives for water and sewer service to
each study area, including sketch plans of lines, plant site
' locations, etc. Present preliminary cost estimates.
4. Develop future area - specific growth management policies based upon
identified issues, trends, constraints and needs.
A-1

C
L
L
Fender County - Growth Mamctement/Water & Sewer Needs Analysis
August 1, 1988
Page 2
*5. Present at a public meeting, alternatives for water and sewer
service, cost estimates and growth management policies. Receive
public convents.
6. Produce preliminary written report showing:
a. physical constraints
b. environmental constraints
c. ccmmmity facilities constraints
d. proposed water and sewer system layouts
e. cost estimates
f. growth management policies
g. input from public
D. 1. Finalize preliminary plans and report.
2. Submit plan for local review and approval.
3. Submit plan for State Coastal Resources Commission for review and
approval.
*(Public meeting to be scheduled.)
This meeting has two objectives:
1. To present the scope and purpose of the study.
2. Tb hear canwnts regarding growth and development, and water and
sewer needs within both study areas.
This is basically an information gathering meeting -- no plans or policies
will be presented. The attached map shows the two study areas within
Pender County. Also attached is a form for submitting written comments for
consideration by the County Commissioners, staff and the consulting
engineer.
I
A-2

7
L
' P&llc meetim
August 1, 1988
Pender County
' Rocky Point and Topsail Townships
Growth Management/Water and Sewer Needs Analysis
' Area of concern: Rocky Point Township
Topsail Township
' Specific Cmmunity Name
Comments (Please limit topics to Growth Management and Water & Sewer Needs
' within Rocky Point and Topsail Townships).
I
A-3

t r Jr�
8 ROA ✓- '
. s46
'" _ "' • f —
�ST HELENA* y.�.
/! � //�• 1 � �+ram-•w �r � )�
KY
POI��..��TT • ► a a �L•�'
TWP. TOPSAIL
Tw
ROCKY PONTMAL SUCH
� � r "� ,` ►:�
r •w.•r .•
SCALZ
u• � j
1 0 1 2 3 d wu•
ti
' STUDY AREAS
ROCKY POINT & TOPSAIL TWPS.
PENDER COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT/
ANAL1t SIS OF WATER AND SEWER NEEDS
A-4

m

L
I
L
P
1 V * 00 1I
Adopted Growth Management Policies
Policy statements front, the 1986 Fender land Use Plan (Adopted on
May 27, 1987), land Use Plan for The Town of Topsail Beach,
N.C. (Adopted January 8, 1986) , and land Use Plan ate Pre red For The
Town of Surf City. N.C. (Adopted September 1, 1987), selected for their
relevancy to the water and sewer study.
Policy and objective statements selected front 1986 Pender County Land
Use Plan:
Local Objectives Concerning Growth
The primary objective of County officials is to encourage development
and growth that does not adversely affect the environment or other existing
development. The County will encourage and support growth and development
that provides improved job and housing opportunities for County citizens.
Areas of Environmental Concern
Pender County's overall policy and management objective for the
estuarine system is "to give the highest priority to their protection and
perpetuate their biological, social, economic, and aesthetic values and to
ensure that development occurring within these AEX;s is compatible with
natural characteristics so as to minimize the likelihood of significant
loss of private property and public resources." (15 NCAC 7H. 0203) In
accordance with this overall objective, Pender County will permit those
land uses which conform to the general use standards of the North Carolina
Administrative Code (15 NCAC 7H) for developmtent within the estuarine
system. Generally, only those uses which are water dependent will be
permitted.
Use of Package Treatment Plants for Sewage Treatment Disposal
Package treatment plants are not being used very extensively in the
County. If and when used, these facilities are regulated through the
health department using State guidelines. The County will support the use
of package treatment plants and enforcement of appropriate regulations in
issuing permits for their use as an alternate means to treat sewage other
than individual septic tanks.
Marina and Floating Hone Development
The development of marinas has significant commercial and recreational
potential in Pender County. Therefore, the supports the development
of marinas, in ecupliance with amlicable CAMA regulations, and in waters
with the lowest water quality in existence as of January 1. 1987. Floating
hoarse development has not taken place in Pender County, and officials
have determined that float irxr homes could have an adverse 'n ct on water
quality. Therefore, float itw homes will not be permitted in Pender
regulated waters.
B-1

' Industrial Impacts on Fragile Areas
' Pender County officials will continue to support applicable State and
Federal regulations as they relate to the siting of new industry, or impact
of new industry or environmentally sensitive areas. Rrgpgggd locations of
future will be reviewed by the Economic Development office,
' Plannira Board or other agency or board as des i by the _yt Board of
Commissioners. The designated review will make a formal
reccILmendation to the Can yt' C a nissioners on the aura xiateness of the
p_rgpggLd location.
Residential and Comwzcial Iand Develcpnent
'
Pender County has been and continues to grow in population. Current and
future policy will be to allow the market place to establish the need for
and location of future residential and corm mial developanent. Current and
future development must meet all established health department regulations,
'
Wilding code regulations, flood regulations, and all local, State and
Federal agency requirements. Consideration is now being given to review
and adoption of zoning and subdivisions regulations. Upon adoption, these
'
regulations would constitute County policy on all future land development
and would be used to direct future land use.
Economic and Community Development
Continue to support the new industrial park on N.C. 210 near Rocky
'
Point.
II-ccurage industrial developmnt along U.S. 421.
'
Support local industry, agriculture, forestry and other in securing
federal or State grants to develop or expand industrial operations to
utilize or process locally produced products.
'
Pursue federal or state gra tsis to develop and provide needed water,
sewer, and other utilities to make industrial development economically
'
feasible.
Local Commitment to Providing Services to Development
'
Continue to regulate septic tank use using applicable local and State
regulations.
' Based an increases in population now projected, the desire to protect
the Couurty's natural resources, County policy will be to begin the planning
process for a County sewer system and water system to serve the rapidly
' growing area of the county with potential for future expansion. The
Will rx�re federal or state ants to conduct such studies. Such studies
and implementation will help protect paint water quality by elimination of
the widespread use of septic tanks.
Issue: Anticipated Residential Development, Densities, Locations, Units
Per Acre, and Services Necessary to Support Development
' B-2

'
As discussed in earlier sections of the plan, Pender County had a
density of 26.7 people per square mile in 1983. Although the County
continues to grow in population, the County continues to have a very low
density of development. The only multi -family or higher density
developments in the County are located in Topsail Township, with most of
the higher density developments being located in either Surf City or
'
Topsail Beach. County officials anticipate other townships in the County
remaining primarily low density and rural in character during the five- to
ten-year planning period.
'
At present, the location, density, and units per acre are regulated by
State health regulations due to the lack of zoning or subdivision
regulations. However, during the planning process to prepare the 1986 Land
'
Use Plan Update, it became very apparent that many people in the faster
growing areas of the County want to see more growth management to avoid the
mistakes made in other parts of the state or nation. For this reason,
County officials are considering establishing zoning and subdivision
'
regulations for use in scene or all the County. Also, based on the results
of the Land Use Plan questionnaire, the following was learned concerning
'
the need for County provision of a water or sewer system:
1. Do you think the County needs to consider providing a County -wide
water system, if financially feasible?
176 Yes 228 No 144 Not Sure
2. Do you think County officials need to consider providing sewage
'
treatment facilities in rapidly growing areas to protect water
quality by eliminating the need for septic tank use for sewage
disposal?
'
412 Yes 92 - No 112 Not Sure
Of the 608 responses to Question #1, a clear majority did not think the
'
County should provide a water system. However, when asked about the
Co nty's providing sewage treatment facilities in rapidly growing areas to
' protect water quality by eliminating the need for septic tanks, a clear
majority of those answering the questionnaire were in favor of the County
considering providing such a system.
In summary, Pender County remains a very rural county, with primarily
low -density development. Density and location of development are based on
health devartment reauirenents with no current water or sewer system to
'
serve current or future development.
Policy:
'
Density of
development and location of
developw t will be established
upon approval
of zoning for the County, as discussed under the "Zoning"
issue. Until
zoning is approved, location
and density of development will
continue to
be based on local, State,
and Federal regulations, as
applicable.

I
Issue: Types of Urban Growth Patterns Desired
- Redevelopment of Developed Areas
The 1976 Land Use Plan indicated that Pender County citizens and County
officials desired modest growth near existing development. In 1981, the
adopted policy was to guide new growth throw the use of zoning and
subdivision regulations. Because of the Canty's very low density, urban
growth patterns is not an issue: however, providing the planning tools to
guide growth is very much an issue as indicated during the public
information meetings held in Burgaw and Hampstead during the early planning
stages for this update. The growth pattern issue facing Pender County is
how to direct growth and prevent future problems through good growth
management.
Redevelopment of developed areas is continuing in areas like Maple Hill
through the Ccmnunity Developnent Block Grant program. The County will
continue this renewal process.
County policy will be to zone areas along U.S. 17 to provide for
appropriate uses for this major tourist -oriented highway corridor.
City policy will be to determine the best location for industrial
development sites or industrial development parks and zone areas
accordingly.
The County will continue work to obtain grants to permit the
redevelopment of developed areas in need of such action.
Issue: Subdivision Regulations
The Pender County Planning Board and Planning Director have been
actively working on the preparation of subdivision regulations for the
County in 1986. As discussed in the 1981 land Use Plan, subdivision
' regulations, once adopted, will help ensure that developnent does not occur
haphazardly and that future development will provide for future tie-in of
roads with adjacent property when appropriate. Also, subdivision
' regulations will provide design standards for setbacks, road designs,
buffering, etc., and as also stated in the 1981 plan, subdivision
regulations, after adoption,w ill become a very important land use
management tool for Pender County. This regulation will also» re
public access to the waterfront and funds for of waterfront access
areas bW the CounCoun yt- .
' Policy:
It is Pender County's policy that subdivision regulations became an
important land use management tool for ensuring future development is
accurately surveyed for recording and engineered following good planning
design principles. County official swill continue to work for adoption of
county -wide subdivision regulation in the near future.

Issue: Solid Waste
Providing for solid waste disposal is a local responsibility with
technical assistance and licensing from the State. Pender County has two
landfills, with one near Surf City and the other being located
approximately four miles from Burgaw. The County is presently looki for
another suitable landfill site and reviewincr the possible use of an
incinerator for waste disposal.
Policy:
County oP licy will be to continue to provide adequate sites and
facilities for solid waste di .
Issue: Economic and Coamtamity Develcpnent
- Types and Locations of Industries Desired
Policy:
Continue to support the new industrial park on N.C. 210 near Rocky
Mount.
Encourage industrial development along N.C. 421.
Support local industry, agriculture, forestry and others in securing
federal or State grants to develop or expand industrial operations to
utilize or process locally produced products.
' Adapt a zoning ordinance that provides for the orderly location and
development of individual industrial sites or industrial parks with
clustering of individual uses.
' Issue: Drainage
fl
Policy:
Pender County will identify areas of the County with drainage problems
and then prepare a water management County drainage plan for review and
approval by federal and state agencies to address those identified
problems. Using programs like the C mn pity Developwnt Block Grant
program, CAM1 Planning & Management t, and other programs, the County
will continue to work to resolve these drainage problems when feasible.
Issue: Housing
Most of the housing stock. in Pender County is either individual
lot/conventional units or mobile homes on individual lots or in mobile home
parks. Since 1981, there have been several higher density residential
developments built at Old Pointe and Belvedere, but most hcmes are still
either mobile hcu es or conventional stick -built housing units. The County
is involved with the Section 8 housing program in an effort to provide
better housing for low and moderate income families. The County also has a
County Housing Authority, which works to provide decent, safe, and sanitary
housing for low- and moderate-uxxmie families.
B-5

' Policy:
It shall continue to be County policy to assist, where possible, in the
provision of decent, safe, and sanitary housing for County citizens with
low and moderate insane. The County will continue to secure state and
federal funds to improve or provide better housing opportunities for low
and moderate inn ane citizens.
' Issue: Development Pressure on Streams and Intracoastal Waterway
As projected in the 1981 Tand Use Plan, new developments continue to be
developed along the Intracoastal Waterway and along streams and rivers
Uuvxfihout the County. Areas like Bay Harbor, Virginia Creek Forest, Gaber
Point, Cedar Ianding, and Deer Run all appear to be new developments with
many lots renaining to be sold or built on. This development pressure will
most likely continue because of the desirability of both the stream area
and Intracoastal Waterway area for residential development.
' With completion of the County's detail soils report, the County has
designated soils subject to flooding in the conversation classification on
the Land Classification Map. Also, the Federal Flood Insurance Program
helps regulate the location of development in flood prone areas.
Policy:
Pender County anticipates continued deve1cprent pressures in areas
adjacent to County streams and the Intracoastal Waterway. It shall
' continue to be County policy to permit development near streams and the
Intracoastal Waterway provided such development does not adversely affect
or endanger the environment and meets all local, state, and federal
' regulations.
Issue: Fishing Industry
' Commercial fishing has been, and continues to be, an important part of
Pender Co unty's economy and way of life. Recreational fishing ng provides an
important leisure time activity for County residents and a maj or activity
enjoyed by tourists visiting the area. County officials know that to
continue to regain this renewable natural resource, it is important to
protect nursery areas like Old Topsail Creek, Virginia Creek, Bishops
Creek, and others so indigenous fish species will be able to spawn and
multiply, thus improving the conditions needed for successful ccmTexcial
and recreational, , fishing.
g.
Policy:
The County will continue to support the CM program and other state and
federal program that protect water quality to ensure the continuation of
nursery areas in Pender County.
I
B-6

