20130800_Hackett Town Rd (SR-1305) Second Request_20151119

Carpenter,Kristi
From:Holder, Michael L
Sent:Thursday, November 19, 2015 4:27 PM
To:Stacey Triplett
Cc:Latham, Tim; Wanucha, Dave; Chambers, Marla J; Senator Shirley Randleman; bbriscoe;
Holbrook, Alex; sheilig1; Palermo, James R
Subject:RE: Hackett Town Rd (SR-1305) Second Request
Ms. Triplett,

The traffic services unit plans to place curve warning signs with 25 mph advisory speed limits, and they plan to
place a stop ahead sign. This work should be completed in the next 2 weeks.
Maintenance forces will work to fill in the low places in the ditches, but some of this work may not be
accomplished until Spring.
I understand that you did not want this road constructed and paved; however, there were property owners that
did expect us to keep the commitment and the Department followed the law. You have made several inquiries
and requested information throughout this project and the Department has tried to be responsive to your
inquiries.

I have a very busy schedule for the next several weeks that will keep me in Charlotte and Raleigh. I apologize
for not being able to come to the site but have instructed Division Engineer Pettyjohn to address any further
concerns you may have.

Sincerely

Mike Holder

From: Stacey Triplett \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 10:38 AM
To: Holder, Michael L
Cc: Latham, Tim; Wanucha, Dave; Chambers, Marla J; Senator Shirley Randleman; bbriscoe; Holbrook, Alex; sheilig1;
Palermo, James R
Subject: Re: Hackett Town Rd (SR-1305) Second Request

From:
"Stacey Triplett" <[e-mail]>
To:
"Holder, Michael L" <[e-mail]>
Cc:
"Latham, Tim" <[e-mail]>, "Dave Wanucha" <[e-mail]>,
"marla chambers" <[e-mail]>, "shirley randleman"
<[e-mail]>, "bbriscoe" <[e-mail]>, "alex holbrook"
<[e-mail]>, "sheilig1" <[e-mail]>, "jrpalermo" <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Thursday, November 19, 2015 10:36:59 AM
Subject:
Re: Hackett Town Rd (SR-1305) Second Request

Mr. Holder,
1

I understand that you are a very busy man and that this is a Secondary Road, but I sent this e-mail
Monday November 16th. I am still waiting for a response.

I am not asking that you take my word for it or Division 11"s word either.

I would like to invite you to come to Hackett Town Rd and see for yourself what my concerns are and
that they are very legitimate and justified.
I will be glad to work around your schedule.

Thank you.
Stacey Triplett

From:
"Stacey Triplett" <[e-mail]>
To:
"Holder, Michael L" <[e-mail]>
Cc:
"Latham, Tim" <[e-mail]>, "Dave Wanucha" <[e-mail]>,
"marla chambers" <[e-mail]>, "shirley randleman"
<[e-mail]>, "bbriscoe" <[e-mail]>, "alex holbrook"
<[e-mail]>, "sheilig1" <[e-mail]>, "jrpalermo" <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Monday, November 16, 2015 11:34:48 AM
Subject:
Re: Hackett Town Rd (SR-1305) Third Request

Mr. Holder,

Thank you for your response. But I still have some questions.

1. SPEED LIMIT SIGNS SHOULD BE REQUIRED

Can you explain in detail what you are referring to when you say (The traffic services unit plans to
place some additional signage in the near future with any advisory speed limits that might be
warranted. )
There is no signage on this road.

2. GUARD RAILS ARE DESPERATELY NEEDED.

Thank you for getting some guardrail installed. I think that will help greatly.

3. DRAINAGE ISSUES STILL PREVAIL

I’m not really sure what your maintenance forces are looking at or if they even are. I can assure you
that it is very possible for water to get in this road. I am including pictures. Notice the close proximity
of the water to the road. It is encroaching the lane of travel.
I would also like to know what ditches they have worked on. I live here and can assure you that they
haven’t worked on any but the one that was filled when the mudslide occurred.
You said, the damaged pipe that you mentioned was actually damaged by the paving contractor as
they were setting up the road in preparation for paving when their grader dug too deep into the
subgrade and damaged the top of the pipe.

