WQCSD0287_Regional Office Physical File Scan Up To 1/15/2021

P 1'
ROY COOP.-R—
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
&cretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN:
Director
Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
- March 30, 2017
Mr: Barrj Jones, Chairman
Cliffside Sanitary District
Post Office Box 122
Cliffside, North Carolina 28024
SUBJECT: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Cliffside Sanitary District Deemed Collection System
Permit No: WQCSD0287
Rutherford County
Dear Mr. Jones:
Enclosed please find a copy of the deemed collection system inspection conducted on March 29, 2017. The collection system was
found to be in compliance with permit WQCSD0287. There are two pump stations currently on this system both of which were
observed during this inspection. Flow contributions originate from approximately 70 homes,.2 schools, and 1 industry. No violations
of permit conditions or applicable,regulations were observed during this inspection. Continue to operate and maintain the collection
system in compliance with the requirements outlined in 15A NCAC 02T for Wastewater Collection Systems'.
• Continue to pursue the engineering evaluation to route wastewater flow from the Cliffside collection system"to the Town of
Forest City, and eliminate the Cliffside WWTP. The Division of Water Resources and associated state agencies within DEQ
may be able to assist with this initiative.
The assistance of, Mr...Mike-Gibert_d.uring the inspection was greatly appreciated. If there are questions or additional
informationis needed-regarding•system opefation, rnaintenance, or permit questions; please feel free to contact meat 828-
296-4500. Please refer to the enclosed inspection report for additional observations and comments.
Sincerely,
Tim Heim, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Enc.
cc: Buren Bailey/Michael Franklin Gibert, ORC
MSC 1617-Central Files -Basement
Asheville -Files
G:\WR\WQ\Rutherford\Collection Systems\Cliffside Sanitary District WQCSD0287\CEI letter 2-3-2017.doc
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
2090 U.S. Highway 70 Swannanoa, NC 28778
828 296 4500

' l
Compliance Inspection Report
jPermit: WQCSD0287 Effective: 11/08/07 Expiration: Owner: Cliffside Sanitary District
SOC: Effective: Expiration: Facility: Cliffside Sanitary District WWTP
County: Rutherford136 Hawkins Loop Rd
. � '
Region: Asheville
Mooresboro NC 28114
Contact Person: Greg Blake . Title: Phone: [phone]
Directions to Facility:
System Classifications:
Primary ORC: Certification: Phone_:
Secondary ORC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): .
J
Related Permits:
Inspection Date: 03/28/2017 Entry Time: 09:00AM Exit Time: 01:OOPM
Primary Inspector: Timothy H Heim ~� `1��7 Phone: [phone]
Secondary Inspector(s):
Amy Annino
onfgfipspection: _,;i_Routine : __...: Inspection Type.,._ , ollec$ionSystem Inspect Non Sampling
Permit Inspection Type: Deemed permitted collection system management and operation
Facility Status: E.Compliant Not Compliant
Question Areas:
Miscellaneous Questions Operation & Maint Reqmts Records
Inspections Pump -Station Manhole
Lines
(See attachment summary)
Page: 1

Permit: WQCSD0287 Owner - Facility: Cliffside Sanitary District
Inspection Date: 03/28/2017 Inspection Type: Collection System Inspect Non Sampling Reason for Visit: Rot
Inspection Summary:
Tim Heim and Amy Annino of the Asheville Regional Office performed a Compliance Evaluation Inspection on March 28th,
2017. Mike Gibert (ORC) assisted With the inspection and with records and sampling results review. The deemed permitted
collection facility appeared well maintained and operated at the time of the inspection, and in compliance with Permit
WQCSD0287.
The following items were noted in the inspection:
A contractor, HST, provides most of the equipment, personnel, and support for maintenance of the CS. This includes a jet
and vactor truck. The ORC indicates this support is adequate to maintain the collection system in its current state.
Economic conditions in the area served by the collection system have deteriorated in recent years (textile mill closure) to
the point where the tax base may be inadequate to support proper upkeep and maintenance of the collection system,and
WWTP. A Joint Sewer Study was performed by WK Dickson & CO Engineering in 2014, and a follow-up engineering
evaluation is being performed to ascertain the feasibility of connecting the Cliffside collection system to the Forest City
WWI-P. This would provide a long-term solution to maintaining the collection system, eliminate the Cliffside WWTP
discharge, and should be supported by DEQ staff wherever possible.
Page: 2

Permit: WQCSD0287 Owner - Facility: Cliffside Sanitary District
Inspection Date: 03/28/2017 Inspection Type.: Collection System Inspect Non Sampling Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspections
Are maintenance records for sewer lines available?
Are records available that document pump station inspections?
Are SCADA or telemetry equipped pump stations inspected at least once a week?
Are non-SCADA/telemetry equipped pump stations inspected every day?
Are records available that document citizen complaints?
# Do you have a system to conduct an annual observation of entire system?
# Has there been an observation of remote areas in the last year?
Are records available that document inspections of. high -priority lines?
Has there been visual inspections of high -priority lines in last six months?
Comment: The system has oniv 70 connections, anv complaints are routed directiv throuah Broad River
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
0❑❑❑
■❑❑❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑❑■❑
■❑❑-❑
❑ ❑ ❑
■❑❑❑
Water Authority or the maintenance contractor (HST) and addressed immediately.
Operation & Maintenance Requirements ,Yes No NA NE
Are all log books available? A ❑ ❑ ❑
Does supervisor review all log books on a regular basis? ❑ ❑ ❑
Does the supervisor have plans to address documented short-term problem areas? ❑ ❑ ❑
What is the schedule for reviewing inspection, maintenance, & operations logs and problem areas?
Log books are reviewed regularly and problems areas are addressed immediately due to the small size of
the system.
Are maintenance records for equipment available? ❑ ❑ ❑ _
Is a schedule maintained for testing emergency/standby equipment?
What is the schedule.for.testing emergency/standby equipment?
Do pump station logs include:
Inside and outside cleaning and debris removal?
Inspecting and exercising all valves?
Inspecting and lubricating pumps and other equipment?
Inspecting alarms, telemetry and auxiliary equipment?
Is there at least one spare pump for each pump station w/o pump reliability?
Are maintenance records for right-of-ways available?
Are right-of-ways currently accessible in the event of an emergency?
Are system cleaning records available?
Has at least 10% of system been cleaned annually?
❑ ❑ ❑
Weekly + Routine
Maintenance
■❑❑❑
❑ ❑ ❑
■❑❑❑
■❑❑❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑❑❑,
■❑❑❑
❑ ❑ ❑
Page: 3

Permit: WQCSD0287. Owner - Facility: Cliffside Sanitary District
Inspection Date: 03/28/2017 Inspection Type : Collection System Inspect Non Sampling Reason for Visit: Routine
Operation & Maintenance Requirements
What areas are scheduled for cleaning in the next 12 months?
The system is divided into sections, and more than 10% of the system is cleaned annually. Cleaning is
performed based on the next section in the schedule or visual evidence of debris accumulation in the lines.
The next section scheduled for cleaning is the Haynes Pump Station area.
Is a Spill Response Action Plan available?
Does the plan include:
24-hour contact numbers
Response time
Equipment list and spare parts inventory
Access to cleaning equipment
Access to construction crews, contractors, and/or engineers
Source of emergency funds
Site sanitation and cleanup materials
Post-overflow/spill assessment
Is a Spill Response Action Plan available for all personnel?
Is the spare parts inventory adequate? -
Comment: Consider posting a one -page emergency contact/procedures flyer on the wall of the WWTP
facility.
Records....-.
Are adequate records of all SSOs, spills and complaints available?
Are records of SSOs that are under the reportable threshold available?
Do spill records indicate repeated overflows (2 or more in 12 months) at same location?
If yes, is there a corrective action plan?
Is a map of the system available?
Does the map include:
Pipe sizes
Pipe materials
Pipe location
Flow direction
Approximate pipe age
Number of service taps
Pump stations and capacity
If no, what percent is complete?
Yes No NA NE
■❑❑❑
■❑❑❑'
■❑❑❑
0. ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
■❑a❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
110 ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA- NE --
❑❑■❑
❑■❑❑
❑❑■❑
■❑❑❑
■❑❑❑
❑ ❑ ❑
■.❑❑❑
■❑❑❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
111111
Page: 4

Permit WQCSD0287 Owner - Facility: Cliffside Sanitary District
Inspection Date: 03/28/2017 Inspection Type: Collection System Inspect Non Sampling Reason for Visit: Routine
Records Yes No NA NE
List any modifications and extensions that need to be added to the map
NA, an envineering study is being performed to connect the, system to Forest City Collection System and
elminate the Cliffside WWTP.
# Does the permittee have a copy of their permit?0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
NA, an engineering study is being performed to connect the system to Forest City Collection
System and eliminate the Cliffside WvvrP.
Page: 5

Permit: WQCSD0287
SOC:
County: Rutherford
Region: Asheville
Contact Person: Greg Blake
Directions to Facility:
System Classifications:
Primary ORC:
Secondary ORC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
Compliance Inspection Report
Effective: 11/08/07 Expiration: Owner: Cliffside Sanitary District
Effective: Expiration: Facility: Cliffside Sanitary District WWTP
136 Hawkins Loop Rd
Mooresboro NC 28114
Title: Phone: [phone]
Certification:
0
Phone:
Inspection Date: 03/28/2017 Entry Time: 09:OOAM Exit Time: 01:OOPM
Primary Inspector: Timothy H Heim Phone: [phone]
Secondary Inspector(s):
Amy Annino
Reason for Inspection: Routine Inspection Type: Collection System Inspect Non Sampling
Permit Inspection Type: Deemed permitted collection system management and operation
Facility Status: Compliant Not Compliant
Question Areas:
Miscellaneous Questions Operation & Maint Reqmts Records
Inspections Pump Station Manhole
Lines
(See attachment summary)
Page: 1

Permit: WQCSD0287 Owner - Facility: Cliffside Sanitary District
Inspection Date: 03/28/2017 Inspection Type : Collection System Inspect Non Sampling Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Tim Heim and Amy Annino of the Asheville Regional Office performed a Compliance Evaluation Inspection on March 28th,
2017. Mike Gibert (ORC) assisted with the inspection and with records and sampling results review. The deemed permitted
collection facility appeared well maintained and operated at the time of the inspection, and in compliance with Permit
WQCSD0287.
The following items were noted in the inspection:
A contractor, HST, provides most of the equipment, personnel, and support for maintenance of the CS. This includes a jet
and vactor truck. The ORC indicates this support is adequate to maintain the collection system in its current state.
Economic conditions in the area served by the collection system have deteriorated in recent years (textile mill closure) to
the point where the tax base may be inadequate to support proper upkeep and maintenance of the collection system and
WWTP. A Joint Sewer Study was performed by WK Dickson & CO Engineering in 2014, and a follow-up engineering
evaluation is being performed to ascertain the feasibility of connecting the Cliffside collection system to the Forest City
WWTP. This would provide a long-term solution to maintaining the collection system, eliminate the Cliffside WWTP
discharge, and should be supported by DEQ staff wherever possible.
Page: 2

Permit: WQCSD0287 Owner - Facility: Cliffside Sanitary District
Inspection Date: 03/28/2017 Inspection -Type : Collection System Inspect Non Sampling Reason for visit: Routine
Inspections Yes No NA NE
Are maintenance records for sewer lines available? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are records available that document pump station inspections? N ❑ ❑ ❑
Are SCADA or telemetry equipped pump stations inspected at least once a week? ❑ ❑' ❑
Are non-SCADA/telemetry equipped pump stations inspected every day? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are records available that document citizen complaints? ❑ ❑ N ❑
# Do you have a system to conduct an annual observation of entire system? ❑ ❑ ❑
# Has there been an observation of remote areas in the last year? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are records available that document inspections of high -priority lines? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Has there been visual inspections of high -priority lines in last six months? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: The system has only 70 connections, any complaints are routed directly through Broad River
Water Authority or the maintenance contractor (HST) and addressed immediately.
Operation & Maintenance Requirements
Are all log books available?
Does supervisor review all log books on a regular basis?
Does the supervisor have plans to address documented short-term problem areas?
What is the schedule for reviewing inspection, maintenance, & operations logs and problem areas?
Log books are reviewed regularly and problems areas, are addressed immediately due to the small size of
the system.
Are maintenance records for equipment available?
Is a schedule maintained for testing emergency/standby equipment?
What is the schedule for testing emergency/standby equipment?
Do pump station logs include:
Inside and outside cleaning and debris removal? -
Inspecting and exercising all valves?
Inspecting and lubricating pumps and other equipment?
Inspecting alarms, telemetry and auxiliary equipment?
Is there at least one spare pump for each pump station w/o pump reliability?
Are maintenance records for right-of-ways available?
Are right-of-ways currently accessible in the event of an emergency?, .
Are system cleaning records available?.
Has at least 10% of system been cleaned annually?
What areas are scheduled for cleaning in the next 12 months?
The system is divided into sections, and more than 10% of the system is cleaned annually. Cleaning is
performed based on the next section in the schedule or visual evidence of debris accumulation in the lines.
The next section scheduled for cleaning is the Haynes Pump Station area.
Is a Spill Response Action Plan available?
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
E ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
■❑❑❑
ff
❑ ❑ ❑
Weekly + Routine
Maintenance
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
■. ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
■❑❑❑
Page: 3