Issue: Inter -County Cooperation
Many, if not all, of the 20 coastal counties involved in the North
Carolina Coastal Management Program show some of the same land use related
problems, such as development pressure in areas adjacent to environmentally
sensitive areas. Economic development opportunities are also of great
importanoe to coastal counties like Pender County, but economic development
that does not adversely affect the environment must be a top priority. For
example, an area that can have a very positive effect on the local economy
while being designed to have minimal effect on the environment would be
improved access fran I-40 to the beach areas of Surf City and Topsail
Beach. This improved access would have a better chance for approval with
the cooperative efforts of the County and beach co mmmities. Improved
east -rest road access would also have a better chance for implementation in
the State"s Transportation Improvements Plan (TIP) if the County, Atkinson,
Burgaw, Surf City, and Topsail Beach could agree on the best east -west
route and then support efforts to have that route included in the State's
long-range plans.
Policy:
It shall be County policy to consult and cooperate with other areas
local governments to identify and solve oommon problems.
Issue: Transportation
I-40, U.S. 17, N.C. 421, and Improved East-West Connection
As discussed under the section headed "Commitment to State and Federal
Programs", highway improvements are considered a major factor in ensuring
the continued econcmic growth of the area. The 1985-86 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Plan for Pender County includes a road
improvement near Moores Creek National Park and bridge improvements are
important, none address the need to improve access from I-40 to the beach
areas of Pender County, widening of U.S. 17, widening of N.C. 421, and
improved east -rest access. %linen I-40 is carpleted between Wilmington and
Raleigh, beach areas in Onslow, Pender, and New Hanover Counties will have
greatly improved access to the Piedmont region, with New Hanover County
having the best access because of I-40's termination in Wilmington, with a
short distance to Wrightsville beach. Tourism is becoming a very important
part of Pender County's eoonany, but to take full advantage of this
Pender County beaches. Providing this improved access will be a very high
priority for Pender County during the five- to ten-year planning period.
Like iq=med access to the beach area from I-40, the widening of U.S.
17 and four-laning the remaining portion of N.C. 421 would greatly improve
the efficiency of these major thoroughfares. Improvements to either N.C.
53 or N.C. 210 would provide needed improved east -west access through the
County, which has been a concern for scene time, as discussed in the 1981
plan.
B-7

' Policy:
County policy will be to work with the Department of Transportation to
' establish a four -lane thoroughfare between I-40 and Surf City and Topsail
Beach. The County will continue to work for the improvement of N.C. 421
and U.S. 17 as four -lane facilities and for the improvement of N.C. 53 and
N.C. 210 to improve the east -west connection of the County.
' Issue: Lea Island/Hutaff Island
Lea Island and Hutaff Island have access only by boat. Because of the
sensitive nature of these two islands, the County would prefer that any
future development in these areas, if permitted by CAMA, Corps of
Engineers, and County and Local Permit Office regulations, be of lower
'
intensity development.
Policy:
'
The County is aware that both Lea Island and Hutaff Island are located
in an environmentally sensitive area and, therefore, would only encourage
lower density development in the future if all local, state, and federal
regulations would permit such development; as permitted _by the z n'
ordinance.
'
Issue: Water System
Both the 1976 and 1981 Land Use Plans acknowledge the fact that neither
water nor sewer systems were available from the County. Specifically, the
'.
1976 plan indicated that a "County -wide water and sewer system is far
beyond the financial capability of the County and exceeds its needs." The
'
1976 plan also stated that providing water and sewer facilities was a
municipal function.
The 1981 plan listed septic tank problems as a #1 priority problem and a
County -wide water system as a #5 class priority. The plan discussed the
'
problem of some septic tank failure and impact on water quality of the
estuarine system, as well as potential pollution of the groundwater system.
The 1981 plan policy stated that because of the rural character and law
density of the County, a County -wide water system was not justified;
however, a study of higher density areas was justified.
Based on the results of the 1986 LUP questionnaire, the majority of
those answering did not want the County to consider providing a Countywide
' system. Specifically, the question was:
Do you think the County needs to consider providing a County wide
' water system, if financially feasible?
Yes 176 28.9%
No 288 47.4%
' Not Sure 144 23.7%
TOTAL 608 100.0%
' B-8

Based on the results of the questionnaire, there appears to be little
interest in a County water system. Based on these results, concern for
protection of the estuarine system, groundwater resources, and the desire
to provide services that are financially feasible and desirable, the County
must determine the appropriate steps to take pertaining to providing water
services either in the near or distant future. However, if County
officials determine that it would be in the Caunty's best interest to
develop a water system, the County will pursue federal & state grants to
develop such a system. However, if C officials determine that is
would be in the Co nty's best interest to develop a water tom the
County will ursie federal and state grants to develop such a tom.
Policy:
' As outlined in the section headed, "Commitment to provide Services to
Development", County policy will be to begin the planning process for a
County water system to serve the rapidly growing areas of the county with
potential for future expansion.
B-9

u

I
During the past two decades the Institute of Goverrwnt situated on the
caupus at the University of N.C. at Chapel Hill has served as consultant to
numerous organizations who had the responsibility of serving both
metropolitan suburban and rural areas with utilities. The chief consultant
involved in these studies, investigations and recce m endations was Mr. W.
Jake Wicker. The following outline of arrangements and alternatives
available for providing water and sewer services to area and the powers
available to N.C. cities and counties has been coupiled from reports
resulting from the work of Mr. Wicker and his ccamnittees.
C-1

I
I
h
Organizational Alternatives
Local organizational and financial arrangements assume central
importance in 0CMM3nity, water supply and wastewater management, despite
the influence of federal and state laws, regulations, policies and
financial assistance, it is at the local level that services are delivered,
facilities are constructed and policies are made effective.
North Carolina statutes provide numerous options and great flexibility
in organizing to provide water and sewerage services. The chief options
are:
1. A city
2. A county
3. An interlocal contract
4. A joint management district
5. A county service district
6. A county water and sewer district
7. A sanitary district
8. A water and sewer authority
9. A metropolitan water district
10. A metropolitan sewerage district
11. A private corporation
12. A cmbination of the above
A brief description of each is given here.
1. Cities. City governments were the first local units to provide
water, and sewerage services in North Carolina and are still the
local units principally involved in providing them. (N.C.G.S. 160A,
Art. 9, 10 and 16.) Cities have a full range of financing powers:
revenue and general obligation borrowing, taxation, the use of
special assessments, and authority to impose all types of fees,
rates, and charges. Rates imposed by cities for service are set by
the city governing body and are not reviewed or approved by a state
agency. Cities may provide the services both inside and outside
their boundaries. (160A Articles 9, 10 and 16.)
Three limitations of the city as an organization for providing water
and sewerage services may be present in some situations. First, the
jurisdiction of the city may not cover all the area needing service.
Second, if service is needed over a large area outside the
particular city, the city government may not have the financial
capacity to provide all the needed services. And third, insofar as
the citizens of the area outside the city are concerned, water and
sewerage services provided by the city are unregulated by either the
state's Utility Cmuission or a local governing body responsive to
them through the ballot box.
2. Counties. A few counties in North Carolina have been authorized to
make expenditures for water and sewerage purposes for a quarter of a
century, but not until 1961 were counties generally authorized to
provide these services. Today, a county government's authority to
operate, finance, and manage water and sewerage services is as broad
C-2

as that of a city government, including authority to provide
'
services inside cities and outside its own boundaries. (N.C.G.S.,
153A, Arts. 7, 9 and 15.)
Compared with a city, a county has some advantages. First, a single
county covers a larger area than a city, and quite often, all the
area that may require service from a single, physically connected
water supply or sewerage collection and disposal system. And
'
second, the county government's borrowing capacity is likely to
exceed that of a city government or other unit located within the
'
boundaries.
The major disadvantage facing a county is that it frequently has no
existing facilities and no operating history. While counties have
'
been active in financing services during the past fifteen years,
only a few have any management experience, and some counties sill do
not view provision of water and sewerage services as a standard
'
county activity.
3. Interlocal Contract. An interlocal contact is simply an agreement
'
between two or more local units for one of them to undertake for
both or all of them an activity that each is authorized by statute
to carry out individually. Cities, counties, sanitary districts,
other political subdivisions, and local governmental agencies are
authorized by North Carolina's interlocal-agreement statute to enter
'
into interlocal contracts. (N.C.G.S. 153A-278; 160A-461.)
An interlocal contract or agreement specifies what service or
'
activity is to be provided, the contribution of each unit to its
financing; and arrangements for operation and management. Personnel
are employees of one or more of the participating governments. All
'
property involved in the activity belongs to one of the units.
The interlocal contract is much used in North Carolina in providing
water and sewerage services. The typical agreement is one between a
'
county and a city government in which the county shares in the cost
of extending services to areas outside the city. Many agreements of
'
this type call for some reimbursement of the county (and the city)
from connection charges, rates, or other payments from customers
served. Interlocal agreements are sometimes made to provide water
and treat wastewater for two cities or for a city and county. Quite
'
often, one unit simply purchases water or treatment services from
another. An unusual local contract of this type is found in the
Research Triangle area where the City of Durham operates a
'
wastewater treatment facility constructed and owned by Durham
may•
The interlocal contract is highly flexible. It permits the
expansion of an existing capability — whether in plants and systems
or in personnel. — to serve the needs of two or more jurisdictions.
A regional approach — perhaps involving an entire watershed -- can
be brought under unified management by this means. Economies of
scale may be realized, and improved management may be achieved
through carbining needs for services. Since all areas of the state
' are covered by county governments and almost all counties have
C-3

' within their boundaries cities with existing water and sewerage
services, interlocal contracts can be used in any area to create the
optimal management jurisdiction for providing water and sewerage
services.
' This possible advantage also suggests a major limitation of the
interlocal contract: the need for all the participating units to
' agree. It is sometimes difficult for units to agree on how costs
and revenues should be shared or on joint policies for extensions,
rates for service, or other aspects of operation and management.
'
This possible advantage also suggests a major limitation of the
interlocal contract: the need for all the participating units to
agree. It shared or on joint policies for extensions, rates for
'
service, or other aspects of operation and management.
The interlocal contract may also be viewed as something less than
the ideal arrangement when concurrent future action is required.
'
For exanple, suppose three cities agree to construct a joint
wastewater treatment plant requiring concurrent approval by the
voters of all three units. Failure of one unit's voters to approve
'
could seriously delay the project and would probably require that
alternate source of capital be developed or arrangements for sharing
costs be changed.
'
In short, an interlocal agreement works well where the units agree.
Its chief shortcoming is that its structure does not assure
resolution of disagreement. It provides no single body capable of
'
acting and in which a majority may be developed to take action.
4. Joint Management Agency. Cities and counties and other political
'
subdivisions and agencies of local government are authorized by
interlocal agreement to create a joint management agency to
administer any undertaking each is authorized to carry out along.
The joint management agency is thus a special form of interlocal
'
contract. Typically, in a simple interlocal contract, one unit
administers the undertaking for all participating units. Where a
'
joint management agency is used, a separate agency is created to
the undertaking.
administer
Units that create a joint agency may confer on it any power, duty,
riot, or function needed to carry out the undertaking, except that
title to all real property needed for the activity must be held by
the participating units individually or jointly as tenants in
'canmon. The participating units that create a joint agency specify
by resolution the composition of the agency, its powers and
functions, matters relating to personnel, the duration of the
agency, its powders and functions, matters relating to personnel, the
duration of its life, procedures for modifying the agency's nature,
methods of financing and apportioning cots and revenues, and other
necessary matters. (N.C.G.S. 160A-462, -463, -464.)
C-4
1

' The advantage of the joint management agency is that it provides a
single administrative structure that is independent from the
administrations of the participating units. It may be especially
useful where several units are cooperating and agreement for
' administration by one of them by contract would be difficult to
reach.
The major limitation of the joint management agency is that it is
'
not a unit of government. It has no independent taxing capacity,
although it is empowered to issue revenue bonds and it could be
'
authorized to establish rates, fees, and charges for water and
sewerage services, for example, and to enter into contracts for
construction and for the purchase of apparatus, supplies, materials,
and equipment as necessary to operate water and sewerage systems.
These limitations can be overcame through other terms of agreement.
For example, three cities might each issue general obligation bonds
to finance construction of individual wastewater treatment plants
and then create a single joint management agency to operate them.
Or again, a joint management agency might be used to construct and
operate sewer system for two cities, the cost of construction being
'
met in one city from special assessments and in the other from
connection fees. The participating units have great flexibility in
working out specific arrangements.
'
5. Count Service District. A county service district is an area
within a county that is defined by the board of county coimmissioners
and in which special taxes are levied to support certain activities.
'
The activities supported through a service district must be either
(a) activities not provided elsewhere in the county, or (b) a higher
level of service for an activity than is supported throughout the
county. Currently, water and sewerage services and five other
functions may be provided in a service district. (N.C.G.S. 153A,
Art. 16.)
'
A county service district is not a separate unit of government. The
general county government is responsible for administering the
'
functions of a service district, and all enplcyees involved are
county a plcyees. An advisory body from citizens of the district
could be created to advise the county coamnissioners on service
policies within the district, but its role could be only advisory
'
and all legal decision -making would remain with the county
oaanissioners.
' The advantage of the service district arrangement is that it permits
special or higher levels of particular services where they are
needed with equity in financing, since a special tax is levied only
in the area in which the surfaces are provided. Since district
' functions are county functions, the full range of county financial
and regulatory powers can be applied in the district and in
connection with service district functions.
1
C-5