2

If that is the case I find it very hard to believe because Division 11 was supposed to have placed 8
inches of gravel on the subgrade not including how much dirt that would have been covering the pipe.
Then we have the question as to why the paving company would have been cutting that far down in
the 8” base of gravel? If that is true then the pipe was not installed correctly by Division 11 or while
placing the 8” base of gravel they must have contaminated the gravel. There would be NO reason
that the paving company would be cutting that deep. Right??

4. SPEAKING OF INTEGRITY

I would also like to point out how my father in law was mislead when he signed his right of way to you.
See attached document.
He tried to get his right of way released when he realized that this was nothing that he had agreed to
or had been told and he wasn’t the only property owner that tried to get the right of way released!
Back to the point the road is only supposed to be 32 feet wide from shoulder to ditch…. How do you
explain this excessive amount of shoulders in our pastures only?
Excessive being anywhere from 9 to 17 feet of shoulders.
So what you are saying is that they deemed it necessary to provide for cut and fill slopes,
sedimentation control, and drainage of the road.” That is not the case either.

There is NO drainage on a good part of this road. Also sedimentation control does not apply to
shoulders.

In summary I would like to point out that initially this road was supposed to cost the tax payers
$850,000. We are now at what you say 1.6 MILLION.
For this amount of our money you would expect that the ditches would drain, there would be erosion
control, and sharp blind curves would have been taken out. The list can go on and on.
I would hope in the future that DIVISION 11 would do their homework and do it by the law not their
law. Instead of wasting our tax payers dollars spend it where it needs to be spent.

Thank you for your response in advance.

Stacey Triplett

From:
"Holder, Michael L" <[e-mail]>
To:
"Stacey Triplett" <[e-mail]>
Cc:
"Dave Wanucha" <[e-mail]>, "Latham, Tim" <[e-mail]>,
"marla chambers" <[e-mail]>, "shirley randleman"
<[e-mail]>, "Holbrook, Alex" <[e-mail]>, "jrpalermo"
<[e-mail]>, "sheilig1" <[e-mail]>, "bbriscoe" <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Thursday, November 12, 2015 2:21:06 PM
Subject:
RE: Hackett Town Rd (SR-1305) Third Request

Ms. Triplett,

I apologize for my delay in response. Please find attached my response. Thanks for your patience! Please advise if I can

be of further assistance.

Mike

3

From: Stacey Triplett \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 12:42 PM
To: Holder, Michael L
Cc: Wanucha, Dave; Latham, Tim; Chambers, Marla J; Senator Shirley Randleman; Holbrook, Alex; Palermo, James R;
sheilig1; bbriscoe

Subject: Re: Hackett Town Rd (SR-1305) Third Request

Mr. Holder,

I have waited very patiently for a response from you. I understand that yesterday was Veterans Day
but you said Friday November 6th that you would respond by Monday November 9th. I'm sure as you
well know this is November 12th. I expect a response by the end of the day.

If that is not possible can you at least e-mail me and let me know when you intend on responding to
my issues.

I have also included new pictures taken on November 10th of the lack of drainage.

From:
"Holder, Michael L" <[e-mail]>
To:
"Stacey Triplett" <[e-mail]>
Cc:
"Latham, Tim" <[e-mail]>, "Dave Wanucha" <[e-mail]>,
"marla chambers" <[e-mail]>, "shirley randleman"
<[e-mail]>, "sheilig1" <[e-mail]>, "bbriscoe"
<[e-mail]>, "Holbrook, Alex" <[e-mail]>, "jrpalermo"
<[e-mail]>
Sent:
Friday, November 6, 2015 2:51:17 PM
Subject:
RE: Hackett Town Rd (SR-1305) Second Request

Ms. Triplett,

I have had a very busy week with the Board of Transportation in town. I will respond to your email by close of business

Monday.

Mike

From: Stacey Triplett \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 9:37 AM
To: Holder, Michael L
Cc: Latham, Tim; Wanucha, Dave; Chambers, Marla J; Senator Shirley Randleman; sheilig1; bbriscoe; Holbrook, Alex;
Palermo, James R

Subject: Fwd: Hackett Town Rd (SR-1305) Second Request

Mr. Holder,

Some recipients of this e-mail have said they could not open the traffic count data page so I have
removed that attachment.