Permit: WQCSD0287 Owner - Facility: Cliffside Sanitary District
Inspection Date: 03/28/2017 Inspection Type : Collection System Inspect Non Sampling . Reason for Visit:
Routine
Does the plan include:
24-hour contact numbers
Response time
M❑ ❑ Q
Equipment list and spare parts inventory
M❑ ❑ Q
Access to cleaning equipment
'� Q
Access to construction crews, contractors, and/or engineers
M❑ ❑ ❑
Source of emergency funds
M El ❑ ❑ '
Site sanitation and cleanup materials
M ❑ ❑ ❑
Post-overflow/spill assessment
M❑ ❑
Is a Spill Response Action Plan available for all personnel?
0 El ❑ Q
Is the spare parts inventory adequate?
M❑ ❑ ❑
Comment: Consider posting a one -page emergency contact/procedures flyer on the wall of the WWTP
facility.
Records
Yes No NA NE
Are adequate records of all SSOs, spills and complaints available? ❑ ❑ 0 0'
Are records of 9S0s that are under the reportable threshold available? 110 ❑
Do spill records indicate repeated overflows (2 or more in 12 months) at same location? ❑ M
If yes, is there a corrective action plan? ❑
110
Is a map of the system available? ❑
Does the map include:
Pipe sizes
Pipe materials
Pipe location M❑ ❑
Flow direction M❑ ❑
Approximate pipe age 0 El ❑ ❑
Number of service taps 0 Q ❑ ❑
Pump stations and capacity M ❑ ❑
If no, what percent is complete?
List any modifications and extensions that need to be added to the map
NA, an envineering study is being performed to connect the system to Forest City Collection System and
elminate the Cliffside WWTP.
# Does the permittee have a copy of their permit? ❑ ❑
Comment:
NA, an engineering study is being performed to connect the system to Forest City Collection
System and eliminate the Cliffside WWTP.
Page: 4

f E11212
;�
NC®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Secretary
June 18, 2014
Greg Blake
Cliffside Sanitary District
PO Box 427
Cliffside NC 28024
SUBJECT: Collection System Inspection
Cliffside Sanitary District WWTP
Permit No: WQCSD0287
Rutherford County
Dear Mr. Blake:
Enclosed please find a copy of the collection system inspection conducted on May 13, 2014. The facility was
found to be in compliance with permit WQCSD0287. There are two pump stations currently on this system both
of which were observed during this inspection. Flow contributions originate -from 70 homes, 2 schools, and 1
industry. No violations of permit conditions or applicable regulations were observed during this inspection.
Please refer to the enclosed inspection report for additional observations and comments. If you or your.staff
have any questions, please 11 me at 828=296-4500.
'Sincerely,
Jeff Menzel
Environmental Specialist
Enc.
cc: Buren Bailey/Michael Franklin Gibert, ORC
MSC 1617-Central Files -Basement
��evi�lle�Fxlesii
Water Quality Regional Operations — Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. Highway 70, Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: http://portal.nedenr.orgtweb/wq
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
G:IWRIWQIRutherfordlCollection SystemslCliffside Sanitary District WQCSD028AWQCSDO287 CEI 2014.doc

P1 P
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Form Approved.
EPA Washington, D.C. 20460
OMB No. 2040-0057
Water Compliance Inspection Report
Approval expires 8-31-98
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type
Inspector Fac Type
1 IN 1 2 ISj 3 1 NC0004405 111 12 14/05/13 17 18 1 r,1
Ld
19 1 G I 201 I
211 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I- I I I I I I I .I I I I I- I I
I I I I I 1 1 1 t66
Inspection
Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA
Reserved-
67
70 LJ 71 1 1- 72 LJr1 731 751 1 1 1 1 11I
80
Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include
Entry Time/Date
Permit Effective Date
POTW name and NPDES permit Number)
12:OOPM 14/05/13
08/10/01
Cliffside Sanitary District WWTP
3400 Hwy 221-A
Exit Time/Date
Permit Expiration Date
Cliffside NC 28024
01:00PM 14/05/13
13/07/31
Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Tities(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
Other Facility Data
Michael Franklin GiberNORC/828-657-9180/
Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
Michael Franklin Gibert,376 Aqua Dr Forest City NC 28043//828-657-9180/
No
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated)
Permit Operations & MaintenancE 0 Facility Site Review
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
(See attachment summary)
Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers
Date
Jeff Menzel ARO WQ//828-296A500/
0
Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers
Date
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Page#

NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type (Cont.) 1
31 NC0004405 I11 12 14/05/13 17 18 1,, i
Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary)
There are only 70 homes, 2 schools and 1 industry (Abercrombie 10,000 god process water)
contributing to the system, there are no funds available for improvements. The WWTP is showing
signs of deterioration due to age and lack of funds for maintenance. A county wide engineering study
has been conducted regarding water and sewer infrastructure. The results of that study may steer the
direction of this VW TP's future as a viable facility. No violations of permit requirement or applicable
regulations were observed during this inspection.
Page#

Permit: N00004405 Owner - Facility: Cliffside Sanitary District VWVrP
Inspection Date: 05/13/2014 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Operations & Maintenance
Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping?
Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable
Solids, pH, DO, Sludge Judge, and other that are applicable?
Comment:
Permit
(If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the perm.ittee submitted a new
application?
Is the facility as described in the permit?
# Are there any special conditions for the permit?
Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public?
Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection?
Comment:
Yes No Na Ne
® ❑ ❑ ❑
N ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No Na Ne
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
N ❑ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page# 3

Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: WQCSD0287 Effective: 11/08/07 Expiration: Owner: Cliffside Sanitary District
SOC: Effective: Expiration: Facility: Cliffside Sanitary District WWTP
County: Rutherford 3400 Hwy 221-A
Region: Asheville
Cliffside NC 28024
Contact Person: Greg Blake Title: Phone: [phone]
Directions to Facility:.
System Classifications:
Primary ORC: Certification: Phone:
Secondary ORC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
On -site representative Mike Gibert Phone: [phone]
Related Permits:
Inspection Date: 05/13/2014 Entry Time: 09:30 AM Exit Time: 12:00 PM
Primary Inspector: Jeff Menzel Phone: [phone]
Secondary Inspector(s): 01
Reason for Inspection: Routine Inspection Type: Collection System Inspect Non Sampling
Permit Inspection Type: Deemed permitted collection system management and
operation
Facility Status: ■ Compliant Q Not Compliant
Question Areas:
Miscellaneous Questions 0 Operation & Maint Reqmts N Records Inspections
Pump Station N Manhole N Lines
(See attachment summary)
Page: 1

Permit: WQCSD0287 Owner - Facility: Cliffside Sanitary District
Inspection Date: 05/13/2014 Inspection Type: Collection System Inspect Non Sampling Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
There are two pump stations currently on this system both of which were observed during this inspection. Flow
contributions originate from 70 homes, 2 schools, and 1 industry (Abercrombie 10,000 gpd process water). The owners of
this system have had difficulty with manhole lids and rings being stolen, presumably to be sold for scrap metal. No
violations of permit conditions or applicable regulations were observed during this inspection.
Page: 2

Permit: WQCSD0287 Owner - Facility: Cliffside Sanitary District
Inspection Date: 05/13/2014 Inspection Type: Collection System Inspect Non Sampling Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspections Yes No NA NE
Are maintenance records for sewer lines available? . ® n n n
Are records available that document pump station inspections?
®
n
n n
Are SCADA or telemetry equipped pump stations inspected at least once a week?
®
n
n n
Are non-SCADA/telemetry equipped pump stations inspected every day?
■
n
n n
Are records available that document citizen complaints?
®
n
n n
# Do you have a system to conduct an annual observation of entire system?
❑
n n
# Has there been an observation of remote areas in the last year?
B
n
n n
Are records available that document inspections of high -priority lines?
®
n
n n
Has there been visual inspections of high -priority lines in last six months?
■
n
n n
Comment:
Operation & Maintenance Requirements Yes No NA NE
Are all log books available? ® n n n
Does supervisor review all log books on a regular basis? ® n n n
Does the supervisor have plans to address documented short-term problem areas? . ® Cl n n
What is the schedule for reviewing inspection, maintenance, & operations logs and problem areas?
Are maintenance records for equipment available?
■
n
n
n
Is a schedule maintained for testing emergency/standby equipment?
■
n
n
n
What is the schedule for testing emergency/standby equipment?
Do pump station logs include:
Inside and outside cleaning and debris removal?
■
n
n
n
Inspecting and exercising all valves?
■
n
n
n
Inspecting and lubricating pumps and other equipment?
■
n
n
n
Inspecting alarms, telemetry and auxiliary equipment?
■
n
n
n
Is there at least one spare pump for each pump station w/o pump reliability?
■
n
n
n -
Are maintenance records for right-of-ways available?
n
n
n
Are right-of-ways currently accessible in the event of an emergency?
■
n
n
Cl
Are system cleaning records available?
®
n
n
n
Has at least 10% of system been cleaned annually?
■
n
n
n
Page: 3

Permit: WQCSD0287 Owner - Facility: Cliffside Sanitary District
Inspection Date: 05/13/2014 Inspection Type: Collection System Inspect Non Sampling Reason for Visit: Routine
What areas are scheduled for cleaning in the next 12 months?
Regular cleaning is done by HST Environmental Inc. Approximately 3825 feet of sewer had been cleaned in
the last year.
Is a Spill Response Action Plan available? ® n n ❑
Does the plan include:
24-hour contact numbers
Response time
Equipment list and spare parts inventory
Access to cleaning equipment
Access to construction crews, contractors, and/or engineers
Source of emergency funds
Site sanitation and cleanup materials
Post-overflow/spill assessment
Is a Spill Response Action Plan available for all personnel?
Is the spare parts inventory adequate?
Comment:
Records
Are adequate records of all SSOs, spills and complaints available?
Are records of SSOs that are under the reportable threshold available?
Do spill records indicate repeated overflows (2 or more in 12 months) at same location?
If yes, is there a corrective action plan?
Is a map of the system available?
Does the map include:
Pipe sizes
Pipe materials
Pipe location
Flow direction
Approximate pipe age
Number of service taps
Pump stations and capacity
If no, what percent is complete?
Yes No NA NE
®nnn
®nnn
■nnn
®nnn
1-1
n®nn
■nnn
80%
Page: 4

Permit: WQCSD0287 Owner - Facility: Cliffside Sanitary District
Inspection Date: 05/13/2014 Inspection Type: Collection System Inspect Non Sampling Reason for Visit: Routine
List any modifications and extensions that need to be added to the map
# Does the permittee have a copy of their permit?
Comment:
Page: 5

'utherford CouAt Municipalities
Joint Sewer Study
Pro'ject Noy 201.a01'58.00 GL
• Issue Date dun®19, <2014.
Citental nforrrtat�on
- Ruthertord; County'
289 N Mafn Si;
_ Rutheifordtoh, NC 28739 -
'tea 1W
WK Dickson & Co , Ine;
..Cl-goonnade Dnve
otte, NC 28205
vwwvwkdcksoncorii
chsF(oife(a7wkdickso& _
;NGE�0374.