' A service district need not be created except where additional
property taxes must be levied to support the special district
activity. in short, the county service district is designed to
provide services with full or partial support from property taxes on
' less than a county -aide basis. Several counties in North Carolina
have considered establishing a county service district to provide
water and sewerage services but none has yet done so.
' 6. _ county Water and Sewer District. A county water and sewer district
is, essentially, a county service district that is a separate unit
' of government. (N.C.G.S. 162A, Art. 6.) They were first authorized
in 1977 at the request of a few counties that would have preferred
to use a service district but were satisfied that the necessary
countywide vote on bonds for service district purposes would fail.
' Barris to finance facilities in a county water and sewer district, on
the other hand, are subject to a referendum that is confined to
voters of the district.
' A county water and sewer district is created by the board of county
commissioners after a public hearirg, but without a petition or a
' referendum of the voters within the prroposed district. Territory
within a city or town may not be included within a water and sewer
district unless the city or town governing body agrees.
' Once created, a county and sewer district may provide only water and
sewerage services. It has substantially the same financing powers
as a county. A district may levy property taxes, issue general
' obligation and revenue bonds, impose special assessments, and
establish rates and charges.
The governing body of a district is the board of county
' ccmanissicners of the county in which it is located. A district may
employ its own administrative force, or contract for all personal
services with the county, another unit of government or a private
' firm.
The major advantage of a county water and sewer district is that any
' vote on a bond issue for district proposed is confined to the
district. Another advantage is the close coordination with the
general county government planning and programs that should result
as the board of county commissioners also serves as the district
' governing body. The chief limitations are that each district must
be created within a single county and there is no procedure for
extending a district's boundaries after it is created.
' 7. Sani District. A sanitary district in North Carolina is an
independent unit of government with limited powers. (N.C.G.S. 130,
' Art. 12.) The state has scene thirty sanitary districts, the largest
being those that serve the Kannapolis and Roanoke Rapids areas.
Most of the districts were organized to provide water and sewerage
services, although they may also provide solid waste services and
' fire protection, and many do so. Probably most of the districts

were organized in preference to incorporation as a city where
citizens wanted water or sewerage services and not all the services
and regulations (and acccnpanying taxation) that might be possible
with status as a city governmwnt.
With respect to water and sewerage services, a sanitary district's
powers are generally parallel to those of a city or county. A
sanitary district may issue both general obligation and revenue
bonds, condemn land, establish rates and charges for services, levy
property taxes, and, essentially, act with as much discretion and
flexibility as a city or county except that is may not levy special
assessments to extend water and sewer lines. A sanitary district
also lacks a number of associated powers that cities and counties
have. For example, it may not require the installation of water and
sewer lines in new subdivisions, as it may not adopt subdivision
regulations.
' Sanitary districts may overlap cities (with approval of the city),
and members of its governing board are elected.
' A sanitary district does not receive federal revenue -sharing funds,
couaunity development grants or the local -option sales tax that may
be levied by the county in which it is located. As sanitary
districts are not authorized to build and maintain streets, they are
' not eligible for state street aid; nor do they share in beer and
wine taxes and franchise taxes, as cities do.
' Most sanitary districts are fairly small, perhaps reflecting the
difficulty sometimes experienced in securing the necessary petition
from a majority of either freeholders or resident freeholders in
large areas and undoubtedly reflects the fact that most areas that
develop in an urban fashion are incorporated as a city early in
their develcp<ment and the city provides the services that may be
desired from a sanitary district.
As a sanitary district may overlap cities, it could be viewed as
superior to a metropolitan water district in form when an
organization with taxing paver and general obligation bond issuing
authority is needed in that it has an elected board (the
metropolitan water district has an appointed board) and is thus more
democratically responsive to its citizens. The difficulty of
organizing a sanitary district that covers several existing cities
may explain why the sanitary district has not been used in this
state to provide these services to several cities.
8. Water and Sewer Authority. A water and sewer authority is a
separate unit of government authorized to provide only water and
sewerage services. (N.C.G.S. 162A, Art. 1.) Its powers with
respect to these two services are extensive and make it an adequate
organizational approach. Its chief financing limitations are that
is cannot levy property taxes or issue general obligation bonds, but
it may impose special assessments. And as a special-purpose type of
local government it does not receive federal revenue -sharing funds,
eomaunity development grants, local -option sales taxes, or other
C-7

' state taxes shared with cities and counties. Its revenues are
limited to those frYan water and sewerage operations and federal and
state grants for these purposes.
Water and sewer authorities have been authorized by North Carolina
statutes since 1955, but only three have been created -- all since
1972. Of these three, only the Orange Water & Sewer Authority
' (OWASA), serving the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area is currently
providing services.
' The water and sewer authority could also be used as a substitute for
a joint management agency and have the advantage of penTonent
existence and the power, if necessary, to own real property. For
' example, after issuing general obligation bonds to finance the
construction of water supply and wastewater treatment facilities,
several local units might join in creating an authority to operate
the, perhaps leasing the facilities to the authority under terms
' that would return to the creating unit the funds necessary to meet
debt -service outlays that arise frcan their bond issued. In this
manner the general obligation borrowing advantages of a city or
county could be ombined with substantially independent and unified
management advantages of an authority.
9. Mgtr Mplitan Water District. A metropolitan water district is an
' independent unit of government with power to levy property taxes and
issue revenue and general obligation bonds for both water and
sewerage purposes. These are the only services a MWD is authorized
' to provide, and its sewerage facilities may not duplicate those of a
metropolitan sewerage district. (N.C.G.S. 162A, Art. 4.)
A major advantage of the MWD is its comparative easement of
creation, requiring only resolutions of participating governmental
units and a petition to the board of county ca miissioners frown 15
percent of the resident voters of any unincorporated area included
' in its boundaries. Like the water and sewer authority, the MWD is
an organizational approach that has extensive financing powers and
brings together the territory of more than a single governmental
jurisdiction.
Its financing limitations are similar to those of a sanitary
' district.
The metropolitan water district legislation was sought to meet needs
in Bun=mbe County, and a number of its provisions are directed at
' circumstances peculiar to Buncombe. The MWD legislation, enacted in
1971, was modeled closely after the provisions of the metropolitan
sewerage district legislation enacted in 1961.
' One significant limitation of the MWD is that it may be formed only
within the boundaries of a single county, and, under current
legislation, none of its revenues may be used for debt service on
' water and sewerage facilities of any of the creating governments --
so that the creating governments with outstanding debt on their
I
C-8

' facilities would find it difficult to lease them to a newly
established metropolitan water district. Borth of these features, of
course, could be changed by the General Assembly.
' The major advantage of the metropolitan water district, as compared
with the metropolitan sewerage district, is that it is authorized to
provide both water and sewerage services while the MSD may provide
' only sewerage services. The practice in North Carolina cities has
been to combine water and sewerage operations in a single
administrative department in order to use personnel, equipment, and
' other resources effectively.
While the legislation was sought by Buncombe County officials, no
MWD has been created in Buncombe, but one has been created in
' Harnett County.
10. Metropolitan Sewerage District. of all the organizational
' approaches considered here, the metropolitan sewerage district is
the most limited in that it is authorized to provide only sewerage
services. (N.C.G.S. 162A, Art. 5.)
The first MSD was organized i Buncombe County, and the state still
has only three. The MSD is probably best suited to circumstances
that require joint action by several units in constructing and
operating wastewater treatment facilities. In Buncombe County, for
example, the MSD builds, operates, and maintains sewer interceptors,
treatment facilities, and outfalls. The sewer collection systems
that empty into the MSD's interceptors are built and operated by the
various political subdivisions included within the boundaries of the
MSD. This limited role for the MSD also makes its financing powers
quite adequate to its purposes.
The governing board for a MSD is appointed by the participating
UV units. units. A metropolitan sewerage district (unlike a MWD)
may extend into more than one county; thus its taxing powers may be
coextensive with its area of service -- or, at least, its boundaries
are not blocked by county lines.
As a special-purpose government, a MSD is eligible for state and
federal grants for sewerage purposes but not for grants and taxes
that are restricted to general-purpose governments, except for a
share of the local option sales tax if it is in a county that
distributes the tax proceeds on the basis of ad valorem taxes
levied.
il. ivate Water and Sewerage Ccanpanies. Community water and sewerage
systems that serve the largest proportion of the population are
publicly -awned. However, many private systems exist, generally
service fewer customers per system than the publicly -owned ones.
(National Demonstration Water Project, 1978.)
All private water and sewer firms are subject to regulation by the
North Carolina Utilities Commission except those service fewer than
10 customers and those nonprofit associations financed by the
Farmers Home Administration. (N.C.G.S. 62-3(23.) The Commission
C-9

L
reports that on December 31, 1978, 349 eaupanies were subject to its
'
regulation in the State. These ccapanies operated 663 water systems
and 55 sewer systems, serving an estimated 71,000 water custcaners
and 13,000 sewer custcaners. Regulated systems are located in 76 of
'
the State's 100 counties. (N.C. Utilities Commission, 1977.)
Private utilities are often established by developers of new
subdivisions or communities and are frequently found in small
'
communities where formal incorporation as a city, sanitary district,
or other governmental unit is not wanted. Three towns and several
'
small communities within the counties covered by this study are
served by water companies.
private
12. A Combination of Organizational Arrangement. The organizational
'
arrangements for providing water and sewerage services in a region
or area of substantial size may well involve using a combination of
organizational approaches.
'
As noted before, the most common organizational approach found in
North Carolina is service by a single city government of the area
within its boundaries and the urbanizing areas surrounding it.
'
Almost all county governments in North Carolina have also
participated in providing services by interlocal contracts for
extending water and sewer lines to parts of a county area while the
other partner to the contract, the city, provides services
elsewhere.
' In BuncouLbe county services are provided through a combination of
interlocal contract (city and county), metropolitan sewerage
district, individual city action for many areas, and special water
and sewer districts established in the county fifty years ago.
' Moving eastward to the Research Triangle area, one finds services
being provided by a combination of individual city action, joint
action by -two or more cities, joint action by a county and a city,
action by a sanitary district, action by a water and sewer
authority, joint action by a sanitary district and a water and sewer
authority, and by a number of private corporations.
In the two coastal areas covered by this study water and sewerage
services are now provided by private corporations, by individual
cities, by a county, and through joint action of a county and
several cities.
' Each of the organizational alternatives has special strengths and
weaknesses. In many larger areas the most effective arrangement may
be a combination of approaches rather than any single approach.
Fortunately, the existing legislation is flexible enough to permit
arrangements to be developed for any area that are specially suited
to its circumstances.
C-10

L
Article 6
County Water and Sewer Districts
'
162A-86. Formation of district; hearing. - (a) The board of
commissioners of any county may create a county water and sewer district.
(b) Before creating such a district, the board of commissioners shall
'
hold a public hearing. Notice of the hearing shall state the date, hour,
and place of the hearing and its subject and shall set forth a description
of the territory to be included within the proposed district. The notice
shall be published onoe a week for three weeks in a newspaper that
circulates in the proposed district and in addition shall be posted in at
least three public places in the district. The notice shall be posted and
'
published the first time not less than 20 days before the hearing.
(c) At the public hearing, the commissioners shall hear all interested
persons and may adjourn the hearing from time to time. (1977, c. 466, s.
'
1:1979, c. 624, ss. 2,3.)
'
"Sec. 6. Nothing in this act is intended to affect in any way any
public or private rights or interests (i) now vested or accrued, in whole
or in part, the validity of which might be sustained or preserved by
reference to any provisions of law amended by this act of (ii) derived from
or which might be sustained or preserved in reliance upon action heretofore
taken, including the adoption of orders, ordinances, or resolutions,
pursuant to or within the scope of any provision of law amended by this
'
act.
"Sec. 7. Nothing in this act shall be constnxied to impair the
obligation of any bond, note or coupon outstanding on the effective date of
'
this act [May 23, 1979]."
162A-87. Creation of district; standards; limitation of actions. - (a)
Following the public hearing, the board of commissioners may, by
resolutions, create a county water and sewer district if the board finds
that:
(1) There is a demonstrable need for providing in the district water
services, or sewer services, or both;
(2) Mie- residents of all the territory to be included in the
district will benefit from the district's creation; and
(3) It is eooncmically feasible to provide the proposed service or
services in the district without unreasonable or burdensome
'
annual tax levies.
Territory lying within the corporate limits of a city or town may not be
'
included in the district unless the governing body of the city or town
agrees by resolution to such inclusion. Otherwise, the board of
ccacnmissicners may define as the district all or any portion of the
territory described in the notice of the public hearing.
C-11

(b) Upon adoption of a resolution crating a
county
water and sewer
'
district, the board of cans ssioners shall cause the
resolution to be
published once in each of two successive weeks
in the
newspaper to be
'
published once in each of two successive weeks in the newspaper
the notices of the hearing were published. In addition,
in which
the ccmmmissioners
shall cause to be published with the resolution a
notice
in substantially
the following form:
"The foregoing resolution was adopted by the
County
Board of Commissioners on
and was first published
'
on
Any action or proceeding questioning the validity of this resolution or
the creation of the Water and Sewer District of
'
County or the inclusion in the district of any of the territory described
in the resolution must be commenced within 30 days after the first
publication of the resolution.
'
Clerk, County
Board of Commissioners"
'
Any action or proceeding in any court to set aside a resolution creating
a county water and sewer district, or questioning the validity of such a
resolution, the creation of such a district, or the inclusion in such a
district of nay of the territory described in the resolution creating the
district must be commenced within 30 days after the first publication of
the resolution and notice. After the expiration of this period of
limitation, no right of action or defense founded upon the invalidity of
the resolution, the creation of the district, or the inclusion of any
territory in the district may be asserted, nor may the validity of the
resolution, the creation of the district, or the inclusion of the territory
be open to question in any court upon any ground whatever, except in an
action or proceeding commenced within that period. (1977, c. 466, s. 1;
1979, c. 624, s. 4.)
'
162A-88. District is a municipal corporation. - The inhabitants of a
county water and sewer district created pursuant to this Article are a body
corporate and politic by the name specified by the board of commissioners.
Under that name they are vested with all the property and rights of
property belonging to the corporation; have perpetual succession; nay sue
and be sued; may contract and be contracted with; may acquire and hold any
property, real and personal, devised, bequeathed, sold, or in any manner
conveyed, dedicated to, or otherwise acquired by the, and from time to time
may hold, invest, sell, or dispose of the same; nay have a common seal and
alter and renew it at will; may establish, revise and collect rates, fees
'
or other charges and penalties for the use of or the services furnished or
to be furnished by any sanitary sewer system, water system or sanitary
'
sewer and water system of the district; and may exercise those powers
conferred to them by this Article. (1977, c. 466, s. 1; 1979, c. 624, s.
5.)
'
162A-89. Governing body of district; powers. - The board of
commissioners of the county in which a county water and sewer district is
created is the governing body of the district. (1977, c. 466, s. 1.)
C-12