I understand that you are busy and that you may think this is not a big deal but to us it is.

You have had several days to respond and come up with a solution to these issues.

I would appreciate a response asap.

Thank you

Have a good day.

Stacey Triplett

4

From:
"Stacey Triplett" <[e-mail]>
To:
[e-mail]
Cc:
"Latham, Tim" <[e-mail]>, "Dave Wanucha" <[e-mail]>,
"marla chambers" <[e-mail]>, "jrpalermo" <[e-mail]>, "Hamby,
Brian K" <[e-mail]>, "bbriscoe" <[e-mail]>, "shirley randleman"
<[e-mail]>, "alex holbrook" <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 3, 2015 3:41:14 PM
Subject:
Hackett Town Rd (SR-1305)

Mr. Holder,

There are several vital issues left unresolved regarding the Hackett Town Road SR1305 paving
project that require immediate attention; especially since this proposed $1,000,000 project has now
exceeded $1,500,000 of the taxpayers money for a 1.3 mile project on a road with only 3 residences.

1. SPEED LIMIT SIGNS SHOULD BE REQUIRED for this 2-lane, curvy, rural back road. When this
road was gravel/dirt, traffic was very light. Most drivers maintained a reasonable speed because of
loose gravel, and during the past 20 years only a few minor accidents have occurred.

Now, many individuals driving down Hackett Town Road are exceeding
the state guideline of 55 mph when no speed limit is posted. Already there has been one wreck due
to excessive speed. If the DOT does not at least post recommended speed limits for this roadway,
there will be many more based upon how drivers are now not only careening but passing on Hackett
Town Road. It is our understanding that Hackett Town Road does not meet the criteria for a speed
limit due to only 3 residences. We find this ironic, to say the least. After all, NCDOT Division 11 didn’t
follow the criteria and rules that were needed to prioritize and then pave this road.

For example, prior to project start-up, the DOT Division 11 Office could not produce any records to
support our field inventory score, specifically the traffic count of 100. A month later, Mr. Pettyjohn
revealed this count was from the year 2000. When I expressed shock and skepticism about this
figure, Mr. Pettyjohn told me that he had known people to run back and forth over the traffic counter
to inflate the counts. I asked him to redo the count because I knew it was wrong and evidently so did
he, but he refused. . This 100 ADT doubled in 2 years. See attached documents. This count should
have been a red flag to Division 11 as there were no new homes, businesses, churches, etc. on or
abutting this road. There was no reasonable explanation for our traffic count to double to 100. This
road should have never made it into the top 200 in Wilkes County had it been prioritized correctly and
by law.

I would also like to point out in an article written in the Mt. Airy news what Mr. Pettyjohn said:

By Randy Walker
Staff Writer
(snipped)

"Although dozens of miles of dirt roads are paved every year, there are approximately 128 miles of
unpaved secondary roads in Surry County.
Who gets their road paved, and who has to wait another year -- or more -- involves a state system
that prioritizes the paving of secondary roads.
(Roads are required by Law initially enacted in 1972) to be inventoried, evaluated, and prioritized on a
5

periodic basis. Normally, this process is repeated every four years, according to Mike Pettyjohn,
division maintenance engineer, for Division 11, which includes Surry County."

These are his words. Division 11 doesn’t follow State laws or rules!
I would also like to include an e-mail written by Mr. Tetzlaff on February 17th 2015.
This message follows our conversation earlier today regarding subject route scheduled for
improvements/paving.
SR 1305 was listed as paving priority number 14 within the 2009 paving list for Wilkes County (paving
lists are updated every 4-years following a field inventory)
(As initially thought, the actual data sheets associated with the 2009 update were disposed of as a
result of the physical relocation of this office last year.)
For your general information, a number of items have been attached to this message as follows;
- A copy of the blank Field data sheet completed for each route during the field inventory of unpaved
roads..
- First page of the 2009 Paving priority list for Wilkes County. SR 1305 is listed as # 14 ; paving was
programmed thru priority # 31 from this listing.
- First page of the 2005 Paving priority listing for Wilkes County. SR 1305 is listed as # 29 on this
earlier listing & indicates a traffic count of 100. It is thought very likely that this count was utilized
within the later 2009 listing since we utilize the highest count on file for any route.
Sincerely,
Doug Tetzlaff (North Wilkesboro NCDOT District field office)

2. GUARD RAILS ARE DESPERATELY NEEDED along certain sections of the road. However, Mr.
Hamby said in an e-mail dated March 19th 2015 that a Guardrail is not part of the current project.