Table of Contents
Section
Page
Executive Summary
1
ES.1 - Project Purpose
1
ES.2 - Project Description
1
ES.3 - Project Scope
1
ES.4 - Findings
2
ES.5 - Recommendations
15
ES.6 - Obstacles
19
ES.7 - Conclusions
19
Section 1 - Introduction
1-1
1.1 - Project Description
1-1
1.2 - Definitions
1-1
1.3 - Project Scope
1-2
Section 2 - System Descriptions
2-1
2.1 - Cliffside Sanitary District
2-1
2.2 - Forest City
2-4
2.3 - Lake Lure
2-12
2.4 - Rutherfordton
2-13
2.5 - Spindale
2-15
2.6 - Findings
2-18
2.7 - Recommendations
2-18
Section 3 - Mapping / CIS
3-1
3.1 -Summary
3-1
3.2 - Background
3-1
3.3 - Benefits of a GIS Database
3-2
3.4 - Collecting Attribute Data Specific to each System Component
3-2
3.5 - Accurate and Up -to -Date Data
3-3
3.6 - Ease of Compliance with Accounting Regulations
3-3
3.7 - Sharing Data between the Towns and the County
3-4
3.8 - Findings
3-4
3.9 - Recommendations
3-5
Section 4 - Flow Analysis
4.1 -Summary
4.2 - Inflow and Infiltration
4.3 - Cliffside
4.4 - Forest City
4.5 - Lake Lure
4.6 - Rutherfordton
4.7 - Spindale
4.8 - System Inflow & Infiltration Summary
�DICKSON
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-6
4-7
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
Rutherford County / Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
20130158.00. CL
,Issue Date: June 19, 2014
Page TOC-1

Table of Contents
4.9 - Findings 4-15
4.10 - Recommendations 4-15
Section 5 - Staffing and Operations 5-1
5.1 -Summary
5-1
5.2 - Cliffside
5-1
5.3 - Forest City
5-2
5.4 - Lake Lure
5-4
5.5 - Rutherfordton
5-6
5.6 - Spindale
5-7
5.7 - Regulatory Climate
5-10
5.8 - Staffing Assessment
5-14
5.9 -Findings
5-15.
5.10 - Recommendations
5-15
Section 6 -Options for Consolidation 6-1
6.1 -Summary 6-1
6.2 - Potential Management Systems 6-1
6.3 - Findings 6-5
6.4 - Recommendations 6-9
Section 7 - Management System Considerations & Timeframes 7-1
7.1 -Summary 7-1
7.2 - Statutory Procedures 7-2
7.3 - Organizational Mechanism 7-2
7.4 - Time Considerations / Time Line 7-2
Section 8 - Physical Condition Analysis 8-1
8.1 -Summary 8-1
8.2 - Asset Management Plans and Capital Improvement Plans 8-1
8.3 - Physical Condition of Sewer Collection Systems 8-2
8.4 - Physical Condition of Treatment Plants 8-4
8.5 - Findings 8-11
8.6 - Recommendations 8-12
Section 9 - County Domestic Sewer Service Analysis 9-1
9.1 -Summary 9-1
9.2 - Opinions of Probable Cost 9-2
Section 10 - Economic Development Sewer Service Analysis 10-1
10.1 -Summary 10-1
10.2 - Opinions of Probable Cost 10-2
Rutherford County / Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
20130158.00. CL
Issue Date: June 19, 2014
K'' ., Page TOC-2
r

Section 11 —
Financial Analysis
11.1 —Summary
11.2 —
Financial Information
11.3 —
Rate Structures
11.4 —
Opinions of Probable Cost
11.5 —
Financial Model
11.6 —
Legislative Actions & Issues
11.7 —
Findings
11.8 —
Recommendations
Section 12 —
Case Studies -
12.1 —Summary
12.2 -
Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority
12.3 —
Westpoint-Stevens / Scotland Co. / Lumbar River COG
12.4 —
Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarr.us County
12.5 —Cape
Fear Public Utility Authority
Section 13 —
References
NM:
Table of Contents
11-1
11-1
11-4
11-8
11-10
11-16
11-17.
11-18
12-1
12-1
12-1
12-2
12-3
12-4
13-1
Rutherford County / Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
20130158.00.CL
Issue Date: June 19, 2014
Page TOC-3

r
Table of Contents
Tables Paee
Table ES-1 Sewer Rate Comparison for a 5,000 gallon per month Residential Customer 6
Table ES-2
County / Joint Municipalities Opinions of Probable Cost
6
Table ES-3
Other Rutherford County Opinions of Probable Cost
7
Table ES.4
Infiltration Parameter Check
7
Table ES.5
Inflow Calculation
7
Table ES.6
Capacities of Project Stakeholders WWTPs
7
Table ES.7
'Rutherford County Domestic Sewer Service Analysis Opinions of
Probable Costs
9
Table ES.8
Rutherford County Economic Development Sewer Service Analysis
Opinions of Probable Costs
9
Table 2-1
Cliffside Collection System Line Descriptions
2-1
Table 2-2
Forest City Second Broad River Collection System Line Descriptions
2-4
Table 2-3
Forest City Pump Station Details
2-6
Table 24
Spindale Pump Station Details
2-15
Table 3-1
GIS Data Received from the Project Stakeholders
3-2
Table 4-1
Cliffside WWTP Effluent Flow Data
4-7
Table 4-2
Forest City Second Broad River WWTP Effluent Flow Data
4-8
Table 4-3
Forest City I&I Study Results for Brackett Creek, Erwin,
Woodburn, and Dogwood Pump Station Sewer Basins
4-8
Table 4-4
Lake Lure WWTP Effluent Flow Data
4-9
Table 4-5
Rutherfordton WWTP Effluent Flow Data
4-11
Table 4-6
Spindale WWTP Effluent Flow Data
4-11
Table 4-7
Criteria for Non -Excessive Infiltration Determination
4-13
Table 4-8
Infiltration Estimates
4-13
Table 4-9
Infiltration Parameter Check
4-14
Table 4-10
Inflow Calculations
4-14
Table 4-11
Capacities of Project Stakeholders WWTP's
4-15
Table 5.1. .
Recommended Collection System Staffing - _ .
5-14
Table 5-2
Recommended WWTP Staffing
5-14
Table 7-1
Management System Time Frame
7-3
Table 8-1
Town of Forest City Permit Violations for 2011 and 2012
8-5
Table 9-1
Rutherford County Domestic Sewer Service Analysis Opinions of
Probable Costs
9-2
Table 10.1
Rutherford County Economic Development Sewer Service Analysis
Opinions of Probable Costs
10-2
Table 11.1
Cliffside Sanitary District Sewer Rates
11-4
Table 11.2
Forest City Sewer Rates
11-4
Table 11.3
Lake Lure Sewer Rates
11-5
Table 11.4
Rutherfordton Sewer Rates
11-5
Table 11.5
Spindale Sewer Rates
11-5
Table 11.6
Sewer Rate Comparison for a 5,000 gallon per month Residential Customer
11-7
Table 11.7
County / Joint Municipalities Opinions of Probable Cost
11-9
Table 11.8
Other Rutherford County Opinions of Probable Cost
11-10
Rutherford County / Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
20130158.00.CL
Issue Date: June 19, 2014
t1: Page TOC-4

Table of Contents
Figures
Page
Figure 4-1
Forest City WWTP Effluent Flow Data versus Rainfall
4-9
Figure 11-1
Consolidation of Lake Lure, Rutherfordton and Spindale — Total
Revenue & Expenses and Debt Service Coverage Ratio
11-12
Figure 11-2
Consolidation oflake Lure, Rutherfordton and Spindale —Total
Revenue & Expenses and Rate per 5,000 Gallons
11-13
Figure 11-3
Consolidation of Cliffside, Lake Lure, Rutherfordton and Spindale
with Forest City — Total Revenue & Expenses and Debt Service
Coverage Ratio
11-14
Figure 11-4
Consolidation of Cliffside, Lake Lure, Rutherfordton and Spindale
with Forest City — Total Revenue & Expenses and Rates per 5,000
Gallons
11-14
Figure 11-5
Consolidation of Cliffside with Forest City — Total Revenue &
Expenses and Debt Service Coverage Ratio
11-15
Figure 11-6
Consolidation of Cliffside with Forest City — Total Revenue &
Expenses and Rates per 5,000 Gallons
11-16
In
0
Rutherford County / Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
20130158.00.CL
a _.; - Issue Date: June 19, 2014
� Page TOC-5

Table of Contents
Appendices
Appendix 2.1 - Project Stakeholders NPDES Permit Summary
Appendix 3.1 - Composite GIS Map
Appendix 5.1 -Staff Complements for Wastewater Collection System Maintenance based on
Population Size
Appendix 5.2 - Recommended Collection System Staffing
Appendix 5.3 - Recommended Treatment Staffing
Appendix 6.1 - Characteristics of State Authorized Institutional Arrangements for the Provision of
Water and/or Wastewater Service in North Carolina
Appendix 9.1 - Domestic Sewer System Analysis Opinions of Probable Costs
Appendix 10.1 - Rutherford County Economic Development Sewer Service Analysis Opinions of
Probable Costs
Appendix 11.1 - Cliffside Sanitary District Sewer Rates
Appendix 11.2 - Cliffside Sanitary District Financial Information
Appendix 11.3 - Cliffside Sanitary District 2012 / 2013 Sewer Usage Data
Appendix 11.4 - Forest City Sewer Rates
Appendix 11.5 - Forest City Financial Information
Appendix 11.6 - Forest City 2012 / 2013 Sewer Usage Data
Appendix 11.7 - Lake Lure Sewer Rates
Appendix 11.8 - Lake Lure Financial Information
Appendix 11.9 - Lake Lure 2012 / 2013 Sewer Usage Data
Appendix 11.10 - Rutherfordton Sewer Rates
Appendix 11.11 - Rutherfordton Financial Information
Appendix 11.12 - Rutherfordton 2012 / 2013 Sewer Usage Data
Appendix 11.13 - Spindale Sewer Rates
Appendix 11.14 - Spindale Financial Information
Appendix 11.15 - Spindale 2012 / 2013 Sewer Usage Data
Appendix 11.16 - Lake Lure to Rutherfordton WWTP Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix 1 1:1-7 - Cost to Upgrade Lake Lure WWTP-Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix 11.18 - Rutherfordton WWTP Upgrades to Handle Lake Lure & Equestrian Center
Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix 11.19 - Rutherfordton to Spindale WWTP Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix 11.20 - Upgrades to Spindale WWTP to Handle Rutherfordton & Lake Lure Opinion of
Probable Cost
Appendix 10.21 - Spindale to Rutherfordton WWTP Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix 10.22 - Spindale to Forest City Second Broad River WWTP Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix 11.23 - Spindale and Rutherfordton to Forest City WWTP Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix 11.24 - Cliffside to Forest City Second Broad River WWTP Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix 11.25 - Cliffside to Riverstone WWTP Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix 11.26 - Cliffside to Forest City DRG WWTP w/o Riverstone WWTP Opinion of Probable
Cost
Appendix 11.27 - Cliffside to Forest City DRG WWTP with Riverstone WWTP Opinion of
Probable Cost
Appendix 11.28 - Forest City Second Broad River WWTP Upgrades to Handle Cliffside,
Rutherfordton, and Spindale WWTP Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix 11.29 - Upgrades to Forest City Riverstone WWTP to Handle Cliffside Opinion of
Probable Cost
Appendix 11.30 - Upgrades to Forest City DRG WWTP to Handle Cliffside and Riverstone
Opinion of Probable Cost
Rutherford County / Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
20130158.00.CL
Issue Date: June 19, 2014
KSON Page TOC-6 .