' 162A-89.1. Eminent domain power authorized. - A county water and sewer
district shall have the power of eminent domain, to be exercised in
accordance with Article 9 of Chapter 136, over the acquisition of any
improved or unimproved lands or rights in land. (1977, c. 466, s. 1.)
162A-90. Bonds and notes authorized. A county water and sewer
district may from time to time issue general obligation and revenue bonds
' and bond anticipation notes pursuant to the Local Government Finance Act,
for the purposes of providing sanitary sewer systems or water systems or
both.
'
A county water and sewer district may frcan time to time issue tax and
revenue anticipation notes pursuant to Chapter 159, Article 9, Part 2.
'
(1977, c. 466, s. 1.)
162A-91. Taxes authorized. - The governing body of a county water and
sewer district may levy property taxes within the district in order to
finance the operation and maintenance of the district's water system or
sewer system or both and in order to finance debt service on any general
obligation bonds or notes issued by the district. No voter approval is
'
necessary in order for such taxes to be levied. (1977, c. 466, s. 1.)
162A-92. special assessments authorized. - A county water and sewer
district may make special assessments against benefited property within the
'
district for all or part of the costs of:
(1) Constructing, reconstructing, extending, or otherwise building
or improving water system;
'
(2) Constructing, reconstructing, extending, or otherwise building
or improving sewage disposal systems.
'
A district shall exercise the authority granted by this section
according to the provisions of chapter 153A, Article 9. For the purposes
of this section references in that Article to the "county" and the "board
of ccmissioners" are deemed to refer, respectively, to the "district" and
the "governing body of the district." (1977, c. 466, s. 1.)
' In addition to the previously mentioned organizational arrangements for
water and sewer services, most counties in North Carolina have made
expenditures to provide water and sewer in order to promote industrial
develgpmit. Most of these counties have adapted written policies setting
forth the circumstances under which industrial (and/or commercial)
extensions will receive county financial aid.
In cases where cities and counties have taken joint action regarding
water and sewer services, the following general approaches have been
followed:
' 1. Counties have silly made appropriations to meet part or all of the
industrial extensions cost. Many of these outlays were authorized
by special legislative acts.
I
C-13

' 2. Counties have financed the full cost of extensions retaining
ownership while leasing said extensions to a city for a naninal stun
and with an agreement for maintenance and operation.
3. Camties have been reimbursed for all or part of its initial
outlays, either fran connection fees or fran a share of rates
charged.
Zhere is an increasing aoceptanoe by N.C. counties to accept an interim
financing role in utility extensions outside city boundaries. In addition
to serving industrial sites, many counties have financed countywide water
using one or more of the organization arrangements available for providing
services.
n
1
I
C-14

0

C
H
7
r 1 • � •i'i -�• t�
Wj N at5 • d Ruka Aw�.
I. Outline of City Powers
A. General Authority
Cities have broad general authority to provide water and sewerage
services, both within and without their boundaries. Rights -of -way, water
rights, and other property may be acquired as necessary to these purposes.
[G.S. 160-255.] While the statutes do not restrict the provisions of
services outside municipal boundaries, the North Carolina Supreme Court in
at least one case has used language which suggests that some limit on the
extensiveness of outside extensions may be present under certain
circumstances. [See Grimesland v. Washington, 234 N.C. 117, 66 S.E.2d 794
(1951).] But in general it may be said that North Carolina Municipalities
have full and adequate authority to provide water and sewerage services.
[Cities may also require connections to sewer lines within the city. G.S.
160-240.]
B. Financing
1. Taxation. The provisions of water and sewerage services by cities
is both a public purpose and a necessary expense within the meaning
of these terms in Articles V.and VII of the North Carolina
Constitution. Cities may levy ad valorem property taxes to operate
and acquire water and sewerage facilities and to repay indebtedness
incurred for such facilities. [G.S. 160-56 and 160-378. See
Fawcett v. Mt. Airy, 134 N.C. 125, 45 S.E. 1029 (1903) and
Greensboro v. Scott, 138 N.C. 181, 50 S.E. 589 (1905).]
2. Rates and Cities have broad and general authority to
establish rates and charges for water and sewerage services,
including consumption and use charges, connection fees, fire
protection charges, and other miscellaneous charges for the use of
the service. Rates and fees for service outside a city may be at a
different level from those applying inside a city. [G.S. 160-256.]
3. Special Assessments. Special assessments against abutting property
may be made for the cost of providing, constructing, or extending
water and sewerage systems. No petition is required - the city
governing board being authorized to direct the making of the
it�rovements and the assessment of the costs by resolution. Costs
are apportioned according to frontage on the lateral mains of the
systems. [G.S. 160-241 to 252.] In the general laws, there is no
provision for corner lot exemptions or assessments on a basis other
than frontage. [Soave local acts provide for a petition procedure,
corner lot exemptions, and assessment on a per lot basis, or lot
frontage on a street.]
4. Borrawirxt. Cities may issue both general obligation bonds [G.S.
160-378] and revenue bonds [Article 34 of G.S. 160] to finance the
acquisition, construction or reconstruction and extension of water
and sewerage facilities.
D-1

L
h
7
5. Miscellaneous. A city's power to impose fees and charges [See
above] and its basic contractual powers [G.S. 160-2] are broad
enough to permit the use of "payments in advance" in substitution
for special assessments, or to require the installation of
facilities as a condition of receiving service.
II. Outline of County Powders
A. General Authority
Counties have broad authority to provide water and sewerage services
within and without their boundaries, and while acting separately or in
concert with other counties and/or cities, [Article 24 or G.S. 153.]
Property of all types may be acquired as necessary and contracts of varying
kinds may be undertaken in connection with the provision of services,
including long-term contracts with other counties and/or cities for joint
operations. [G.S. 153-287. See G.S. 130-128 for contracts with sanitary
districts.] The joint operations may be direct activities of the units
involved, or operating boards or agencies may be established to build and
operate facilities. [G.S. 153-288. See also G.S. 153-9 (46) G.S. 153-11.2
for similar, but more limited county authority to provide water and
sewerage services.]
B. Financing
1. Taxation. North Carolina counties have statutory authority to levy
ad valorem property taxes to support water and sewerage operations
and the statute declares expenditures for such purposes to be for a
special purpose and a necessary expense: [G.S. 153-289.] County
expenditures for water and sewerage services have been held to be a
public purpose [Ramse v. Commissioners of Cleveland , 246
N.C. 647, 100 S.E.2d 55 (1957)], but the necessary expense question
has yet to be settled by the Court.
2. Rates and Ctna es. County authority to inpose rates and charges for
consumtion and for various types of services parallels that of
cities. Rates may vary from placer to place within a county and may
be different for services provided outside a county from those
applying within. [G.S. 153-286.]
3. Special Ate. County authority to levy special asses-srnents
is broader than the authority of cities found in the general law.
In addition to the front -foot method of apportioning assessments
which cities are empowered to use, counties may use the value of
land without i,nprovements, the n nnber of lots, the acreage of land,
or a combination of these. Counties may also hold assessments in
abeyance and provide for corner lot expansions from a portion of
assessments. [Article 24A or G.S. 153. This statute applies to
only 41 counties. See G.S. 153-294.19 for counties excepted from
Article.]
D-2

' 4. Borrowirxt. Both general obligation bonds [G.S. 153-77] and revenue
bonds [Article 34 of G.S. 160] may be issued by counties to finance
water and sewerage facilities. It should be noted, however, that
' general obligation bonds can only be issued after a vote until the
Court finds expenditures for water and sewerage purposes to be a
necessary expense•
5. Miscellaneous. The general power of counties to inpose charges is
broad enough to permit the use of "payments in advance" and other
types of charges or contractual arrangements for the extension of
' services. [G.S. 153-284 and 286.]
III. outline of some factors which should be covered
in Joint City -County Financing Agreements for
' Water and Sewer Services
A. Responsibility for financing of the cost of the construction of the
' facilities should be set forth. Facilities may be financed by one unit,
shared by both (or all) units, or certain portions or an improvement may be
financed by one unit and other portions by the remaining unit(s).
' B. ownership of all facilities and rights in all easements should be
established.
C. If initial ownership is with the county, and the county does not
anticipate entering into water and sewerage operations directly, provision
for the transfer of ownership should be made.
tD. The agreement should specify any change in ownership which would take
place upon annexation of the facilities by the city, or anticipate any
problems which might arise if ownership did not rest with the city after
' annexation.
E. The procedures and circumstances under which further extension of any
' facility may take place should be covered. Either unit might be enpowered
to extend on its own, or joint approval might be required.
' F. The unit responsible for prescribing the specifications for all
facilities should be established. Determination of specifications should
cover the size and quality of all materials used and the location of all
facilities.
' G. The level of rates, fees, and other Charges to customers should be
agreed upon. This would include the level of water rates, sewer charges,
' tap fees, acreage charges, fire protection urges, and other miscellaneous
charges. Either stipulated rates or rates scaled to inside city rates
might be used.
' H. Charges, if any, in levels of rates or other fees and charges upon
annexation of the facilities by the city should be anticipated, both with
regard to the initial financing and with respect to the financing of future
' extensions.

' I. The source and amount of all reiubursement to the county, or city, if
any, should be set forth, including the term during which reimbursement is
to be made.
' J. Responsibility for operation, maintenance, and control of the
facilities, including the control of taps and the collection of all rates
and charges, should be established.
IV. Finance and Organization
' As is often the case in governmental mattes, the major problem in
providing water and sewerage services to outlying urban development and to
areas in the process of developing is the one of finance. Because these
' areas are some distance from existing facilities, or are still in the
process of develpwnt, it is frequently very difficult to provide services
on a self-supporting basis at reasonable rates. There is a need for
developers on some agency to take a risk - to provide services both to
' promote growth and to insure that the growth does not create severe public
health problems. our cities, quite understandably, have frequently been
unwilling to extend, at the expense of the city taxpayer, lines to serve
sparsely developed outlying areas. The general pattern, and this is
especially true to our larger cities, has been for this risk to be largely
borne by private developers or the county. And county involvement in the
past has been almost exclusively in response to industrial needs. It seems
' certain, tain, however, that we have now reached the point where counties must
consider undertaking the financing of such services for residential and
commercial development as well as for industry.
It is important to recognize that cooperative arrangements for financing
of facilities by a city and a county really constitute a sharing of the
' risks. A city which builds a water plant large enough to serve anticipated
growth in population and service area is taking a risk. If the estimated
growth in service areas (largely by annexation) does not occur, the city
will be bearing the cost of mused capacity. And the county which builds
' water and sewer lines to areas with the expectation that future growth and
development will be adequate to make the extensions self-supporting, at
reasonable levels of charges and rates, is taking a similar position. In
recent years there has been a tendency towards counties, cities, and
developers, sharing the risks in providing water and sewerage services to
sprawling urban areas.
This emerging pattern of financing the growth of utility systems is
going to require a re-evaluation of traditional municipal attitudes with
respect to rates. In the past, the relationship between the city and its
' water and sewer customers outside has been strictly a business one. In
almost all cases, the outside rates are higher than those inside the city,
with the majority of our cities making outside charges about double those
applying inside. TAhen water and sewer systems are financed in part from
tax revenues this rate differential is, of course, fully justified. But we
are increasingly moving to self-supporting systems, which means that the
differential is no longer appropriate.