The trees formerly standing alongside the road were historically instrumental in helping some
reckless drivers when their car left the shoulder of the road -- not any more. All natural barriers are
now gone, and it is likely much more serious wrecks will occur due to blind sharp curves, speeding
drivers, and the fact that Lewis Fork Creek is directly adjacent to a significant portion of the road.

Furthermore, according to Mr. Slaughter the reason for all the destruction of this natural habit was
that the DOT had to remove curves for safety and liability issues. There have been NO curves
removed. The only thing that Division 11 did was to make these curves worse than they were to start
with. See pictures attached. There are several blind sharp curves now.

Also, on our land we have 48 foot of fill or I should say rock and boulders and tree stumps that
Division 11 placed into our pastures. Now it is straight drop off the road. See pictures.

It would be a grave mistake not to install guard rails in my opinion. Being as Division 11 decided to
make this rural soil road into a highway, I would think that is what you would do for “Safety" and to
prevent the DOT from being culpable.

3. DRAINAGE ISSUES STILL PREVAIL; and although there were assurances from Mr. Hamby and
Mr. Slaughter that the ditches would "eventually fill in and drain", evidence points to the contrary. The
rock bed on this road in certain areas is holding water like small lakes or ponds, and some areas
have held water at the same level (no reduction in level other than minor evaporation). In addition,
due to the DOT's removal of all natural erosion barriers, a landslide occurred during the recent rain
period. DOT Division 11's response to these concerns is that they will be reviewed next Spring. Why
6

not now? If not, hopefully no one will be killed by hitting ice across the roadway due to improper
drainage. We call them “drainage ditches” for a reason – they’re supposed to collect and drain water,
not keep it impounded to make a ‘mosquito motel’

The haphazard, shoddy reparations that have occurred so far continue to display the lack of integrity
throughout the DOT Division 11 establishment. For example, a portion of the last culvert pipe that
was installed at the end of the road (Station 90) by Division 11 had been sheered off by a trackhoe
during installation. Instead of fixing the ripped culvert pipe they decided to cover it up with dirt. This
shoddy work was discovered by the paving company when they noticed it had caved in. Division 11
came back on Friday October 9th to repair it. Aaron Myers decided that the repair would be to wrap
the hole with a piece of metal rather than to replace it. Another example is when they Division 11 was
caught stealing water from Millers Creek Water Association.

What else will we find that has been covered up by Division 11 as time goes on?

I would like to also point out that evidently the 30 day rule does not apply to Division 11 either. All
sections are under the 30 day design and MUST be permanently stabilized within 30 days of the time
clearing and grubbing begins. This road is no where near stabilized. This is evident from the mud
slide that occurred.

4. SPEAKING OF INTEGRITY, we would like to know who is going to compensate us for the DOT
using our pastures as a waste pit? Was a permit ever issued to use our property as a waste pit area?
Our pastures should not have been used as your dumping area!
The road is only supposed to be 32 feet wide from shoulder to ditch according to Mr. Slaughter (see
attached e-mail). Ironically the roadway bordering our pastures from shoulder to ditch is anywhere
from 36 to 50 feet. The shoulders in our pastures are 9 to 17 feet.
We should be compensated by the DOT for the excess land taken to create exceptionally wide
shoulders without permission of the property owners.

As you can see, there are still serious issues to be addressed before the NCDOT Division 11 turns
their back on the Hackett Town Road "folly". Please address these issues with the necessary
personnel and provide your response to each item noted above right away. We look forward to both
your response and the resolution of these issues quickly.

Thank You.

Bobby Triplett

and

Stacey Triplett

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

7