`o-
Table of Contents
Appendix 11.31 — Rutherford County Airport to Spindale Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix 11.32 — Area North of Rutherfordton /_Hwy 221 to Rutherfordton Opinion of Probable
Cost
Appendix 11.33 — Sewer Service to Ellenboro Henrietta Rd Interchange at Hwy 74 via FM to
Ellenboro Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix 11.34 — Sewer Service to E-Ilenboro Henrietta Rd Interchange at Hwy 74 via FM to
Henrietta Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix 11.35 — Service to Industrial Area on HWY 221 near Harris Elementary via PS & FM to
Spindale Torrington PS on Hwy 221 Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix 11.36 — Service to Industrial Area on Hwy 221 near Harris Elementary via PS & FM to
Forest City Riverstone WWTP
Appendix 11.37 — Hwy. 221 / US 74 Interchange PS Upgrade — Spindale Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix 11.38 — Forest City Central Business District Sewer Rehab (Post Bid) Opinion of
Probable Cost
Appendix 11.39 — Forest City Mill Street Area Sewer Rehabilitation Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix 11.40 — Forest City WWTP Large Aeration Basin & Digester Improvements Opinion of
Probable Cost
Appendix 11.41 — Spindale — Rehabilitation of Trunk Line A3 Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix 11.42 — Spindale — Rehabilitation of Trunk Line A2 Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix 11.43 — Spindale — Rehabilitation of Oak Street- PS — Southern Trunk Line Opinion of
Probable Cost
Appendix 11.44 — Spindale - Rehabilitation of Oak Street PS — Southern Trunk Line Opinion of
Probable Cost
Appendix 11.45 — Rutherfordton — Sewer Outfall to the Second Broad River Opinion of Probable
Cost
Appendix 11.46 — Sewer Operation & Maintenance Programs Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix 11.47 — Cliffside Continuing Sewer Assessment / Sanitary Sewer Evaluation
Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix 11.48 — Forest City Continuing Sewer Assessment / Sanitary Sewer Evaluation
Opinion of Probable.Cost,-
Appendix 11.49 — Lake Lure Continuing Sewer Assessment / Sanitary Sewer Evaluation
Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix 11.50 — Rutherfordton Continuing Sewer Assessment / Sanitary Sewer Evaluation
Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix 11.51 — Spindale Continuing Sewer Assessment / Sanitary Sewer Evaluation
Opinion of Probable Cost
Study
Study
Study
Study
Study
Appendix 11.52 — Upgrading the Rutherfordton WWTP from 3- MGD to 6 MGD Opinion of
Probable Costs
Appendix 11.53 — Table A.11.1 — Revenues & Expenses - All Project Stakeholders
Appendix 11.54 — Table A.11.2 — Revenue Projections - Consolidation of Lake Lure, Rutherfordton
& Spindale
Appendix 11.55 — Table A.11.3 — Capital- Improvements & Net Income - Consolidation of Lake
Lure, Rutherfordton & Spindale
Appendix 11.56 — Table A.11.4 — Revenue Projections - Consolidation of Cliffside Sanitary District,
Lake Lure, Rutherfordton, and Spindale with Forest City
Appendix 11.57 — Table A.11.5 — Capital Improvements & Net Income - Consolidation of Cliffside
Sanitary District, Lake Lure, Rutherfordton, and Spindale with Forest City
Appendix 11.58 — Table A.11.6 — Revenue Projections - Consolidation of Cliffside Sanitary District
with Forest City
Appendix 11.59 — Table A.11.7 — Capital Improvements & Net Income - Consolidation of Cliffside
Rutherford County / Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
20130158.00.CL 4`L
' Issue Date: June 19, 2014
��1PageTOC-7 '

'u
Table of Contents ,''
Sanitary District with Forest City
Appendix 11.60 — Figure 11-1 — Consolidation of Lake Lure, Rutherfordton and Spindale — Total
Revenue & Expenses and Debt Service Coverage Ratio
Appendix 11.61 — Figure 11-2 — Consolidation of Lake Lure, Rutherfordton and Spindale — Total
Revenue & Expenses and Rate per 5,000 Gallons
Appendix 11.62 — Figure 11-3 — Consolidation of Cliffside, Lake Lure, Rutherfordton and Spindale
with Forest City — Total Revenue & Expenses and Debt Service Coverage Ratio
Appendix 11.63 — Figure 11-4 — Consolidation of Cliffside, Lake Lure, Rutherfordton and Spindale
with Forest City — Total Revenue & Expenses and Rates per 5,000 Gallons
Appendix 11.64 — Figure 11-5 — Consolidation of Cliffside with Forest City — Total Revenue &
Expenses and Debt Service Coverage Ratio
Appendix 11.65 — Figure 11-6 — Consolidation of Cliffside with Forest City — Total Revenue &
Expenses and Rates per 5,000 Gallons
Rutherford County / Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
20130158.00.CL
Issue Date: June 19, 2014
.'a.o Page TOC-8

Executive Summary
Executive Summary
ES.1 'Project Purpose:
Rutherford County, the Town of'Forest City, the Town of Lake Lure, the Town of Spindale,.and the
Town of Rutherfordton have elected to evaluate the best long term strategies for providing sewer
service within the County and Towns.
ES.2 Project Description:
This project involved providing Professional Engineering Services for the Rutherford County /
Municipalities Joint .Sewer Study for Rutherford County, North Carolina. Rutherford County
(Owner) has eight (8) Towns within its boundaries. The Town of Lake Lure, the Town of Spindale
and the Town of Rutherfordton own and operate one (1) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
each. The Town of Forest City owns and operates two (2) WWTPs (and owns an additional WWTP
not currently in operation that was formerly owned by an industry). The Town of Ellenboro has a
sanitary collection system that pumps to the Town of Forest City's collection system and WWTP for
treatment. In addition, the Cliffside Sanitary District also owns and operates its own WWTP and
collection system.
The dramatic reduction in the textile industry that occurred in Rutherford County, beginning in the
1990's and continuing until the last few years, has resulted in a dramatic reduction in sewer flows
to the various WWTP's. Many of the WWTP's need extensive upgrades to meet current treatment
requirements. And, many of the Town's wastewater collection systems are plagued by Infiltration
and Inflow (I&I).
ES.3 Project Scope:
"...- The project included the following tasks: ` -- - " .... -. . . -
a. The compilation of a composite GIS map of the Project Stakeholders sewer systems
including sewer lines, force mains, pump stations and WWTP based on GIS data
provided by the Project Stakeholders.
b. The development of a summary of average daily flows, peak daily flows and peak hour
flows for each sewer collection system based on data provided by the Project
Stakeholders.
C. The development of a reasonable assessment of the volume of Inflow & Infiltration in
each Project Stakeholder's collection system.
d. An evaluation of the consolidation of sewer collection and treatment systems, including
the abandonment of inefficient WWTP's for and between the Project Stakeholders
along with opinions of probable cost.
e. An evaluation of the consolidation of collection system operations making use of
shared resources that included the identification of practical management systems for
the consolidation of the various sewer collection systems while taking into
consideration current and proposed legislation regarding utility management systems.
f. An analysis of areas within the County needing domestic sewer service.
g. An analysis of areas within the County needing sewer service for economic
development.
Rutherford County/ Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
�.; 1
20130158.00.CL
Issue Date: June 19, 2014
Page ge 1
- 1

Executive Summary
Building a utility financial model for proposed projects to determine and demonstrate
the financial feasibility of consolidation and to show multiyear cash flows as municipal
systems are interconnected in phases and provide the likely impacts on sewer rates.
ES.4 Findings:
Options for Consolidation
After reviewing the viable options for consolidation as well as discussion with Project Stakeholders
staff and elected officials, the following observations were noted:
a. Ownership of the sewer systems should be run responsibly.
b. Operational structures, policy and practices should remain sensitive to the specific
needs of the geographic areas that are served by the selected management system.
C. A new management system should be able to provide administrative and management
functions more efficiently and economically by a single organizational entity due to
economies of scale.
d. Economies of scale should result in lower long term unit costs for operation and
maintenance.
e. The individual Project Stakeholders may not be able to capitalize substantial
investments in new system capacity or new service infrastructure on their own.
f. New economic growth could be stunted by the Project Stakeholders inability to
respond to new demands beyond their existing service limits.
g. Financing mechanisms available to a new management entity should be flexible and
should approximate those available to municipal and county government in North
Carolina.
h. Improved planning and more effective investment of capital into the County's sewer
systems should lead to improved sewer system reliability; and,
i.�- :Both- Spindale -and Lake Lure are experiencing compliance issues associated with
meeting their NPDES permit limits.
In light of the findings and conclusions, the list of viable alternatives was reduced to the following:
a. Inter -Local Contracts or Inter -Governmental Agreements (IGA)
b. Joint Management Agency QMA)
C. Sewer Authority
d. Sanitary District
e. County Sewer District
A summary of the primary aspects and differences of the alternatives are listed below.
a. An IGA is different than a JMA in that a JMA requires action by each participating unit
on items / expenditures in order to move forward.
b. An IGA is applicable in situations where the other prescribed intergovernmental
mechanisms do not exactly apply to the situation and where complexities are too great
to deal with within the confines of the statutes for other organizational alternatives.
C. IGAs and JMAs are typically viewed as an interim step to some other form of
management entity.
,Rutherford County/ Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
. 20130158.00.CL
Issue Date: June 19, 2014
iR 111l Page 2

Executive Summary
d. An IGA and a JMA are different than a Sewer Authority, Sanitary District, and a County
Sewer District in that Legal title to real property must remain or rest with the
participating governments or government, or property may be held jointly as tenants in
common.
e. A JMA cannot issue revenue bonds or general obligation bonds, establish its rates &
charges, or levy property taxes or special assessments.
f. The Authority alternative is the best-known vehicle among the entities that are
considered viable options to independent municipal systems.
g. An Authority is an independent public body with a governing board; the number of
board members elected is left to the discretion of the respective local governments and
membership is appointed by the governmental units that organized it.
h. Authorities have the power to set and collect fees for service and to issue revenue
bonds.
i. Except for the appointment of membership, Authorities stand alone and its powers are
governed by statute and only limited by its charter of incorporation.
j. A Sanitary District or.a County Sewer District do possess the power to levy property
taxes or special assessments whereas an Authority does not.
k. A Sanitary District becomes an independent, ,corporate political body, and the county
commissioners elect a sanitary district board to serve as the district's governing body.
I. In order for a Sanitary District to be created, 51 percent or more of the property owners
within the proposed district must petition the board of commissioners in the county that
contains the largest portion of the district's land area.
M. A County Sewer District is a corporate political body, governed by the board of
,commissioners of the county in which the district is established.
n. The fact that Broad River Water Authority is already in existence is seen as a vehicle for
creating a new sewer management entity.
Financial Analysis
As part of the project, a comparison of the Project Stakeholders rates was conducted. Below in
Table ES.1 please find a sewer rate comparison amongst the project stakeholders.
Table ES-1 Sewer Rate Comnarison for a 5.000 eallon ner month Residential Customer
Stakeholder
Base
Per 1,000
3,000
5,000
10,000
Cliffside
$26.00
$5.05
$36.10
$46.20
$71.45
Lake Lure
Inside
$21.00
$3.68
$32.04
$39.40
$57.80
Outside
$42.00
$7.35
$64.05
$78.75
$115.50
Forest City
Inside
$14.95
$3.71
$14.95
$22.37
$40.92
Outside
$27.15
$6.97
$27.15
$41.09
$75.94
Rutherfordton
Inside _
$12.09
$4.70
$21.49
$30.89
$54.39
Outside
$36.27
$14.11
$64.49
$92.71
$163.26
Spindale
Inside
$16.00
$5.69
$27.38
$38.76
$67.21
Outside
$32.00
$11.38
$54.76
$77.52
$134.42
Average
$38.05
$51.97
$86.77
Average Inside
$26.39
$35.52
$58.35
Average Outside
$52.61
$72.52
$122.28
Rutherford County/ Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
�`..._, 20130158.00.CL
Issue Date: June 19, 2014
.�. Page 3