' Many cities, of course, have maintained high outside rates in order to
provide a "carrot" for annexation. The reductions in water and sewer rates
could be pointed to as a significant savings resulting from annexation, and
one which would offset, in part, the additional taxes. Prior to 1959, when
' areas were annexed generally by vote of the people, the need for a "pull"
was present. But under our current annexation procedures there is no
provision for a vote, and the need for artificial pressures is consequently
' greatly reduced.
Furthermore as counties (or other governmental units) assume
' responsibility for the cost of making outside extensions, the relationship
between the outside customer and the city changes. Rather than being
strictly a business relationship, the outside custcmer becomes a partner,
through the joint agreement between the city and the county since he is a
' citizen of one of the contracting parties. He is no longer a custalner at
the unregulated mercy of the city.
This change in rates for developments close to municipalities should
also work to the long-term advantage of our cities. The chief alternative
to extension of the city system is the use of individual wells and septic
tank and lower rates should mean less develognent with individual, and
often inadequate, systems. Since these areas will eventually be annexed,
it is to the long-term advantage of the city to see that such areas are
initially served with adequate water and sewerage systems.
' A second major problem, and one which has been previously noted, is that
of organization. As the U.S. Advisory Coannission on Intergovernmental
Relations has stressed in a number of its reports, wherever possible water
and sewerage services should be provided by a general purpose government -
or the arrangement should look toward this eventual organizational
approach. It seems likely when residential growth is adjacent to an
' existing municipality that both lower costs and democratic responsiveness
are likely to be pranoted by annexation. This would suggest that wherever
possible the arrangements should be those between the county (or some other
' agency) and the city, and with provision for city operation either from the
beginning or upon annexation.
There are times when the creation of a sanitary district or the
organization of a non-profit private association (with perhaps, financing
through the Farmers Home Administration) are appropriate approaches to the
provision of water and sewerage services. We should recognize, however,
that the sanitary district is a very limited type of government and is not
capable of providing the full range of municipal services which are needed
in urban areas of any significant size. Moreover, while we are relatively
' free under the North Carolina constitution in meeting particular local
problems through special legislation for cities and counties, this is not
he case with respect to sanitary districts. By and large, all sanitary
district legislation must be general legislation thus there is considerably
' less flexibility in this organizational approach that is true with either
the city or the county. It seems clear, then, that the sanitary district
should be organized only when this form is wholly capable of meeting all
the needs in the area and all the needs that are likely to arise in the
foreseeable future.
D-5

k
I
LI
The private water association performs a valuable and important function
in essentially rural areas. It can also be used appropriately near cities
if adequate attention is paid to the size of the lines and arrangements are
made for possible future merger into the city. It should be used only with
grate caution in areas that are likely to experience rapid urban growth.
It is obvious that no single approach to either organization or finance
can be recommended for every situation. In considering the provision of
water and sewerage services to areas undergoing urban development six
general standards may be suggested. These standards are offered as a way
of measuring or evaluating specific approaches. One will not likely find
that all the standards will be met 100% in every situation. More often
that not the arrangement agreed upon will probably require a balancing of
the degree to which the standards may be attained, but all are important.
A. Comrehensive jurisdiction. Insofar as possible, any arrangement
made should, with respect to jurisdiction, cover all of the
"sprawling" area or all of the area likely to develop in an urban
fashion. Fbr example, an arrangement to extend services to an
industry, without taking into account the residential and cmmercial
development which may occur near it, would only constitute a first
step. The jurisdiction should be equal to the scope of the problem.
B. Democratically responsible. As was noted before, the provision of
water and sewerage facilities has been almost uniformly assumed to
be a public responsibility. In many cases it will be necessary to
use tax funds or to pledge their use in case revenues from the
system are inadequate. This suggests that the organizational
arrangement should be one which is responsible to the people of the
area in a democratic manner.
C. Financial ca ci . Any arrangement should be one which has the
capacity to finance and operate facilities and the flexibility of
financing arrangements necessary to insure equity amount users and
taxpayers. This suggests that the governmental units involved
should have a wide range of contracting powers and the authority to
levy rates and charges on various bases, the authority to levy
special assessments against benefited property in the extension of
facilities, and the authority to issue both general obligation and
revenue bonds.
D. Pb i knit coordination. As observed before, water and sewerage
services are necessary to urban growth, but so are a number of other
public services - schools, highways and streets, sanitation parks
and recreation, zoning and subdivision control, police and fire
protection, etc. Decisions on water and sewerage facilities are not
unrelated to all of these activities, and the arrangements to
provide water and sewerage services to sprawling areas should look
to the necessary coordination of all public services. This means
usually, that the arrangements should not be such as would impair
the orderly extension of .municipal boundaries.

' E. Administrative coordination. Water and sewerage services need to be
coordinated at the operational level with other public services,
especially with fire protection, streets, highways, and storm
drainage. Any arrangement worked out should anticipate this need
' and facilitate the necessary coordination to the greatest extent
possible.
' F. Organizational flexibility. mere the arrangement undertaken is not
the simple extension of city facilities by the city, decision makers
should look to the future and realize conditions and circumstances
' cannot be fully known. Ideally, then, the arrangement should be a
flexible one which can be modified or adapted to changes and
c=umstances without undue difficulty. We have only to look back
30 years and note the changes which have occurred to see how
' important it is to maintain some flexibility for action in the
future.
' VI. Conclusion
Providing adequate water and sewerage services to growing urban areas
will not be easy, cut we do have a broad range of tools and considerable
experience at hand. With continued cooperation between goverrmw tal units
there is every reason to expect that we will serve them adequately.

11
7
L
Financial Assistance
Potential sources of grants and loans for water and sewer projects.
U.S. Department of Agriculture/Farmers Home Administration
Three major factors brought water systems within the reach of counties,
small towns and rural ccmmunities in North Carolina and many other parts of
the county. These factors were the availability of ground water especially
important to sparsely populated areas of eastern N.C. , the development of
relatively low cost polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe used for water mains and
service lines and the availability of financial grants and low -interest
(5%), long tern (40 years) loans from the Farmers Home Administration.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture through its Agency the FHA was able
to provide "grass -roots" administration of loans and grants to rural areas
where water systems were desired and where eccncmic feasibility was shown.
During the seventies it was not difficult for feasible water and/or
sewer project to obtain a loan and grant from the Farmers Home
Administration following the passage of a bond referendum. Projects in
needy areas where the needian family income was low could generally obtain
a grant acccunting fifty percent or more of the project cost. Additional
grant money was available from the N.C. Health Service Division usually
amounting to 25% of the project cost. In some locations supplemental
grants could be obtained from the Coastal Plains Regional Commission and if
it could be shown that the project would help attract an industry or enable
one to expand thereby creating additional jobs then a grant could be
obtained from the Economic Development Act (EDA) . Most of this is history
and most of these grants are no longer available however, it does explain
why there are so many water systems existing with relatively low water
rates catg3ared to what the rates would have to be for a similar system
proposed today. The fluctuation in the cost of materials and labor are
also factors which have increased the cost of utilities.
Financial Aid 1988
Financial assistance is still available from the Farmers Home
A1ruxiistration for the installation of water and sewer systems to serve
rural areas. Areas that qualify for FHA assistance are incorporated
unities having a population less than 10,000 and rural communities.
For feasible projects that qualify long-term loans are available at the
"market" interest rate. Also grants may be available to maintain a
reasonable user cost. In caYmunities having a median family income of less
than $12,933 (in service area & based on 1980 census) money could be
borrowed at a more favorable fixed interest rate (1988 6-3/8%). If the MF
Income is below $11,650.00 and it can be shown that the areas present
system violates an enforceable health standard then the area can qualify
for a loan at a 5% rate plus a grant of 55% or more.
D-8

State Financial Assistance
Grants and loans may also be available for water and sewer project from
the N.C. Clean Water Revolving Loan & Grant Act of 1987. However, the
canpetitions for these funds is great and not nearly enough money is
available to fund the many requests.
Another potential source of financial assistance is the N.C. Small
Cities Community Development Block Grant Program. This program is
administered by the Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development Division of CoamL City Assistance.
These funds also are cmpetitive however, and are generally available
only for areas with low and moderate income families.
Ccarnrntnity Development Block Grant Per m
I. Introduction
Through the Small Cities Cmmmity Development Block Grant Program
(CDBG), the State of North Carolina provides direct grants to counties and
municipalities throughout the State. The overall objectives of the program
are to provide decent housing and a suitable living environment and to
expand economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate
income. Toward these ends, funds are proposed to be available in six
categories: Coumunity Revitalization, Economic Developwmt, development
Planning, Housing Demotmtration, Urgent Needs/Contingency and Interim
Assistance. A separate set of application guidelines is available for most
of these funding categories.
In fiscal year 1988, NRCD expects to distribute approximately $35
million in CDBG funds under six program categories. Up to 20% of the
funds, or approximately $7 million, will be set aside for Economic
Development projects; up to 5%, or approximately $1.75 million, will go to
Urgent Needs/Contingency projects; up to 3%, or approximately $1 million,
will be used for Development Planning and Housing Demonstration projects.
The remaining funds of approximately $25.3 million will be distributed to
Cceratmnity Revitalization projects. Interim Assistance grants are proposed
in the form of short term loans and assistance to developers from undrawn
reserves.
These guidelines address the Economic Development category of North
Carolina's CDBG program. This category is designed principally to benefit
low and moderate income persons by supporting projects which create or
retain jobs for such persons. The guidelines supplement the CDBG
Administrative Rules (Title 15, Chapter 13L of the North Carolina
Administrative Code), and are intended to assist the applicant in
developing a strong application. In conjunction with the Administrative
Rules and the Cartmu pity Development (NRCD) are available to provide
technical assistance in preparing Economic Development applications. MM
encourages local government applicants to arrange for a pre -application
conference with agency staff prior to submission of an application.

I
I
II. Program Description
The CDBG Economic Development program is designed to support projects
which create or retain jobs for low and moderate income persons. Support
is provided in the form of direct grants to eligible counties and
municipalities. The grant is provided for a specific project, where one or
more business has ccumtted in writing to carry out certain activities
which will result in the creation or retention of jobs for low and moderate
income persons. Grant funds may be used to provide a direct loan to the
business, or to construct public infrastructure necessary for carrying out
the project. In either case, the CDBG grant should be the minimum amount
necessary and appropriate to carry out the project and create or retain the
number of jobs emitted to the application.
Toward the overall goal of benefiting low and moderate income persons,
objectives of the Economic Development program include the following:
- to create or retain jabs for low and moderate income persons.
- to increase skill levels of law and moderate income workers through
training.
- to provide opportunities for increased earnings for low and moderate
income workers.
- to respond to local economic development and cmmunity development
needs.
- to provide the maxh am benefit for each CDBG dollar while leveraging
the maximum amount of other funds.
The strong application will provide for all of these objectives, while
demonstrating the need for funding and feasibility of the proposed project.
A. Eligible ADD11CaI1tS for Funds
All counties are eligible to apply for Small Cities CDBG funds. Except
for 17 entitlement cities which receive funds directly from HUD, all
municipalities are also eligible to receive Small Cities CDBG funds. North
Carolina's 17 entitlement cities are: Asheville, Burlington, Chapel Hill,
Charlotte, Concord, Durham, Fayetteville, Gastonia, Greensboro, Hickory,
High Point, Jacksonville, Kannapolis, Raleigh, Salisbury, Wilmington, and
Winston-Salem.
Local governments may submit applications to undertake eligible
activities within their jurisdiction. The geographical area of a
jurisdiction may be the corporate limits of a municipality, its
extraterritorial jurisdiction or areas outside of the extraterritorial
jurisdiction, depending on project activities. Each applicant will be
required to certify that it possesses the legal authority to carry out the
proposed activities. Unless contradictory evidence is submitted to NRCD,
the Department will accept the applicant's certification of legal
authority.
D-10

' In order to be competitively rated for funding, each applicant must meet
minimum performance requirements which measure an applicant's capacity to
adequately administer a CDBG program. NRCD will consider all unresolved
audit and monitoring findings, as well as expenditure rates and project
accomplistmmnts on previously funded CDBG grants. Applicants must complete
a Status Report for each previously funded CDBG grant.
' Additional eligibility criteria pertain to project benefit to low and
moderate income persons, financing and project commitments, and min m m
project objectives. Applicants should refer to Section IV of these
' Guidelines for further information regarding these eligibility
requirements.
B. Maximmi Grant Amounts
Economic Develcpnent grant awards are limited to $600,000. In addition,
local governments may not receive more than a total of $750,000 in CDBG
funds, including all CDBG grant categories, in the period that NRCD
distributes its annual HUD allocation of CDBG funds. However, a local
government may receive up to $600, 000 to address urgent needs and receive
Interim Assistance grants in addition to assistance under other grant
categories.
C. Typical Uses of CDBG Funds
' Focal governments typically seek CDBG Economic Development funds for two
purposes: 1) to provide direct assistance to a business; 2) to provide
' public infrastructure to serve a business.
A common use of CDBG economic development funds is the provision of
direct financial assistance to a business where there is insufficient debt
capacity or equity to finance the entire project. Direct financial
assistance is defined as the provision of money, land, equipment, or other
improvements to be borrowed, owned or leased by a business or organization.
' All direct financial assistance must be in the form of a loan, or be
otherwise repaid to the local government.
CDBG funds can be used to meet a wide range of business needs, including
financing for construction or rehabilitation, site improvements, machinery
purchase, arxi in limited circumstances, working capital uses. Applicants
proposing to use CMG funds for working capital should contact NRCD early
' in the project planning to discuss the appropriateness of the specific
working capital uses planned. CDBG funds should not be used to refinance
debt or as a rend.Amsement for costs or obligations which have already been
incurred.
ale: A manufacturing firm is experiencing a demand for its product
which exceeds its production capacity. In order to meet his demand, the
' firm proposes to construction an addition to its manufacturing facility,
purchase additional equipment, and hire new employees. However, it is only
able to obtain part of the necessary financing through corporate resources,
' personal resources of the firm's principals and a bank loan. A firm in
this situation may decide to seek CDBG financing.
D-11

' Because direct assistance nest be provided in the form of a loan,
program income always results when CDBG funds are used for this purpose.
Program income will be returned to MM unless the applicant proposes a use
which can be determined to be a continuation of the activity from which the
' program income was derived. Such a proposed use should be very
specifically described in the .application. NRCD expects that program
income will be returned to the State in most cases.
' The other typical use of CDBG Economic Development funds is for public
infrastructure. The provision of water improvements, sewer improvements,
or other public infrastructure may be necessary to enable an existing firm
to expand its operations or a new firm to locate at a site which is not
served by these improvements. Where current services are not adequate to
meet standards of health and safety, improvements may be needed to allow a
' firm to remain in operation. CDBG funds are commonly used to finance that
portion of the public infrastructure needs which cannot be covered through
funding frcam the local government and the project business. Generally it
is not appropriate to use CDBG funds to provide improvements which will
merely reduce business costs, such as for a fire insurance.
The design of the public infrastructure should be limited in size and
' scope to what is essential to serve the needs of the project business. If
the nT)ravements are oversized, the applicant should clearly show that CDBG
funds are limited to improvements which are essential to serve the project
business.
Example: A manufacturing firm is experiencing a demand for its product
which exceeds production capacity. In order to meet this demand, the firm
proposes to construct an addition to its manufacturing facility, purchase
additional equipment, and hire new employees. Bank and corporate financing
is sufficient for the purchase of fixed assets. However, the firm
currently utilizes a septic system which has reached its capacity. There
is no rocm to expand both the septic system and the manufacturing facility.
The least expensive alternative in this case is for the city to extend a
sewer line to the firm. The firm, the city, and the county all contribute
to the project, but are only able to cover part of the project cost. CDBG
financing for the remainder of the project cost may be appropriate in this
' situation.
The CDBG program is very flexible in that it can be used to assist a
wide variety of businesses in terms of size and type of operation.
However, NRCD has concerns regarding the provision of assistance to a
business that might give it unfair competitive advantages over similar
existing businesses in the area and thereby jeopardize businesses in
' particular, and will be considered in the application evaluation process.
D. Technical Assistance
' Applicants should contact MM early in the project development stage to
review requirements and d=mvntation appropriate to the project. NRCD is
available to provide technical assistance during application development.
' In addition, NRCD staff can provide information on other economic
development financing programs. A list of these other programs is included
in Appendix 11.
D-12