.. .14r
Executive Summary
Various capital projects were identified should consolidation occur. As a result, opinions of
probable costs for the various options are presented below in Table ES.2.
Table ES.2 County/Joint Municipalities Opinions of Probable Cost
Alternative
Probable Cost
A.
Lake Lure to Rutherfordton WWTP
$9,901,000
B.
Cost to Upgrade Lake Lure WWTP
$7,014,000
C.,
Rutherfordton WWTP Upgrades to Handle Lake Lure & Equestrian Center
$304,000
D.
Rutherfordton to Spindale WWTP
$5,171,000
E.
Upgrades to Spindale WWTP to Handle Rutherfordton & Lake Lure
$11,205,000
F.
Spindale to Rutherfordton WWTP
$8,292,000
G.
Spindale to Forest City Second Broad River WWTP
$5,628,000
H.
Spindale and Rutherfordton to Forest City WWTP
$8,294,000
I.
Cliffside to Forest City Second Broad River WWTP
$5,423,000
J.
Cliffside to Riverstone WWTP
$4,799,000
K.
Cliffside.to Forest City DRG WWTP w/o Riverstone WWTP
$6,226,000
L.
Cliffside to Forest City DRG WWTP with Riverstone WWTP
$6,509,000
M.
Forest City Second Broad River WWTP Upgrades to Handle Cliffside,
Rutherfordton, and Spindale WWTP
$8,585,000
N.
Upgrades to Forest City Riverstone WWTP to Handle Cliffside
$889,000
O.
Upgrades to Forest City DRG WWTP to Handle Cliffside and Riverstone
$1,348,000
P.
Rutherford County Airport to Spindale
$1,551,000
Q.
Area North of Rutherfordton / Hwy 221 to Rutherfordton
$1,551,000
R.
Sewer Service to Ellenboro Henrietta Rd Interchange at Hwy 74 via FM to
Ellenboro
$2,231,000
S.
Sewer Service to Ellenboro Henrietta Rd Interchange at Hwy 74 via FM to
Henrietta
$1,979,000
T.
Service to Industrial Area on HWY 221 near Harris Elementary via PS & FM
to Spindale Torrington PS on Hwy 221
$1,914,000
U.
Service to Industrial *Area on Hwy 221 near Harris Elementary via PS & FM
to Riverstone Blvd Gravity Sewer to Riverstone WWTP
$2,145;000--
V.
I Hwy. 221 / US 74 Interchange PS Upgrade — Spindale
$150,000
It should be noted that these Opinions of Probable Cost should be considered planning estimates
only. Should the project stakeholders elect to proceed with a scenario that uses an alternative or
alternatives, it is recommended that a detailed opinion of probable construction costs and life cycle
analysis be conducted on the alternative(s) in the form of a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER).
In addition, other capital needs were identified by WK Dickson and in individual reports supplied
to WK Dickson by the project stakeholders and prepared by the project stakeholders consulting
engineers as referenced in the reference section of this study. As a result, Table ES.3 as presented
on the next page has been prepared.
�ff Rutherford County/ Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
O _ 20130158.00.CL
Issue Date: June 19, 2014
�.d s Page 4

Executive Summary
Table ES.3 Other Rutherford County Opinions of Probable Cost
Additional Capital Needs
Probable Cost
A.
Forest City Central Business District Sewer Rehab (Post Bid).
$944,197
B.
Forest City Mill Street Area Sewer Rehabilitation
$928,000
C.
Forest City WWTP Large Aeration Basin & Digester Improvements
$1,711,000
D.
Spindale — Rehabilitation of Trunk Line A3
$968,000
E.
Spindale — Rehabilitation of Trunk Line A2
$1,449,000
F.
Spindale — Rehabilitation of Oak Street PS — Southern Trunk Line
$641,000
G.
Spindale — Rehabilitation of Oak Street PS — Northern Trunk Line
$410,000
H.
Rutherfordton — Sewer Outfall to the Second Broad River
$8,003,000
I.
Cliffside to Forest City Second Broad River WWTP
$5,423,000
J.
Sewer Operation & Maintenance Programs
$200,000
K.
Cliffside Continuing Sewer Assessment/Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study
$262,000
L.
Forest City Continuing Sewer Assessment / Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Stud
$435,000
M.
Lake Lure Continuing Sewer Assessment/ Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study
$452,000
N.
Rutherfordton Continuing Sewer Assessment / Sanitary Sewer Evaluation
Study
$379,000
O.
Spindale Continuing Sewer Assessment / Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study
$364,000
P.
Upgrading the Rutherfordton WWTP from 3 MGD to 6 MGD
$15,000,000
After reviewing the limited financial analysis conducted for the Project Stakeholders as well as
interviewing their respective staff's, the following observations were noted: '
a. All project stakeholders assume that the full cost of service is currently being charged to
their rate payers.
b. A more regionalized approach will benefit rate paying customers through operations
and maintenance efficiencies and economies of scale that can be recognized through
the shared use of labor, equipment, purchasing agreements, and capital resources.
C. These savings and efficiencies can be passed on to the ratepayer in the form of reduced
- rates, or the provision of greater rate stability-.- _
d. Cliffside Sanitary District, Forest City, and Rutherfordton have declining rate block
structures.
e. Spindale has a flat rate structure.
f. Lake Lure has an inclining rate block structure.
g. Rutherfordton's outside rates are over double the inside rates.
h. Forest City's outside rates are less than double the inside rates.
i. Lake Lure's and Spindale's outside rates are approximately double the inside rates.
j. Rutherfordton currently maintains minimal reserves.
k. Rutherfordton has not adjusted rates in accordance with their 2011 Financial Model.
I. It is. assumed this means Rutherfordton has not kept up with the capital improvements
planned in the CIP contained in the Financial Model.
M. Decreasing rate block structures are not looked upon favorably by loan and grant
agencies.
n. Outside rates that are significantly higher than inside rates are not looked upon
favorably by loan and grant agencies as well as the legislature.
o. The cost to upgrade the Rutherfordt6n WWTP and transfer wastewater flow from
Spindale to Rutherfordton is $8,292,000 + $15,000,000 = $23,292,000.
p. The cost to upgrade the Spindale WWTP and transfer flow from Rutherfordton to
Spindale $5,171,000 + $11,205,000 = $16,376,000.
Rutherford County / Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
20130158.00.CL
��►'�` I SO
Issue Date: June 19, 2014
, N Page 5

\F
Executive Summary
q. The cost to upgrade the Forest City WWTP and transfer wastewater flow from Spindale
and Rutherfordton to Forest City is $8,294,000 + $5,171,000 + $8,585,000 =
$22,050,000.
r. In order to make consolidation viable, capital costs for the projects need to be offset
with a combination of grants and/or low interest loans and additional forms of financing
such as Tax Increment Financing Districts.
S. If Lake Lure upgrades their WWTP on their own without any financial assistance at an
estimated project cost of $7,014,000 and an interest rate of 3%, it has been estimated
that Lake Lure would have to raise rates 100%.
t. If Lake Lure connects to Rutherfordton for wastewater treatment on their own without
any financial assistance at an estimated project cost of $9,901,000 and an interest rate
of 3%, it has been estimated that Lake Lure would have to raise rates 140%.
U. If Spindale upgrades their WWTP on their own without any financial assistance at an
estimated project cost of $4,000,000 ($1,000,000 grant already secured) and an interest
rate of 3%, it has been estimated that Spindale would have to raise rates 30%.
V. If Spindale upgrades their WWTP on their own without any financial assistance at an
estimated project cost of $5,000,000 and an interest rate of 3%, it has been estimated
that Spindale would have to raise rates 35%.
W. If Spindale upgrades their WWTP on their own without any financial assistance at an
estimated project cost of $11,200,000 and an interest rate of 3%, it has been estimated
that Spindale would have to raise rates 80%.
X. Assuming a conservative 20% savings in overall operating and management costs, 2%
increases in operating and management costs per year, a 3% interest rate, and
conversion to a flat rate structure, three financial model scenarios were developed:
i. Scenario 1 - Consolidating Lake Lure, Rutherfordton and Spindale;
ii. Scenario 2 - Consolidating Cliffside with Forest City; and,
iii. Scenario 3 - Consolidating Cliffside, Lake Lure, Rutherfordton and Spindale
with Forest City.
_y. - The three: -financial model scenarios have been compiled to include the necessary
capital projects to show a potential time line for rate increases and the capital projects
as well as the projected rate increases.
Z. Scenario 1 - Consolidating Lake Lure, Rutherfordton and Spindale - would result in a
base rate for a 5,000 gallon per month customer of $44.00 the 1st year with rate
increases of 10% the first three (3) years, 5% the next two (2) years, and 2% the
remaining 15 years with a final base rate in year 20 for a 5,000 gallon per month
customer of approximately $79. The capital improvements funded and their time frame
for completion included the following:
L FY 2017 / 2018 — Spindale WWTP Upgrades
ii. FY 2018 / 2019 — Lake Lure to Rutherfordton for Treatment
iii. FY 2021 / 2022 — Rutherfordton to Spindale for Treatment
iv. FY 2027 / 2028 — Airport Area to Spindale
V. FY 2028 / 2029 — Area North of Rutherfordton / Hwy 221 to Rutherfordton
vi. FY 2029 / 2030 — Industrial Area on Hwy 221 near Harris Elementary to
Spindale
Please find the financial model for this scenario attached in Appendix 11.54 — Revenue
Projects — Consolidation of Lake Lure, Rutherfordton & Spindale and Appendix 11.55 —
Rutherford County / Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
. 20130158.00.CL
Issue Date: June 19 2014
tmV
Page 6

Executive Summar
Capital Improvements and Net Income — Consolidation of Lake Lure, Rutherfordton &
Spindale. And, below and on the following page and ,in Appendix 11.60 and 11.61,
please find Figure 11.1 — Total Revenue and Expenses & Debt Service Coverage Ratio
and- Figure 11.2 — Total Revenue and Expenses & Rate per 5,000 Gallons for this
scenario.
Rutherford County / Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
20130158.00.CL
Issue Date: June 19, 2014
Page 7

J
Executive Summary
Figure 11.2-COnWIdatlon of Lake Lure, Ruther}ordton and Spindale
Total Revenue and Eapeniea
& Rate per 5,000Gellons
51gmooa0 52G0.00
59,000,000
$24O.0O
522000
58,000,000
5200.p0
s].oa0000
�•TOfal Revenue
-
p'4
s1e0.0o s
eppR+
—Total Ery —,lnduding OCMS—lm
per5,000 Galkuo
Sf 60A0 q
E
a
slao.00
ssoao,am
$120.00
S4,OW.000
._.
Si00.00
S3.am,0po
SMW
SGO.att
52,00poOo
.
500.00
51,000,000
$2O.0O
5
5
3 2 3 A 5 G ] 8 9 10 11 32 33 Si 15 1G 1] 10 19 20
Year
aa. Scenario 2 - Consolidating Cliffside with Forest City - would result in a base rate for a
•5,000 gallon per month customer of $35.00 the 1st year with rate increases the next
three (3) years at 5% and the remaining 17 years at 2% with a final base rate in year 20
for a 5,000 gallon per month customer of approximately $56. The capital
improvements funded and their time frame for completion included the following:
i. FY 2018 / 2019 — Cliffside to Forest City for Treatment
ii. FY 2026 / 2027 — Ellenboro Henrietta Road Interchange to Henrietta
Please find the financial model for this scenario attached in Appendix 11.58 — Revenue
Projects - Consolidation of Cliffside with Forest City and Appendix 11.59 — Capital
Improvements and Net Income — Consolidation of Cliffside with Forest City. And, on
the following page and in Appendix 11.64 and 11.65, please find Figure 11.5 — Total
Revenue and Expenses & Debt Service Coverage Ratio and Figure 11.6 — Total Revenue
and Expenses & Rate per 5,000 Gallons for this scenario:
Rutherford County / Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
�;.' 20130158.00.CL
�`� Issue Date: June 19, 2014
. _ : , -:' `tl/ r Page 8

`
Executive �
^'=.".= ` .^
Total Revenue and Evipenses
Debt Smite C—.&. RWilo
WMAW
�DebtSeM- V.
10,00
IM
Total Re—.. end Expenses
sloaloo
Year
ob. For the purposes of the financial model, a third scenario was also evaluated -
Consolidating Oiffside, Lake Lure, Rutherfoxd0nn and Spinda|avvith Forest City-vvou|d
RudhodordCounty/ Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
20130158.00.CL
Issue Date: June 19,2014
,