' Questions relating to the economic development projects and general
technical assistance should be directed to Linda Hoke, David Hartigan, or
Pam Wilson at [phone] in Raleigh, Pat 73zcmas at [phone] in
Asheville or Hackney High at [phone] in Washington.
1
D-13

W

PENDER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVE ONE TOPSAIL TOWNSHIP CONVENTIONAL
COLLECTION SYSTEM AND SPRAY FIELD TREATMENT
(TOPSAIL BEACH NOT INCLUDED).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTIMATED UNIT
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
A. SEWER SYSTEM
------------------
1. 8" SANITARY SEWER 0 0"-12") CUT
LF
330600 S21.00 $6,942,600.00
SEWER SERVICE CONNECTION
EA
5079 $500.00 $2,539,500.00
2. 4" FORCE MAIN
LF
62200 S6.50 S404,300.00
3. 6" FORCE MAIN
LF
71800 $8.00 S574,400.00
4 8" FORCE MAIN
LF
13000 $10.00 S130,000.00
5. 1010 FORCE MAIN
LF
21500 $25.00 S537,500.00
6. 24" FORCE MAIN
LF
38500 S40.00 S1,540,000.00
7. MANHOLES
EA
2151 S1,300.00 $2,796,300.00
8. PUMP STATIONS(26)
LS
i S495,870.00 S495,870.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL BASE BID SEWER:
S15,960,470.00
CONTINGENCY (10%)
S1,596,047.00
ENGINEERING (10%)
S1,596,047.00
ADMINISTRATION AND LEGAL (5%)
S798,023.50
LAND APPLICATION COST
S5,044,430.00
---•---------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
$24,995,017.50
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST:
GRAVITY SEWER COLLECTION
$12,522.72
PUMP STATION <200 GPM
$113,700.00
PUMP STATION >200 GPM
$16,950.00
ELECTRICAL
S46,224.00
LAND APPLICATION
S206,420.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUB TOTAL O&M COST:
S395,816.72
PRESENT WORTH COST OF ALTERNATIVE:
PRESENT WORTH OF PROJECT COST
S24,995,017.50
PRESENT WORTH OF O&M COST
$4,191,699.06
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH: $29,186,716.56
E-1

'
PENDER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALTERNATIVE ONE FOR ROCKY POINT TOWNSHIP WITH
CONVENTIONAL
SYSTEM COLLECTION AND SPRAY FIELD TREATMENT
'
(NON -INDUSTRIAL FLOW).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTIMATED
UNIT
'
ITEM
QUANTITY
PRICE
AMOUNT
--------
A.
.----------DESCRIPTION--------------UNIT
SEWER SYSTEM
------------------
-----
'
-----------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
1.
811 PVC SANITARY SEWER (1011-12") CUT
LF
202430
S21.00
S4,251,030.00
2.
1011 PVC SANITARY SEWER (10°-12") CUT
LF
4050
$25.00
$101,250.00
3.
411 FORCE MAIN
LF
73000
$6.50
$474,500.00
'
4.
611 FORCE MAIN
LF
13000
S8.00
S104,000.00
5.
811 FORCE MAIN
LF
19000
$10.00
$190,000.00
'
6.
7.
1011 FORCE MAIN
MANHOLES
LF
EA
6000
1270
S25.00
$1,300.00
S150,000.00
S1,651,000.00
8.
PUMP STATIONS
LS
1
S145,833.00
S145,833.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S7,067,613.00
SUBTOTAL BASE BID SEWER:
CONTINGENCY (10%)
$706,761.30
'
ENGINEERING (10%)
S706,761.30
ADMINISTRATION AND LEGAL (5%)
S353,380.65
LAND APPLICATION COST
----------------------------------------------------
-------------51:919,716.00
......---
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
S10,754,232.25
'
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST:
GRAVITY SEWER COLLECTION
PUMP STATION 4200 GPM
$7,821.20
S42,637.50
PUMP STATION >200 GPM
S8,475.00
ELECTRICAL
$13,800.00
LAND APPLICATION
S79,070.00
'
SUB TOTAL O&M COST:
S151,803.70
PRESENT WORTH COST OF ALTERNATIVE:
PRESENT WORTH OF PROJECT COST
$10,754,232.25
PRESENT WORTH OF 08M COST
S1,600,011.00
--------------------------------------•----------------------------------------
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH:
$12,354,243.25
'
E-2

PENDER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVE ONE FOR ROCKY POINT TOWNSHIP WITH CONVENTIONAL
SYSTEM COLLECTION AND SPRAY FIELD TREATMENT
(INDUSTRIAL FLOW). - --------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTIMATED UNIT
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
A. SEWER SYSTEM
------------------
1.
8" PVC SANITARY SEWER (10"-12") CUT
LF
2.
10" PVC SANITARY SEWER (10"-12") CUT
LF
SEWER SERVICE CONNECTION
EA
3.
12" PVC SANITARY SEWER 0 0"-12") CUT
LF
4.
411 FORCE MAIN
LF
5.
10" FORCE MAIN
LF
6.
12" FORCE MAIN
LF
7.
14" FORCE MAIN
LF
8.
MANHOLES
EA
9.
PUMP STATIONS0 1)
LS
182850 S21.00 $3,839,850.00
27630
S25.00
S690,750.00
1921
$500.00
$960,500.00
2000
$30.00
S60,000.00
54000
S6.50
$351,000.00
13000
S25.00
S325,000.00
32000
$30.00
S960,000.00
6000
$34.00
$204,000.00
1270
$1,300.00
S1,651,000.00
1
$302,665.00
$302,665.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL BASE BID SEWER: $9,344,765.00
CONTINGENCY (10%) S934,476.50
ENGINEERING (10%) S934,476.50
ADMINISTRATION AND LEGAL (5%) S467,238.25
LAND APPLICATION COST $5,263,021.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST: S16,943,977.25
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST:
GRAVITY SEWER COLLECTION S8,048.50
PUMP STATION <200 GPM S42,637.50
PUMP STATION >200 GPM S16,950.00
ELECTRICAL $64,008.00
LAND APPLICATION S215,354.00
-------------------------•-_------_-......----------------------...------------
SUB TOTAL 08N COST: S346,998.00
PRESENT WORTH COST OF ALTERNATIVE:
PRESENT WORTH OF PROJECT COST $16,943,977.25
PRESENT WORTH OF OLM COST $3,674,708.82
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH: S20,618,686.07
E-3

PENDER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVE ONE TOPSAIL TOWNSHIP CONVENTIONAL
COLLECTION SYSTEM AND SPRAY FIELD TREATMENT
(TOPSAIL BEACH INCLUDED).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTIMATED UNIT
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
A. SEWER SYSTEM
------------------
1. 811 SANITARY SEWER (10"-1211)
CUT LF
330600
S21.00
S6,942,600.00
SEWER SERVICE CONNECTION
EA
5079
$500.00
S2,539,500.00
2. 4" FORCE MAIN
LF
62200
S6.50
S404,300.00
3. 6" FORCE MAIN
LF
71800
S8.00
S574,400.00
4 811 FORCE MAIN
LF
13000
$10.00
S130,000.00
5. 1011 FORCE MAIN
LF
21500
$25.00
S537,500.00
6. 2411 FORCE MAIN
LF
38500
S40.00
$1,540,000.00
7. MANHOLES
EA
2151
$1,300.00
S2,796,300.00
8. PUMP STATIONS(26)
LS
1 $495,870.00
S495,870.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL BASE BID SEWER: $15,960,470.00
CONTINGENCY (10%)
S1,596,047.00
ENGINEERING (10%)
$1,596,047.00
ADMINISTRATION AND LEGAL (5%)
$798,023.50
LAND APPLICATION COST
S6,746,325.00
TOPSAIL BEACH PROJECT COST
S7,691,288.75
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
S34,388,201.25
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST:
GRAVITY SEWER COLLECTION
$12,522.72
PUMP STATION <200 GPM
S113,700.00
PUMP STATION >200 GPM
S16,950.00
ELECTRICAL
$46,224.00
LAND APPLICATION
S294,000.00
TOPSAIL BEACH O&M
$206,939.50
SUB TOTAL O&M COST:
$690,336.22
PRESENT WORTH COST OF ALTERNATIVE:
PRESENT WORTH OF PROJECT COST
$34,388,201.25
PRESENT WORTH OF 08M COST
S7,310,660.57
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH: S41,698,861.82
E-4

PENDER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVE ONE FOR ROCKY POINT TOWNSHIP WITH PRESSURE
SYSTEM COLLECTION TREATMENT AND SPRAY FIELD TREATMENT
(INDUSTRIAL FLOW).
- ------------------------------------------------------------
ESTIMATED . UNIT
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
A. SEWER SYSTEM
------------------
1. 1.511 FORCE MAIN
LF
114600
S3.50
S4010100.00
2. 2" FORCE MAIN
LF
25600
S4.50
$115,200.00
3. 2.5" FORCE MAIN
LF
10500
$5.00
$52,500.00
4 3" FORCE MAIN
LF
6000
$5.50
S44,000.00
5. 4" FORCE MAIN
LF
120100
S6.50
S780,650.00
6. 6" FORCE MAIN
LF
31000
S8.00
S248,000.00
7. 10" FORCE MAIN
LF
33000
S25.00
S825,000.00
8. 12" FORCE MAIN
LF
12000
$30.00
S360,000.00
9. 16" FORCE MAIN
LF
14000
S36.00
S504,000.00
8. GRINDER PUMPS
EA
1921
S1,500.00
$2,881,500.00
9. PUMP STATIONS (4)
LS
1
S351,832.00
S351,832.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL BASE BID SEWER:
S6,563,782.00
CONTINGENCY (10%)
$656,378.20
ENGINEERING (10%)
S6560378.20
ADMINISTRATION AND LEGAL (5%)
S328,189.10
LAND APPLICATION COST
$5,263,021.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
S13,467,748.50
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
COST:
PRESSURE SEWER COLLECTION
S76,840.00
PUMP STATION <200 GPM
S9,475.00
PUMP STATION >200 GPM
$16,950.00
ELECTRICAL
S60,000.00
LAND APPLICATION
S215,354.00
SUB TOTAL O&M COST: $378,619.00
PRESENT WORTH COST OF ALTERNATIVE:
PRESENT WORTH OF PROJECT COST S13,467,748.50
PRESENT WORTH OF O&M COST S4,009,575.21
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH: S17,477,323.71
E-5

'
PENDER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVE ONE TOPSAIL TOWNSHIP PRESSURIZED
COLLECTION SYSTEM AND SPRAY FIELD TREATMENT
'
(TOPSAIL .NOT
.BEACH .INCLUDED ..................................................
ESTIMATED
UNIT
ITEM
-DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
PRICE
AMOUNT
--------------
A.
------------ -.-UNIT
SEWER SYSTEM
-------------------------------------
'
-------------------
------------------------------------------------
----------
1.
1.5" FORCE MAIN
LF 125800
53.50
$440,300.00
2.
211 FORCE MAIN
LF 52900
$4.50
$238,050.00
3.
2.5" FORCE MAIN
LF 25000
$5.00
$125,000.00
4
3" FORCE MAIN
LF 47200
55.50
$259,600.00
5.
4" FORCE MAIN
LF 5500
$6.50
$35,750.00
6.
611 FORCE MAIN
LF 37200
$8.00
$297,600.00
7.
8" FORCE MAIN
LF 24500
510.00
5245,000.00
8.
14" FORCE MAIN
LF 2500
$34.00
585,000.00
9.
2411 FORCE MAIN
LF 36000
$40.00
5100,000.00
'
10.
GRINDER PUMPS
EA 5079
51,500.00
$7,618,500.00
11.
PUMP STATIONS(10)
LS 1
5276,392.00
$276,392.00
..............................•--------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL BASE BID SEWER:
S9,721,192.00
'
CONTINGENCY (10%)
ENGINEERING (10%)
$972,119.20
$972,l19.20
ADMINISTRATION AND LEGAL (5%)
5486,059.60
LAND APPLICATION COST
55,044,430.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
517,195,920.00
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST:
PRESSURE SEWER COLLECTION
$203,160.00
'
PUMP STATION <200 GPM
528,425.00
PUMP STATION >200 GPM
533,900.00
ELECTRICAL
530,936.00
'
LAND APPLICATION
$206,420.00
'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUB TOTAL OLM COST:
$502,841.00
PRESENT WORTH COST OF ALTERNATIVE:
'
PRESENT WORTH OF PROJECT COST
517,195,920.00
PRESENT WORTH OF 08M COST
55,325,086.19
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH:
S22,521,006.19
E-6

1
'
PENDER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVE ONE TOPSAIL TOWNSHIP PRESSURIZED
COLLECTION SYSTEM AND SPRAY FIELD TREATMENT
'
(TOPSAIL .BEACH .NOT _1NCLUDED)..........................................................................
ESTIMATED
UNIT
ITEM
-------
--------DESCRIPTION-----.---
-------
UNIT QUANTITY
------------------
PRICE
AMOUNT
A.
SEWER SYSTEM
-----
'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.
1.5" FORCE MAIN
LF 125800
$3.50
S440,300.00
2.
2" FORCE MAIN
LF 52900
S4.50
S238,050.00
3.
2.5" FORCE MAIN
LF 25000
S5.00
S125,000.00
'
4
3" FORCE MAIN
LF 47200
S5.50
$259,600.00
5.
411 FORCE MAIN
LF 5500
S6.50
S35,750.00
6.
6" FORCE MAIN
LF 37200
S8.00
$297,600.00
'
7.
8" FORCE MAIN
LF 24500
$10.00
S245,000.00
8.
14" FORCE MAIN
LF 2500
$34.00
S85,000.00
9,
24" FORCE MAIN
LF 36000
$40.00
S100,000.00
'
10.
GRINDER PUMPS
EA 5079
S1,500.00
$7,618,500.00
11.
PUMP STATIONS(10)
LS 1
S276,392.00
$276,392.00
'
.---------------------------------
SUBTOTAL BASEBIO SEWER-
59,721,192.00
CONTINGENCY (10%)
$972,119.20
'
ENGINEERING (10%)
S972,119.20
ADMINISTRATION AND LEGAL (5%)
5486,059.60
LAND APPLICATION COST
$6,723,315.00
'
TOPSAIL BEACH PROJECT COST-------------------------------S9,575,825.00
.........................
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
...........
S28,450,630.00
'
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST:
PRESSURE SEWER COLLECTION
$203,160.00
'
PUMP STATION <200 GPM
$28,425.00
PUMP STATION >200 GPM
S33,900.00
ELECTRICAL
S30,936.00
LAND APPLICATION
S294,000.00
'
TOPSAIL BEACH O&H
$162,655.00
SUB TOTAL O&M COST:
S753,076.00
PRESENT WORTH COST OF ALTERNATIVE:
PRESENT WORTH OF PROJECT COST
$28,450,630.00
'
PRESENT WORTH OF O&M COST
S7,975,074.84
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH:
$36 425 704.84
'
E-7

'
PENDER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
------------------------------------------------------------------•-•--------
ALTERNATIVE TWO TOPSAIL TOWNSHIP PRESSURIZED
COLLECTION SYSTEM AND TREATMENT AT WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANT
(TOPSAIL BEACH NOT INCLUDED).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTIMATED
UNIT
'
ITEM
-------
--------DESCRIPTION••--------UNIT QUANTITY
--------- ------------------•
PRICE
A.
SEWER SYSTEM
-------AMOUNT
--------
'------•-------------------------------------------------
•-------••-----•----
1.
1.5" FORCE MAIN LF 125800
$3.50
S440,300.00
2,
2" FORCE MAIN LF 52900
S4.50
$238,050.00
3.
2.5" FORCE MAIN LF 25000
$5.00
S125,000.00
4
3" FORCE MAIN LF 47200
S5.50
S259,600.00
5.
4" FORCE MAIN LF 5500
$6.50
S35,750.00
6.
6" FORCE MAIN LF 37200
$8.00
$297,600.00
7.
8" FORCE MAIN LF 27000
$10.00
S270,000.00
8.
24" FORCE MAIN LF 81720
$40.00
$3,268,800.00
9.
10.
GRINDER PUMPS EA 5079 S1,500.00
PUMP STATIONS (11) LS 1 $407,707.00
S7,618,500.00
$407,707.00
'
-----------------•----•-----------------•--------------------•---------
SUBTOTAL BASE BID SEWER:
$12,961,307.00
CONTINGENCY (10%)
$1,296,130.70
ENGINEERING (10%)
$1,296,130.70
ADMINISTRATION AND LEGAL (5%)
S648,065.35
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT COST (5.86 MGD)
S5,334,000.00
PROJECT COST TOPSAIL BEACH
S9,575,825.00
'
PROJECT COST ROCKY POINT ( IND INC)
--------------------S9-376,892.50
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
S40,488,351.25
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST:
PRESSURE SEWER COLLECTION
S203,167.00
PUMP STATION <200 GPM
S37,900.00
PUMP STATION >200 GPM
$25,425.00
ELECTRICAL
$63,132.00
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT COST
S962,505.00
'
TOPSAIL BEACH Odell COSTS
$162,655.00
ROCKY POINT ON COLLECTION (IND INC)
$118,226.00
SUB TOTAL O&M COST:
$1 573 010.00
PRESENT WORTH COST OF ALTERNATIVE:
PRESENT WORTH OF PROJECT COST
S40,488,351.25
PRESENT WORTH OF Odds COST
$16,658,175.90
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH:
$57,146,527.15
'
E-8

PENDER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVE TWO TOPSAIL TOWNSHIP CONVENTIONAL
COLLECTION SYSTEM AND TREATMENT BY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
(TOPSAIL BEACH INCLUDED).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTIMATED UNIT
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
A. SEWER SYSTEM
------------------
I .
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
7.
8.
8" SANITARY SEWER (10"-1241) CUT LF
SEWER SERVICE CONNECTION EA
411 FORCE MAIN LF
611 FORCE MAIN LF
811 FORCE MAIN LF
10" FORCE MAIN LF
24" FORCE MAIN LF
MANHOLES EA
PUMP STATIONS (27) LS
330600 S21.00 $6,942,600.00
5079 S500.00 S2,539,500.00
62200
$6.50
S404,300.00
71800
S8.00
$574,400.00
13000
S10.00
S130,000.00
21500
$25.00
$537,500.00
84220
$40.00
S3,368,800.00
2334
S1,300.00
S3,034,200.00
1
S505,372.00
$505,372.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL BASE BID SEWER: $18,036,672.00
CONTINGENCY (10%) $1,603,667.20
ENGINEERING (10%) S1,803,667.20
ADMINISTRATION AND LEGAL (5%) $901,833.60
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT COST (5.86 MGD) S5,334,000.00
PROJECT COST TOPSAIL BEACH $7,691,288.75
PROJECT COST ROCKY POINT (1ND INC) S11,145,813.75
TOTAL PROJECT COST: $46,716,942.50
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST:
GRAVITY SEWER COLLECTION $12,522.72
PUMP STATION <200 GPM $113,700.00
PUMP STATION >200 GPM $25,424.00
ELECTRICAL S46,224.00
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT $962,505.00
TOPSAIL BEACH 03M S206,939.50
ROCKY POINT O&M COLLECTION (IND INC) S95,102.82
SUB TOTAL O&M COST: S1,462,418.04
PRESENT WORTH COST OF ALTERNATIVE:
PRESENT WORTH OF PROJECT COST
PRESENT WORTH OF 08M COST
S46,716,942.50
$15,487,007.04
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH: $62,203,949.54
E-9

'
PENDER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
-----•-----•-------•--------------•--------------•--------•------------------
ALTERNATIVE TWO TOPSAIL TOWNSHIP PRESSURIZED
'
COLLECTION SYSTEM AND TREATMENT AT WASTEWATER TREATMENT
(TOPSAIL BEACH NOT INCLUDED).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLANT
ESTIMATED
UNIT
'
ITEM
-DESCRIPTION QUANTITY
PRICE
-----
--------------
A.
----UNIT
------ -----------•-------------
SEWER SYSTEM
-AMOUNT
'
--------------
•-------------------------•-------•-------------•------•-------
1.
1.5" FORCE MAIN LF 125800
$3.50
S440,300.00
2.
2" FORCE MAIN LF 52900
S4.50
S238,050.00
3.
2.5" FORCE MAIN LF 25000
$5.00
S125,000.00
4
311 FORCE MAIN LF 47200
S5.50
S259,600.00
5.
411 FORCE MAIN LF 5500
S6.50
$35,750.00
6.
611 FORCE MAIN LF 37200
S8.00
S297,600.00
'
7.
811 FORCE MAIN LF 27000
S10.00
$270,000.00
8.
24" FORCE MAIN LF 81720
S40.00
$3,26B,800.00
9.
GRINDER PUMPS EA 5079
S1,500.00
$7,618,500.00
'
10.
PUMP STATIONS (11) LS 1 S407,707.00
$407,707.00
-----------•-----------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL BASE BID SEWER:
S12,961,307.00
CONTINGENCY (10%)
$1,296,130.70
ENGINEERING (10X)
ADMINISTRATION AND LEGAL (5%)
S1,296,130.7O
S648,065.35
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT COST (4.72 MGD)
$4,380,000.00
ROCKY POINT PROJECT COST (IND INC)
S9,376,892.50
..... _....... -..... ----------•--------------------•-----•..-..•------
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
$29,958,526.25
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST:
PRESSURE SEWER COLLECTION
$203,160.00
PUMP STATION <200 GPM
S37,900.00
PUMP STATION >200 GPM
$25,425.00
ELECTRICAL
S63,132.00
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT COST
S775,260.00
ROCKY POINT Odell COLLECTION (IND INC)-•••••--•••---•-••--•••$113,226.00
----•-•------------•-----••.-•--•---
-•••.--•-
.
SUB TOTAL OEM COST:
S1,223,103.00
'
PRESENT WORTH COST OF ALTERNATIVE:
PRESENT WORTH OF PROJECT COST
$29,958,526.25
PRESENT WORTH OF 08M COST
$12,952,660.77
'
••...---••---•-••---------------------••-----•----•••.---•_•----_•-----
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH:
$42,911,187.02
I
'
E-10

PENDER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVE TWO TOPSAIL TOWNSHIP CONVENTIONAL
COLLECTION SYSTEM AND TREATMENT BY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
(TOPSAIL BEACH NOT INCLUDED).
ESTIMATED UNIT
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
A. SEWER SYSTEM
------------------
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
7.
8.
r
8" SANITARY SEWER (10"-12") CUT LF
SEWER SERVICE CONNECTION
EA
4" FORCE MAIN
LF
6" FORCE MAIN
LF
8" FORCE MAIN
LF
1011 FORCE MAIN
LF
24" FORCE MAIN
LF
MANHOLES
EA
PUMP STATIONS(27)
LS
330600 $21.00 S6,942,600.00
5079 $500.00 $2,539,500.00
62200
S6.50
$404,300.00
71800
S8.00
S574,400.00
13000
S10.00
S13O,000.00
21500
S25.00
S537,500.00
84220
S40.00
S3,368,800.00
2334
S1,300.00
$3,034,200.00
1
S505,372.00
$505,372.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL BASE BID SEWER: $18,036,672.00
CONTINGENCY (10%) $1,803,667.20
ENGINEERING (10%) S1,803,667.20
ADMINISTRATION AND LEGAL (5%) $901,833.60
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT COST (4.74 MGD) $4,308,000.00
ROCKY POINT PROJECT COST (IND INC) S11,145,813.75
TOTAL PROJECT COST: $37,999,653.75
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST:
GRAVITY SEWER COLLECTION $12522.72
PUMP STATION <200 GPM $113:700.00
PUMP STATION >200 GPM S25,425.00
ELECTRICAL $120,640.00
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT S775,260.00
ROCKY POINT 08M COLLECTION (INO INC) $95,102.82
SUB TOTAL OdM COST: $1,142,850.54
PRESENT WORTH COST OF ALTERNATIVE:
PRESENT WORTH OF PROJECT COST
PRESENT WORTH OF 08M COST
$37,999,653.75
$12,102,787.22
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH: S50,102,440.97
E-11

'
PENDER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALTERNATIVE TWO TOPSAIL TOWNSHIP PRESSURIZED
COLLECTION SYSTEM AND TREATMENT AT WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANT
'
(TOPSAIL BEACH NOT INCLUDED).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTIMATED
UNIT
'
ITEM
---- •--_--DESCRIPTION----------UNIT QUANTITY
PRICE
AMOUNT
--_--
A.
--------------------
SEWER SYSTEM
--------------
-----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.
1.5" FORCE MAIN LF 125800
53.50
5440,300.00
2,
211 FORCE MAIN LF 52900
$4.50
$238,050.00
3.
2.5° FORCE MAIN LF 25000
$5.00
S125,000.00
4
316 FORCE MAIN LF 47200
55.50
5259,600.00
5.
411 FORCE MAIN LF 5500
$6.50
$35,750.00
6.
611 FORCE MAIN LF 37200
$8.00
5297,600.00
'
7.
8" FORCE MAIN LF 27000
$10.00
5270,000.00
8.
24" FORCE MAIN LF 81720
540.00
$3,268,800.00
'
9.
10.
GRINDER PUMPS EA 5079 $1,500.00
PUMP STATIONS (11) LS 1 $407,707.00
$7,618,500.00
5407,707.00
'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL BASE BID SEWER:
$12,961,307.00
CONTINGENCY (10%)
$1,296,130.70
ENGINEERING (10%)
51,296,130.70
'
ADMINISTRATION AND LEGAL (5%)
S648,065.35
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT COST
$3,165,000.00
TOPSAIL BEACH PROJECT COST
$9,575,825.00
'
ROCKY POINT PROJECT COST
------------------510,205,864.10
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
539,148,322.85
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST:
'
PRESSURE SEWER COLLECTION
PUMP STATION <200 GPM
$203,167.00
537,900.00
PUMP STATION >200 GPM
525,425.00
ELECTRICAL
$63,132.00
'
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT COST
$684,922.50
TOPSAIL BEACH OSM
$162,655.00
ROCKY POINT O&M COLLECTION
5118,226.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUB TOTAL OSM COST:
S1,295,427.50
PRESENT WORTH COST OF ALTERNATIVE:
'
PRESENT WORTH OF PROJECT COST
539,148,322.85
PRESENT WORTH OF 08M COST
$13,718,577.23
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH:
$52,866,900.08
E-12