Executive Summary
result in a base rate for a 5,000 gallon per month customer of $42.00 the 1 st year with
rate increases of 5% the first two (2) years and 2% the remaining 18 years with a final
base rate in year 20 for a 5,000 gallon per month customer of approximately $63. The
capital improvements funded and their time frame for completion included the
following:
i. FY 201.6 / 2017 — Lake Lure to Rutherfordton for Treatment
ii. FY 2017 / 2018 — Spindale & Rutherfordton to Forest City for Treatment
iii. FY 2018 / 2019 — Cliffside to Forest City for Treatment
iv. FY 2020 / 2021 — Upgrades to the Forest City WWTP
V. FY 2023 / 2024 — Airport Area to Spindale
vi. FY 2023 / 2024 — Area North of Rutherfordton / Hwy 221 to Rutherfordton
vii. FY 2024 / 2025 — Industrial Area on Hwy 221 near Harris Elementary to
Spindale
viii. FY 2025 / 2026 — EIlenboro Henrietta Road Interchange to Henrietta
Please find the financial model for this scenario attached in Appendix 11.56 — Revenue
Projects — Consolidation of Cliffside, Lake Lure, Rutherfordton & Spindale with Forest
City and Appendix 11.57 — Capital Improvements and Net Income — Consolidation of
Cliffside, Lake Lure, Rutherfordton & Spindale with Forest City. And, below and on the
following page and in Appendix 11.62 and 11.63, please find Figure 11.3 — Total
Revenue and Expenses & Debt Service Coverage Ratio and Figure 11.4 — Total Revenue
and Expenses & Rate per 5,000 Gallons for this scenario.
Figure 21.3-Consolidation of Cliffside. Lake Lure. Rutherfordton & Spindate with Forest City
Total Revenue & Fxponae:
&
$25.ODg000 Debt Service Coverage Ratio -
i00.00
90.90
$2000g0oo
NODO
70.00
00
sgo0
5gm
S10.0ogao0
40.00
55,000p00
3DOe
10A0
1
10.00
S.
0.00 '
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1g 19 20
Yee,
--if•Tobl RCVCmm
�etr-Total Esyenses trxiudin8 Debt scrvim
-g�Eatsting & Proposed Debt 5ervtm
�Tobl F]peraer Eztluding Debt Servlao
�-Debt YMm Target
-.�-Debt xMca Rano
i
Rutherford County/ Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
h l< 20130158.00.CL
M.. Issue Date: June 19, 1
Pagee 10

Executive Summary
Figure 11.4-Consolidation of CllffsIde, Luke Lure, Rutharfordton,
& Spindala wkh Fomat City
Total Revenue and Expenses
' Rate par SA00 Gallons
$1a6000,oa0
$26D.o0
$240.00
SIa000.000
�
r•
$]Z11O0
$14000.000
$20DA0
$180"
8
r^
$12.004000
—�— Tow gaVenue
R
---Total Ea nxs lnduding Debt SeMot
$160.00
-,§
$uo
� Rateparsoon Gagns
514000000
$140M
a
a
$120.00
$e o00000
$100,00
$4,000.000
$saw
S6a00
�.�
540.00
$2,000.1m
Paco
$_
S-
1
2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 30 11 12
13 14 13 16 17 S8 19
20
Yaw
System Descriptions
i
After reviewing the wastewater collection and treatment system descriptions -and the WWTP's
-•respective_NPDES-permit:Iimi.ts as well as debriefing with, their respective Project Stakeholders, the -
following observations were noted:
a. According to NPDES permit limits and available 7g10 stream flow data, the assimilative
capacity of the Town of Rutherfordton WWTP's effluent receiving stream is nominal.
Flow Analysis
A flow analysis was conducted as part of this study. The flow analysis took a limited look at
infiltration, inflow, and peak daily flows in the Project Stakeholders wastewater collection and
treatment systems. Infiltration information is presented in Table ES.4, Inflow information is
presented in Table ES.5, and Peak Daily Flow information is presented in Table ES.6.
Rutherford County/ Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
K.• 20130158.00.CL
a4111h, Issue Date: June 19, 2014
Page 11
m

Executive Summary
Table ESA Infiltration Parameter Check
System
Inch-
Miles
gpdim
Infiltration
Percentage of Total
Wastewater
Cliffside
51
382
45%
Forest City
360
1,555
44%-
Lake Lure
148
1640
71 %
Rutherfordton
274
760
42%
Spindale
430
1 1,065
53%
Table ES.5 — Inflow Calculations
System
Average Daily
Flow (gpd)
Estimated Average
Daily Water
Consumption (gpd)
Inflow
(gpd)
Estimated
Sewer
System
Population
gpdpc
Cliffside
43,000
23,500
19,500
130
150
Forest City
1,260,000
700,000
560,000
5,650
100
Lake Lure
340,000
97,000
243,000
1,000
243
Rutherfordton
500,000
291,000
209,000
2,752
76
Spindale
870,000
413,000
457,000
2,212
205
Note: Population calculated using 2.0 persons per residential customer
Table ES.6 Capacities of Project Stakeholders WWTP's
WWTP
Permitted
Capacity
Avg. Daily
Flow
Peak Daily
Flow
Available
Capacity
Calculated
Peaking Factor
(MG D)
(MG D)
(MG D)
(MG D)
Forest City Second Broad WWTP
4.95
1.26
16.69
3.69
13.2
Forest City Riverstone WWTP
0.05
< 0.005
N/A
0.045
N/A
Forest City DRG WWTP
0.91
Inactive
N/A
> 0.91
N/A
Rutherfordton WWTP
1.0 / 3.0
0.5
4.3
2.5
8.6
Spindale WWTP
3.0 / 4.5 /6.0
0.87
6.1
5.13
7
Cliffside WWTP
0.05 / 1.75
1 0.043
1.117
1.71
26
Lake Lure WWTP
0.995
0.34
1 0.63
N/A
1.9
After reviewing the flow analysis conducted for the Project Stakeholders as well as debriefing with
their respective staffs, the following observations were noted:
a. Although none of the Project Stakeholders collection systems as a whole are considered
excessive by the 3,000 gpdim standard when comparing average daily wastewater flow
to estimated average daily water consumption, all project stakeholders collection
systems appear to be experiencing significant infiltration when average daily
wastewater flows are compared to peak daily wastewater flows as shown in Table 4.11
— Capacities of Project Stakeholders WWTPs.
b. Although none of the Project Stakeholders collection systems as a whole are considered
excessive by the 275 gpdpc standard when comparing average daily wastewater flow to
estimated average daily water consumption and estimated sewer system population, all
Rutherford County / Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
K - 20130158.00.CL
rIssue Date: June 19, 2014
Page 12

4
ti-
Executive Summary
project stakeholders collection systems appear to be experiencing significant inflow
when average daily wastewater flows are compared to peak daily wastewater flows as
shown in Table 4.11 — Capacities of. Project Stakeholders WWTPs. And, Lake Lure and
Rutherfordton appear to have the highest inflow rates per capita. .
C. Peak Daily Flows at each of the Project Stakeholder's wastewater treatment plants are of
concern since the peaks appear to demonstrate excessive inflow —for all sewer
collection systems except Lake Lure. Peaking factors should range from 1.5 to 4
whereas for the Project Stakeholders, they ranged from 1.9 to 26 with Cliffside's and
Forest City's peaking factors being calculated at 26 and •13, respectively.
Physical Condition Analysis
After reviewing the physical condition analysis as well as debriefing with their respective Project
Stakeholders, the following observations were noted:
a, The Cliffside, Lake Lure, Forest City Second Broad River, Rutherfordton, and Spindale
WWTPs are subject to influence from significant collection system I&I issues.
b. The Forest City Second Broad River and Spindale WWTPs are the best area facilities for
use as regional WWTPs because of their size and the assimilative capacity of their
receiving streams.
C. The only Project Stakeholders with an Asset Management Plan and detailed Capital
Improvement Plan were the Town of Forest City, the Town of Lake Lure and the Town
of Spindale.
d. Lake Lure and Spindale need to upgrade their respective wastewater treatment plants to
return to compliance with their NPDES permits or find an alternative means for
wastewater disposal.
e. Rutherfordton and Cliffside need to maintain their respective wastewater treatment
plants in order to maintain compliance with the NPDES permits.
= f:; -_-.­.The_.available-. °assimilative. capacity. _of:•-Cleghorn,--Creek— limrits the=_ability:°:of
kutherfordton's WWTP. Therefore, the Rutherfordton WWTP should not be considered
a viable candidate for the location of a consolidated primary WWTP without the
relocation of their WWTP discharge.
g. The small size of the Riverstone WWTP limits its ability to take on a large water user
and subsequent large wastewater discharger.
h. The condition of the DRG WWTP will require significant capital investment to bring
this WWTP back on-line to handle any potential industry in the area.
i. A proposed Forest City water intake located downstream of the discharge of the DRG
WWTP could impact the future return to service of this WWTP.
Staffing & Operations
After reviewing the staffing and operational analysis as well as debriefing with their respective
Project Stakeholders, the following observations were noted:
According to published guidelines by EPA Region 4 in their Guide to Collection and
Transmission System Management, Operation, and Maintenance Programs and EPA's
manual on Estimating Staffing for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities, all of the
Rutherford County/ Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
20130158.00.CL
Issue Date: June 19, 2014
Page 13

Executive Summary
project stakeholders are not adequately staffed to conduct sufficient minimum collection
system and treatment operations. '
b. Project Stakeholders do not appear to have sufficiently documented programmatic elements
mandated by NCDENR and EPA and have incomplete Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study's.
Domestic Sewer Service Analysis
An analysis of areas within the County needing domestic sewer service was conducted as part of
the project. As a result, please find Table ES.7 — Rutherford County Domestic Sewer Service
Analysis Opinions of Probable Costs on the following page.
Table ES.7 — Rutherford County Domestic
Sewer Service Analvcic nnininnc of Prnhahla Cnctc
Project
Opinion of
Probable Cost
Hwy 74 — Ellenboro / Henrietta Rd
$2,231,000
Interchange — to Ellenboro
Hwy 74 — Ellenboro / Henrietta Rd
$1,979,000
Interchange — to Henrietta
Industrial Site on Hwy 221 / Harris
$1,914,000
Elementary — to Spindale
Industrial Site on Hwy 221 / Harris
$2,145,000
Elementary —to Riverstone WWTP
Economic Development Sewer Service Analysis
An analysis of,areas within the County needing sewer service for economic development was
conducted as part of the project. As a result, please find Table ES.8 — Rutherford County Economic
Development Sewer Service Analysis Opinions of Probable Costs below.
Table ES.8 — Rutherford County Economic Development
Sewer Service Analvcic nnininnc of Prnhahle Cnoc
Project
Opinion of
Probable Cost
Hwy 74 — Ellenboro / Henrietta Rd
Interchange — to Ellenboro
$2,231,000
Hwy 74 — Ellenboro / Henrietta Rd
Interchange — to Henrietta
$1,979,000
Hwy 74 — Hwy 221 Interchange —
to Spindale
$150,000
Riverstone Industrial Park
$889,000
DRG WWTP
$1,348,000
Area North of Rutherfordton / Hwy
221
$1,551,000
Rutherford County Airport / Hwy
64 to Spindale
$1,551,000
Rutherford County / Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
. .. 20130158.00.CL
Issue Date: June 19, 2014
Page 14

1
,y
Mapping / GIS
Executive Summary
After reviewing the Project Stakeholders existing digital mapping of their sewer systems .and GIS
databases as well as debriefing with their respective staffs, the following observations were noted:
a.
L^
C.
d.
9.
Existing digital mapping of each of the Project Stakeholders sewer systems provides a
somewhat reasonable representation of their facilities. The composite GIS map will
provide a foundation as the Project Stakeholders continue to develop their sewer
system GIS geodatabases.
The Forest City / Ellenboro geodatabase appears to be missing 2 force mains and one
pump station appears to have two force mains coming from it. It is suspected that the
two pump stations that do not have a force main are actually not pump stations, rather
pieces of property owned by the Ellenboro.
Lake Lure is missing diameter information for its main trunk lines.
Most Project Stakeholders compiled all of their available source documents to complete
the inventory as well as some field inventory information. It is imperative that the GIS
information be kept up to date and that spatial and attribute discrepancies such as those
noted are updated.
It appears that each Project Stakeholder has been able to complete a significant part of
their sewer system inventory by utilizing source documents. It appears that there are
areas of each Project Stakeholders sewer system, however, where source documents do
not exist or the information is subject to inaccuracies. Moving forward, these areas
should be field verified to ensure system accuracy.
Collected data for the manholes in all cases did not include depth, size and material of
inlets and outlet for the majority of the Project Stakeholders sewer systems. This
information should be obtained for each of the Project Stakeholders sewer systems.
It is recommended that each Project Stakeholderssanitary sewer system mapping be
updated to greater accuracy to better meet guidelines emphasized by the United States
Environmental --Protection Agency.. (USEPA) Capacity, Management, - Operations.- and-..-...
Maintenance (CMOM) Program and the Project Stakeholder's System Wide Collection
Permits.
ES.5 Recommendations:
Options for Consolidation
Finding an organizational solution for organizing a new sewer management entity must consider
the varying interests of all of the Project Stakeholders and find ways to mitigate differing
philosophies and equities. As a' result, the best solution may not necessarily be the same in all
instances. And, flexibility should be considered as the most important aspect when initiating
consolidation.
Considering these points, it is recommended that Inter -Local Agreements be created for the short-
term .while a Joint Management Agency structure be pursued to achieve a more efficient level of
service to the Project Stakeholders in the intermediate term, with the long term solution being a
combination of management structures and entities to manage the complex nature of wastewater
service within Rutherford County.
Rutherford County / Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
_ 20130158.00.CL
9, 2014
Issue Date: June 1
... ., Page 15

Executive Summary
After reviewing the viable options for consolidation as well as discussion with Project Stakeholders
staff and elected officials, we have outlined two (2) concurrent, recommended scenarios as follows:
Scenario 1 — Consolidation of Lake Lure, Rutherfordton, and Spindale — Abandonment of Lake
Lure's and Rutherfordton's Wastewater Treatment Plant's
a. Form an Advisory Committee between Luke Lure, Rutherfordton, Spindale, Rutherford
County, and Broad River Water Authority.
b. Investigate forming Inter -Local Contracts between Rutherfordton, Lake Lure, Spindale,
Rutherford County, and Broad River Water Authority under the auspices of working
towards forming a Joint Management Agency, a new Sewer Authority, County Sewer
District or absorbing sewer as a new operational function within Broad River Water
Authority.
C. Lake Lure in conjunction with Rutherford County needs to investigate the feasibility of
upgrading their WWTP or tying on to the Town of Rutherfordton including the new
wastewater treatment option provided by WK Dickson.
d. Since it appears that the Town of Lake Lure's median household income is above both
the National and State median household incomes, it does not appear that Lake Lure
would qualify for a grant from USDA. And, due to these same conditions, would only
qualify for a market rate loan (versus an intermediate or poverty rate). However, since
user rates for Lake Lure customers would become unreasonable when compared to
comparable systems and systems with similar economic and income conditions, the
potential for a USDA loan and grant needs to be more fully explored.
e. If the Town determines upgrading their WWTP is the most viable option, the Town
should consider fully investigating and possibly applying for a USDA loan and grant.
f. If the Town determines connecting to Rutherfordton is the most viable alternative, the
Town and the County and the Town and Rutherfordton should consider executing Inter -
Local Agreements.
- -g. _ The Inter -Local Agreement between th.e:Town.-and the_County could.b.e for the County
to form a Tax Increment Financing District for the area that would become developable
due to the availability of sewer service on the corridor between Lake Lure and
Rutherfordton in an effort to help offset user charges for the proposed project.
h. The Inter -Local Agreement between the Town and Rutherfordton would be for the
treatment of Lake Lure's wastewater.
i. Then, the Town of Rutherfordton and the Town of Spindale should consider executing
an Inter -Local Agreement for the Town of Spindale to treat Rutherfordton's wastewater.
j. Consider investigating and pursuing an Inter -Local Agreement between the Town's and
Broad River Water Authority for the Authority to treat the wastewater from Lake Lure,
Rutherfordton, and Spindale at Spindale's wastewater treatment plant.
Scenario 2 — Consolidation of Cliffside and Forest Ci
a. Form an Advisory Committee between Cliffside, Forest City, and Rutherford County.
b. Investigate forming Inter -Local Contracts between Cliffside, Forest City, and Rutherford
County under the auspices of Forest City treating Cliffside's wastewater.
C. The Inter -Local Agreement between Cliffside, Forest City and the County could be for
the County to form a Tax Increment Financing District for the area that would become
Rutherford County / Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
.:
20130158.00.CL
Issue Date: June 19, 2014
.. Page 16

1 `
Executive Summary
developable due to the availability of sewer service between Cliffside and Forest City in
an effort to help offset user charges for the proposed project.
d. The Inter -Local Agreement between Cliffside and Forest City would be for the treatment
of Cliffside's wastewater.
Financial Analysis
As a result of the financial analysis and utility financial model conducted, we recommend the
following:
a. Decreasing rate block structures are not looked upon favorably by loari and grant
agencies. Cliffside Sanitary District, Forest City, and Rutherfordton should eliminate
their declining rate structures due to conservation efforts and the fact that they are
complex in nature and change to either a flat block rate structure or inclining block
rate.
b. Outside rates that are significantly higher than inside rates are not looked upon
favorably by loan and grant agencies as well as the legislature. Lake Lure,
Rutherfordton, and Spindale should consider lowering their outside rates to less than
double their inside rates.
C. The project stakeholders should consider phased implementation of Scenario 1 - the
consolidation of Lake Lure, Rutherford and Spindale and Scenario 2 — the consolidation
of Cliffside with Forest City.
System Descriptions
As a result of reviewing the wastewater collection and treatment system descriptions and the
WWTP's respective NPDES permit limits, we'recommend the following:
a: Since -the assimilative -capacity of the:;Town of Rutherfordton WWTP-s-effluent receiving
stream is nominal, the Town should consider other long term options for wastewater
treatment and discharge including relocation of its discharge and/or treatment by a
neighboring facility for ultimate treatment and disposal.
Flow Analysis
As. a result of the limited flow analysis and inflow and infiltration analysis performed, we
recommend the following:
Each Project Stakeholder should conduct a more detailed review of their available
records and information related to their existing pump stations and collection systems
to include pump manufacturer, pump size, design pumping capacity, discharge head,
wet well size, and pump run-time records. Utilizing available existing collection
system GIS records, continue to quantify collections system / drainage basins associated
with each pump station. Utilizing pump station runtime and capacity data with rainfall
records, evaluate individual collection systems / drainage basins by comparison of wet
and dry weather periods to identify and prioritize collection systems / drainage basins
that have the highest potential I&I impact on the overall system. This will allow
Project Stakeholders to document preliminary I&I findings and move towards providing
Rutherford County / Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
20130158.00.CL
Issue Date: June 19, 2014
so
Page 17

r.�
Executive Summary
recommendations and associated costs for the performance of a more extensive
Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Survey's (SSES) in the highest priority collection systems /
drainage basins.
b. Consider conducting more extensive SSES's in the highest priority collection systems /
drainage basins. The Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Surveys will provide for more detailed
assessments of the sanitary sewer collection systems / drainage basins in an effort to
construct a prioritized approach for the rehabilitation of the surveyed sewers. The SSES
should include, but not be limited to: Dyed Water Flooding; Corrosion Defect
Identification; Routine Manhole Inspections; Rainfall & Flow Monitoring; CCTV work;
Gravity System Defect Analysis; Smoke Testing; and, Pump Station Performance and
Adequacy Analysis.
Physical Condition Analysis
As a result of the limited physical condition analysis conducted, we recommend the following:
a. Cliffside, Lake Lure, Forest City, Rutherfordton, and Spindale should all continue to
work towards addressing collection system IM issues.
b. The Forest City Second Broad River and Spindale WWTPs are the strongest candidates
for use as regional WWTPs because of their size and the assimilative capacity of their
receiving streams.
C. Cliffside and Rutherfordton should endeavor to prepare an Asset Management Plan and
Capital Improvement Plan.
d. Due to the limited assimilative capacity of Cleghorn Creek, Ruth erfordton's WWTP
receiving stream, Rutherfordton should fully investigate either moving their discharge
point if they are to be considered as a consolidated treatment facility and/or -transferring
their wastewater to a neighboring facility for treatment if they intend to expand or treat
a significant increase in wastewater flows beyond their permitted limit.
Staffing and Operations
As a result of the limited staffing and operational analysis conducted, we recommend the
following:
a. All project stakeholders should consider conducting a MOM audit of their collection
system and collection system programs in accordance with EPA published guidance .
and CMOM self -assessment checklist.
b. All project Stakeholders should consider conducting a WWTP facility audit or
assessment in accordance with industry standards.
Mapping / GIS
As a result of generating a composite GIS map, we recommend the following:
a. Each Project Stakeholder should consider updating their sewer system inventory in
relation to questionable sewer structures. This task would include not only the accurate
location of structures, but also the inventory of each structure to confirm size, material,
depth, direction of flow and overall condition.
Rutherford County/ Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
20130158.00.CL
Issue Date: June 19, 2014
- Page 18
ti -,

b. Each Project Stakeholder should establish
ensure the GIS information stays up to date.
C. Each Project Stakeholder should- conside
Mapping Site for each Project Stakeholder
coordination with Rutherford County.
ES.6, Obstacles:
Executive Summary
formal data maintenance procedures to
r
the development of a secured Internet
services including'Planning and Zoning in
Primary obstacles to providing the best long term strategies for sewer service within the County and
Towns are seen as follows:
a. The misconception that all project stakeholders are providing all necessary required
and recommended wastewater collection and treatment services and that the full cost of
service is currently being charged to their rate payers;
b. The value the project stakeholders place on their wastewater collection and treatment
system assets;
C. The misconception that the selling of existing project stakeholders wastewater
collection and treatment systems assets to the final management entity is fair and
reasonable (i.e. project stakeholders rate payers -in effect would then pay twice for the
wastewater collection and treatment systems);
d. The financial ability of the project stakeholders to implement a better long term strategy
or strategies for providing severer service in the County and Towns without additional
financial assistance;
e. The form of control or the interim and the final potential management entity or entities;
f. Condition of the project stakeholders existing wastewater collection and treatment
systems;
g. Setting equitable rate structure(s); and,
h. Determination of the project stakeholders that intend to implement a better long term
strategy or strategiesfor providing-sew.er=-service:in°the.Gauniy and Towns.- =
ES.7 Conclusions:
Primary, conclusions and items that need to be addressed in order to provide the best long term
strategy or strategies for sewer service within the County and Towns are seen as follows:
a. All Project Stakeholders assume that the full cost of service is currently being charged to
their rate payers when all capital improvements and recommended -programs are -not
funded.
b. A more regionalized approach will benefit rate paying customers in the long term
through operations and maintenance efficiencies and economies of scale that can be
recognized through the 'shared use of labor, equipment, purchasing agreements, and
capital resources.
C. Savings and efficiencies can be passed on to the ratepayer in the form of reduced rates,
or the provision 'of greater rate stability.
d. The only Project Stakeholders with an Asset Management Plan and detailed Capital
Improvement Plan were the Town of Forest City, the Town of Lake Lure and the Town
of Spindale and all Project Stakeholders need them.
Rutherford County/ Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
20130158.00.CL
Issue Date: June 19, 2014
"' .- Page 19

Executive Summary
e. According to published guidelines by EPA Region 4 in their Guide to Collection and
Transmission System Management, Operation, and Maintenance Programs and EPA's
manual on Estimating Staffing for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities, all of the
Project Stakeholders are not adequately staffed to conduct sufficient minimum
collection system and treatment operations.
f. Project Stakeholders do not appear to have sufficiently documented programmatic
elements mandated by NCDENR and EPA and have incomplete Sanitary Sewer
Evaluation Study's.
g. Based on the number of sewer collection and treatment systems in the County, the
overall population served, and the land area, consolidation of sewer services within the
"County while taking into account economies of scale is logical instead of all of the
collection and treatment systems trying to be managed independently.
h. All of the Project Stakeholders are experiencing significant Inflow and Infiltration (I&I)
and it needs to be addressed in order to maintain the long term viability of the Project
Stakeholders wastewater collection and treatment systems as well as maintain
compliance with NCDENR and EPA.
i. Lake Lure and Rutherfordton are limited in their ability to expand beyond their
permitted flow limits therefore a more regionalized solution may be in order.
j. Lake. Lure and Spindale are experiencing compliance problems with their wastewater
treatment plants therefore a more regionalized solution may be in order.
k. The Cliffside Sanitary District is not financial viable as a standalone sewer entity.
I. Consolidation and the resulting economies of scale resulting from consolidation can be
seen as a mechanism to fund needed substantial capital investment into the Project
Stakeholders collection and treatment systems. -
m. Maintaining the status -quo or a do nothing approach will result in the following:
i. Lake Lure's rate payers being subject to substantial rate increases to fund capital
improvements.
ii. Solvency and operational issues associated with the long term viability of the
Cliffside Sanitary District as:a-standalone sewer-eritity-.. .:.:
iii. All Project Stakeholders not completely addressing I&I.
iv. All Project Stakeholders not completely maintaining their collection and
treatment systems / funding necessary capital improvements and programmatic
mandates.
V. The possibility of inhibiting -economic development because a Project
Stakeholder may not have the resources necessary to fund the capital
improvements associated with a potential economic development project.
n. Recommendations for consolidation include the following:
i. Short term - Inter -Local Agreement(s)
ii. Intermediate term -Joint Management Agency
iii. Long term - a combination of management structures & entities to manage the
complex nature of wastewater service within Rutherford County.
o. The fact that Broad River Water Authority is already in existence is seen as a
mechanism for creating a new sewer management entity.
P. The project stakeholders should consider phased implementation of Scenario 1 - the
consolidation of Lake Lure, Rutherford and Spindale and Scenario 2 — the consolidation
of Cliffside with Forest City.
q. Case studies as discussed in Section 12 of this study including Yadkin Valley Sewer
Authority, the Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County, and the Cape Fear
Rutherford County / Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
' 20130158.00.CL
Issue Date: June 19, 2014
- .,., Page 20