1
f
PENDER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVE TWO TOPSAIL TOWNSHIP CONVENTIONAL
COLLECTION SYSTEM AND TREATMENT BY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
(TOPSAIL BEACH INCLUDED).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTIMATED UNIT
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
A. SEWER SYSTEM
------
1. 8" SANITARY SEWER (1011-1211) CUT LF
SEWER SERVICE CONNECTION
EA
2.
4" FORCE MAIN
LF
3.
6" FORCE MAIN
LF
4
8" FORCE MAIN
LF
5.
10" FORCE MAIN
LF
6.
24" FORCE MAIN
LF
7.
MANHOLES
EA
8.
PUMP STATIONS (27)
LS
330600
S21.00
$6,942,600.00
5079
$500.00
$2,539,500.00
62200
S6.50
S404,300.00
71800
S8.00
S574,400.00
13000
$10.00
$130,000.00
21500
$25.00
S537,500.00
84220
S40.00
$3,368,800.00
2334
$1,300.00
$3,034,200.00
1
S505,372.00
S505,372.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL BASE BID SEWER: S18,036,672.00
CONTINGENCY (10%) $1,803,667.20
ENGINEERING (10%) S1,803,667.20
ADMINISTRATION AND LEGAL (5%) S901,833.60
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT COST (3.45 MGD) $3,165,000.00
PROJECT COST TOPSAIL BEACH $7,691,288.75
ROCKY POINT PROJECT COST $10,586,776.60
TOTAL PROJECT COST: S43,988,905.35
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST:
GRAVITY SEWER COLLECTION $12,522.72
PUMP STATION <200 GPM $113,700.00
PUMP STATION >200 GPM S25,424.00
ELECTRICAL $46,224.00
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT S684,922.50
TOPSAIL BEACH Odell S206,939.50
ROCKY POINT OLM COLLECTION $66,827.90
SUB TOTAL Odell COST: S1,156,560.62
PRESENT WORTH COST OF ALTERNATIVE:
PRESENT WORTH OF PROJECT COST
PRESENT WORTH OF Odell COST
$43,988,905.35
S12,247,976.97
--------------------------------- ----------...------------.
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH: $56,236,882.32
E-13

'
PENDER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER FEASIBILITY
STUDY
•----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALTERNATIVE TWO TOPSAIL TOWNSHIP PRESSURIZED
'
COLLECTION SYSTEM AND TREATMENT AT WASTEWATER TREATMENT
(TOPSAIL BEACH NOT INCLUDED).
PLANT
----------------------------------------•------------------------------------
ESTIMATED
UNIT
ITEM
DESCRIPTION -UNIT
---------
QUANTITY
PRICE ----.-AMOUNT
-----
-----
A.
--------------------
SEWER SYSTEM
-------•---------------------------------------------------------------------
1.
1.5" FORCE MAIN LF
125800
$3.50
$440 300.00
2,
V FORCE MAIN LF
52900
S4.50
S238,050.00
'
3.
2.5" FORCE MAIN LF
25000
S5.00
S125,000.00
4
3" FORCE MAIN LF
47200
$5.50
S259,600.00
5.
4" FORCE MAIN LF
5500
S6.50
$351750.00
6.
6" FORCE MAIN LF
37200
S8.00
S297,600.00
'
7.
8" FORCE MAIN LF
27000
S10.00
S270,000.00
8.
2411 FORCE MAIN LF
81720
S40.00
$3,268,800.00
9.
GRINDER PUMPS EA
5079
$1,500.00
S7,618,500.00
10.
PUMP STATIONS (11) LS
1 S407,707.00
$407,707.00
'
--•--------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL BASE BID SEWER:
$12,961,307.00
CONTINGENCY (10%)
$1,296,130.70
'
ENGINEERING (10%)
ADMINISTRATION AND LEGAL (5%)
S1,296,130.70
$648,065.35
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT COST
$2,098,547.40
ROCKY POINT PROJECT COST
$10,205,864.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST:-_-.-.----------------•-__-----___•.-528,506,045.15
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST:
PRESSURE SEWER COLLECTION
$203,160.00
PUMP STATION <200 GPM
S37,900.00
'
PUMP STATION >200 GPM
S25,425.00
ELECTRICAL
$63,132.00
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT COST
S497,677.50
ROCKY.POINT 03M COSTS
-----•---------------------------••-----...---------
SUB TOTAL 08M COST:
_----..S118,226.00
------•..
$945,520.50
'
PRESENT WORTH COST OF ALTERNATIVE:
PRESENT WORTH OF PROJECT COST
$28,506,045.15
PRESENT WORTH OF O&M COST
S10,013,062.10
'
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH:
S38,519,107.25
1
'
E-14

'
PENDER
COUNTY WATER AND SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
•------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALTERNATIVE TWO TOPSAIL TOWNSHIP CONVENTIONAL
'
COLLECTION SYSTEM AND TREATMENT BY WASTEWATER
(TOPSAIL BEACH NOT INCLUDED).
TREATMENT PLANT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTIMATED UNIT
ITEM
---------DESCRIPTIONQUANTITY PRICE
AMOUNT
A.
-----------UNIT
SEWER SYSTEM
---
'
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.
8" SANITARY SEWER (1010-1211) CUT LF 330600 $21.00
$6,942,600.00
SEWER SERVICE CONNECTION EA
5079 S500.00
$2,539,500.00
'
2.
411 FORCE MAIN LF
62200 $6.50
S404,300.00
3.
6" FORCE MAIN LF
71800 $8.00
S574,400.00
4
8" FORCE MAIN LF
13000 $10.00
$130,000.00
5.
1011 FORCE MAIN LF
21500 $25.00
S537,500.00
6.
2411 FORCE MAIN LF
84220 S40.00
S3,368,800.00
7.
MANHOLES EA
2334 $1,300.00
S3,034,200.00
8,
PUMP STATIONS(27) LS
1 $505,372.00
S505,372.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL BASE BID SEWER:
$18,036,672.00
CONTINGENCY (10%)
S1,803,667.20
ENGINEERING (10%)
S1,803,667.20
'
ADMINISTRATION AND LEGAL (5%)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT COST
$901,833.60
$2,098,547.40
ROCKY POINT PROJECT COST
S10,586,776.60
1
----•--------•----------------------------------•---•-----------------••-
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
S35,231,164.00
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST:
'
GRAVITY SEWER COLLECTION
$12,522.72
PUMP STATION <200 GPM
S113,700.00
PUMP STATION >200 GPM
$25,425.00
'
ELECTRICAL
$120,840.00
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
$497,677.50
ROCKY POINT O&M COSTS
$66,827.82
'--•--------------------------------------------------------•------------
SUB TOTAL O&M COST:
S836 993.04
'
PRESENT WORTH COST OF ALTERNATIVE:
PRESENT WORTH OF PROJECT COST
$35,231,164.00
PRESENT WORTH OF O&M COST
$8,863,756.29
-------•-------------------•------------•-----•.........--•---------•••--
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH:
S44,094,920.29
'
E-15

'
PENDER COUNTY -WATER- - ANDSEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVE
ONE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM FOR TOPSAIL
BEACH
WITH
CONVENTIONAL COLLECTION, TRANSPORT TO
TOPSAIL
INCLUDED
IN ESTIMATE,
TREATMENT INCLUDED WITH TOPSAIL TOWNSHIP ESTIMATE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTIMATED
UNIT
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
_----
UNIT
QUANTITY
PRICE
--------
AMOUNT
A.
SEWER SYSTEM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.
8" PVC SANITARY SEWER (10"-1214) CUT
LF
31386
S21.00
$659,106.00
2.
10" PVC SANITARY SEWER (10"-12") CUT
LF
1600
S25.00
$45,000.00
3.
12" PVC SANITARY SEWER (10"-12") CUT
LF
4860
$30.00
S145,800.00
4.
16" PVC SANITARY SEWER (10"-12") CUT
LF
6070
S36.00
S218,520.00
5.
18" PVC SANITARY SEWER (10"-12") CUT
LF
6240
$38.00
S237,120.00
6.
24" PVC SANITARY SEWER (10"-12") CUT
LF
6900
S40.00
S276,000.00
'
SEWER SERVICE CONNECTIONS
EA
3000
S500.00
S1,500,000.00
7.
16" RIVER CROSSING PIPE
LF
18886
$105.00
S1,983,030.00
8.
MANHOLES
EA
325
S1,300.00
$422,500.00
9.
PUMP STATIONS
LS
1 S315,955.00
S315,955.00
'
10.
MAIN PUMP STATIONS
EA
1 $350,000.00
$350,000.00
'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL BASE BID SEWER:
S6,153,031.00
CONTINGENCY (10%)
S615,303.10
ENGINEERING (10%)
S615,303.10
'
ADMINISTRATION AND LEGAL (5%)
$307,651.55
'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
$78691,288.75
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST:
GRAVITY SEWER COLLECTION
$2,170.00
PUMP STATIONS < 200 GPM COLLECTION
S4,737.50
PUMP STATIONS > 200 GPM COLLECTION
S62,325.00
PUMP STATION
S18,950.00
'
ELECTRICAL
$118,757.00
...............................................................................
SUB TOTAL 08M COST: $206,939.50
PRESENT WORTH COST OF ALTERNATIVE:
PRESENT WORTH OF PROJECT COST
PRESENT WORTH OF O&M COST
S7,691,288.75
$2,191,489.31
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH: $9,882,778.06
E-16

'
PENDER
COUNTY WATER AND SEWER
FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVE
TWO SANITARY SEWER
SYSTEM FOR TOPSAIL BEACH
WITH
PRESURIZED COLLECTION AND
TRANSPORT
TO TOPSAIL
TOWNSHIP
'
FOR TREATMENT.
--- ----------
ESTIMATED
UNIT
'
ITEM
-----_---DESCRIPTION
_--•.UNIT QUANTITY
PRICE
AMOUNT
•••-
A.
SEWER SYSTEM
'
--------------•-------------------------------.•-----------------•--•--------
1.
1.5" FORCE MAIN
LF
6800
$3.50
$23,800.00
2.
2" FORCE MAIN
LF
4170
$4.50
S18,765.00
3.
2.5" FORCE MAIN
LF
5260
S5.00
S26,300.00
'
4
3" FORCE MAIN
LF
8450
S5.50
$46,475.00
5.
4" FORCE MAIN
LF
4100
$6.50
S26,650.00
'
6.
7.
6" FORCE MAIN
8" FORCE MAIN
LF
LF
6820
1800
S8.00
S10.00
S54,560.00
S18,000.00
8.
10" FORCE MAIN
LF
6060
S25.00
S151,500.00
9.
12" FORCE MAIN
LF
3530
$30.00
S105,900.00
10.
16" FORCE MAIN
LF
9880
$36.00
S355,680.00
11.
16" RIVER CROSSING PIPE
LF
18886
$105.00
$1,983,030.00
12.
GRINDER PUMPS
EA
3000
S1,500.00
S4,500,000.00
'
13.
MAIN PUMP STATION
•-
_--
S350,000.00
---
$350,000.00
SUBTOTAL BASE BID SEWER:
S7,660,660.00
'
CONTINGENCY (10%)
$766,066.00
ENGINEERING (10%)
$766,066.00
ADMINISTRATION AND LEGAL
(5%)
$383,033.00
-------------•--•-------------•-••-••-•---..................----_____._
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
$9,575,825.00
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
COST:
PRESSURE SEWER SYSTEM
$1200000.00
'
PUMP STATIONS >1000 GPM
S18,950.00
ELECTRICITY
$23,705.00
SUS TOTAL 03M COST:
...........
5162,655.00
PRESENT WORTH COST OF ALTERNATIVE:
'
PRESENT WORTH OF PROJECT
COST
S9,575,825.00
PRESENT WORTH OF O&M COST
$1,722,516.45
------------•.......••-•••------------••_______________________________
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH:
511,298,341.45
'
E-17

PENDER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVE ONE FOR ROCKY POINT TOWNSHIP WITH PRESSURE
SYSTEM COLLECTION TREATMENT AND SPRAY FIELD TREATMENT
(NON -INDUSTRIAL FLOW).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTIMATED UNIT
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT CUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
A. SEWER SYSTEM
1.
1.5" FORCE MAIN
LF
114600 $3.50
S401,100.00
2.
2" FORCE MAIN
LF
25600 S4.50
$115200.00
3.
2.5" FORCE MAIN
LF
10500 S5.00
$52:500.00
4
3" FORCE MAIN
LF
8000 S5.50
S44,000.00
5.
4" FORCE MAIN
LF
153100 $6.50
S995,150.00
6.
6" FORCE MAIN
LF
38000 S8.00
$304,000.00
7.
12" FORCE MAIN
LF
19000 $30.00
$570,000.00
8.
GRINDER PUMPS
EA
1921 S1,500.00
$2,881,500.00
9.
PUMP STATIONS (4)
LS
1 S203,503.00
S203,503.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL BASE BID SEWER:
$5,566,953.00
CONTINGENCY (10%)
S556,695.30
ENGINEERING (10%)
S556,695.30
ADMINISTRATION AND LEGAL (5%)
S278,347.65
LAND APPLICATION COST
S1,919,716.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
S8,878,407.25
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST:
PRESSURE SEWER COLLECTION
S76,840.00
PUMP STATION <200 GPM
S14,212.50
PUMP STATION >200 GPM
$8,475.00
ELECTRICAL
S20,256.00
LAND APPLICATION
S79,070.00
SUB TOTAL O&M COST:
$198,853.50
PRESENT WORTH COST OF ALTERNATIVE:
PRESENT WORTH OF PROJECT COST
S8,878,407.25
PRESENT WORTH OF 08M COST
$2,105,858.57
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH: $10,984,265.82
E-18

i
McKIM & CREED ENGINEERS, PA
243 NORTH FRONT STREET
WILMINGTON, NC 28401
919/343-1048 FAX [phone]
2007 SOUTH EVANS STREET
GREENVILLE, NC 27834
949/756-5137
ENGINEERS .
PLANNERS
SURVEYORS 1
i
McK M& 1
1