Executive Summary
Public Utility Authority as well as other case studies such as Metropolitan Sewerage
District of Buncombe County, Tuckaseigee Water & Sewer Authority, Charlotte---
Mecklenburg Utilities, and Two Rivers Utilities (Gastonia & Cramerton) have
successfully demonstrated that:
i. Consolidation makes financial sense;
ii. Lower wastewater rates can be achieved over the long term; and,
iii. Improved planning and more effective investment of capital in a combined
utility system leads to improved system reliability.
End of Section
r s.
Rutherford County / Municipalities Joint Sewer Study
20130158.00.CL
Q Issue Date: June 19, 2014,
Page 21

William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Qualitv
SURFACE WATER PROTECTION SE
September 4, 2007
i
Mr. Jones
Cliffside Sanitary District
PO Box 122
Cliffside, NC 28024
SUBJECT: Wastewater Collection System
Owner & Operator Requirements
Cliffside Sanitary District-.WWTP
NC0004405
Rutherford County
Dear Mr. Jones:
I .would like to take this opportunity to discuss the requirements for sewerage collection
systems that were first established in 15 NCAC .02H .0200 in March 2000 and are now found in
15 NCAC 2T .0403, Waste Not Discharged to Surface Waters, which became effective
September 1, 2006. These Regulations place significant operation, maintenance and reporting
requirements on those entities that own or operate a wastewater collection system with average
daily flows of less than 200,000 gallons per day.
These regulations are applicable to your facility. This letter is provided as guidance
to assist you in complying with the new reporting and operations and maintenance (O&M)
requirements and to advise you that you are subject to system review, inspections and possible
enforcement, if the system is not in compliance with the regulation.
For your convenience and easy reference, a highlight of these requirements and the
following guidance are offered (see enclosed). You may find the regulations using the following
web site: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/peres/Collection%2OSystems/ColledtionSVstemsHome.html
The Asheville Regional Office will be increasing the level of oversight, compliance
activities and enforcement relating to collections systems, therefore, we wanted to be sure you
are aware of the requirements for these systems. We will be performing NPDES Wastewater
Collection System inspections sometime in the near future.
NorthCarolina
Naturally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 2090 US Hwy 70; Swannanoa, NC 28778 Phone [phone]
Internet: www..ncwaterquality.org Customer Service 1-877-623-6748 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

September 4, 2007
Page 2 of 2
If this Office has not previously inspected your wastewater collection system and records
of same, you should .be prepared to demonstrate compliance with all criteria listed above.
Enclosed:.is'On inspection form that you can use to assemble your records prior to an inspection
by the staff of this office.
This Office has a Wastewater Treatment Plant Consultant on staff to offer assistance to
you in complying with the requirements of these regulations. Should you have questions or
need additional information regarding this issue, please contact Don Price at [phone].
Should you have any other questions concerning this correspondence or the
requirements relating to collection systems, please contact Roy Davis or Keith Haynes at 828-
296-4500.
cc: Deborah Gore -
Sincerely,
- Roger C. Edwards, Supervisor
Surface Water Protection Section
closures
DWQ - SWPS - Central Office Files - w/out enclosures

Cliffside Sanitary District
136 Hawkins Loop Rd.
P.O. Box 122
Cliffside, NC 28024
Mr. Roger Edwards
2090 U.S. Highway 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
I
We are responding to the Notice of Violation letter NOV-2007-LV-0100 for fecal
coliform for the sample dated 11-6-06. The cause of our non-compliance was due to a
large increase in the flow treated for that day fiom heavy rainfall. The treatment plants
tablet chlorine feed system is flow proportional but our percent feed water was not set
high enough to cover this increased flow. We now have increased our percent feed water
to meet the higher demands during rainfall events. Since this change has been made all of
our fecal coliform sample results have been < 2 #/100ml. Also our contract lab has been
informed to call ASAP if our sample results exceed our limit so a second sample can be
taken for that week for an average.
Please give myself or Mike Gibert a call if needed at 828.657.9180.
Sincerely,
Barry Jones, Chairman
Cliffside Sanitary District

I S
1
_
Q�-70
kM 57,
7 �
17
1
79
n.

-44!
QV^ c-
r
aot �le= 7 L A, c
II�
II
F� R2x�
Ili
Al
II
II
II

t �
c
c ,
C
i
9
7 �
+' o

\1

W ATFR
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
O PYNorth Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1BFILE CColeen
H. Sullins, Director
Water
Division of Quality
November 12, 2007
Mr. Barry Jones, Chairman
Cliffside Sanitary District
Post Office Box 122
Cliffside, North Carolina 28024
Subject: Compliance'Evaluation Inspection
Wastewater Collection System
Permit Number WQCSD0287
Cliffside Sanitary District
Rutherford County
Dear Mr. Jones:
Attached is the report resulting from my November 8, 2007 Compliance Evaluation
Inspection of the wastewater collection system serving the Cliffside Sanitary District. The
inspection consists of a review of documents relating to collection system operational and
maintenance activities at the Cliffside Sanitary District plus the inspection of system
sewage pumping stations.
The District needs to -prepare an Operational and Maintenance Plan which addresses
pump station inspection frequency, preventative maintenance schedule, spare parts
inventory and overflow response. Please send me a copy of the plan when complete. Be
sure that the District is meeting the records keeping requirements for -all the maintenance'
activities required in 15A'North Carolina Administrative Code 02T. 0403. Yearly system
inspection, right-of-way maintenance, aerial line inspection, pump station inspection, and.
educational activities relating to grease disposal all have associated record keeping
requirements.
NonithCarolina
�Vaturmly
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 2090 U.S. Highway 70 Swannanoa, NC 28778 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: www..ncwaterquality.org FAX [phone]b43 1-877-623-6748
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer-50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

For your future reference I have assigned "Deemed" Permit Number WQCSD0287 to the
Cliffside Sanitary District collection system. The district is doing a good job of taking care
of its collection system. Should you have need to discuss these matters, please do not
hesitate to call me at 828-296-4659.
Sincerely,
Roy M. Davis
Environmental Engineer
C: Mike Gibert, Cliffside Sanitary District
Surface Water Protection Central File
PERCS Unit

Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: WQCSD0287 Effective: 11/08/07 Expiration: Owner: Cliffside Sanitary District
SOC: Effective: Expiration: Facility: Cliffside Sanitary District WWTP
County: Rutherford 272 Old Main St
Region: Asheville
Cliffside NC 28024
Contact Person: Barry W Jones Title: Phone: [phone]
Directions to Facility:
System Classifications:
Primary ORC: Certification: Phone:
Secondary ORC(s):
On. Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
Inspection Date: 11/08/2007- Entry Time: 09:30 AM Exit Time: 11:00 AM
Primary Inspector: Roy M Davis ���(��"Q Phone: [phone]
Ext.4659
Secondary Inspector(s):
Reason for Inspection: Routine Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit Inspection Type: Deemed permitted collection system management and
operation
Facility Status: ■ Compliant f] Not Compliant
Question Areas:
Miscellaneous Questions
(See attachment summary)
0
Page: 1

Permit: WQCSD0287 Owner - Facility: Cliffside Sanitary District
Inspection Date: 11/08/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
The Cliffside Sanitary District is operated, under contract, by HST Environmental, which employs Mike Gibert and one
other person at this location.
The collection system consists of approximately five miles of gravity line and two lift station. The system serves Cliffside
and Henrietta but not Caroleen. The system is primarily Ductile Iron and terra cota with a small amount of PVC. The
system includes two aerial crossings. The District has 7 1/2 feet of right-of-way on either side of the line. Construction
drawings are available. About half the right-of-way requires mowing. The right-of-way is mowed a couple of times per year
and looked good. Record of this activity needs to be maintained.
The District needs to develop an Operation and Maintenance plan which addresses lift station inspection frequency,
preventative maintenance frequency, spare parts inventory and overflow response.The two pump stations are inspected
five days per week. The gravity lines are checked monthly. One BQ cafe is on the system but cooking takes place
elsewhere and food service takes place on paper plates.
The District has approximately 85 customers including a cafe, a church, a lodge and a textile mill (Cone Jacquard)
which contributes half the daily flow of 28,000 gpd.
Water is provided within the District by the Broad River Water Authority. Water and sewer billing is done by the Authority
and gives opportunity for twice yearly communication with all customers regarding proper FOG disposal.
The lift station (Lift Station) under the highway 221-A bridge is protected by a locked fence, has floded inlet pumps rated
at 1,400 gpm each which run 3 minutes each hour, an emergency power generator, emergency notification sign, and a
non functional auto -dialer. The station does not have audible or visual high water alarms. Water level is detected by radar
with a backup bubbler. The District hopes to install new pumps at this location in the not to distant future.
The Haynes lift station is protected by a locked fence, has an emergency notification sign, is proceeded by flow
equalization, serves a church and a school, has a diesel powered emergency power generator, bubbler controls, and
audible high water alarm. The pumps are Gorman -Rupp section lift and operate two times each week.
The District is doing a good job of caring for the collection system.
Page: 2

CLIFFSIDE SANITARY DISTRICT
136 HAWKINS LOOP ROAD
CLIFFSIDE, NC 28024 '
Cliffside Sanitary District provides sewer and waste water treatment to customers in the Cliffside, NC
area. One of the customers is a large business and two of the customers are Thomas Jefferson Classical
Academy and Cliffside Elementary School.
There are many customers who cannot afford or do not have the space to installa personal septic
system on their property. It is CSD's goal to continue to provide this service at an affordable rate.
CSD also provides the local septic companies, at a fee, the ability to dispose of the loads acquired in their
operations, when needed.
At present and in the. near future, CSD will be required,to repair the following items:
1) 20 Manhole Covers(Stolen in 2012) @ $72 each. Total cost is $1537.20 These open areas
present a great risk when not covered.
2) 5 aerators are in need of repair @ $1800 each. Total cost is $9000.00. If these units are not
operating properly, state regulations cannot -be met.
3) 1 pump assembly. for the lift station(does not include labor). Cost of unit is $4218.00.
4) 1 updated Quickbooks version @ apx. $300.00. The current"one is a 2000 version and is very
obsolete.
CSD is requesting a $12,000, for the 2014-2015 Fiscal Year, to cover the cost of these items.
Sincerely,
Janet R. Whisnant
Finance .Officer

Cliffside Sanitary District DEC 2 1 2007
136 Hawkins Loop Rd.
P.O. Box 122
Cliffside, NC 28024 WATER QUALITY SECTION
ASHEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
Mr. Roy Davis
NC Division of Water Quality
2090 U.S. Highway 70
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Dear Mr. Davis:
Attached is a copy of our Operation and Maintenance Plan for the Cliffside Sanitary District
wastewater collection system for your review..
Please give me a call with comments or if additional information is needed at 828-657-9180.
Sincerely,
Michael Gibert
ORC

SPILL RESPONSE PLAN
Cliffside Sanitary District
IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT OF A SPILL, THE FOLLOWING ACTION SHALL BE
TAKEN IMMEDIATELY:
1. MANAGEMENT OF SPILL CLEAN-UP ACTIVATES:
The Collection System ORC shall take immediate charge and initiate clean-up activates. Labor
and equipment will be requested from HST Environmental Inc. In the event additional labor and
equipment is required, assistance will be requested from the NC Department of Transportation,
and other private contractors as necessary. The Collection System ORC shall communicate with
the public on the scene, answering questions and advising in the clean-up.
Z. HALT THE SOURCE OF THE SPILL:
Such as a pump station or sewer manhole.
3. CONTAIN THE SPILL:
Form a barrier. Sufficient quantities of straw shall be used for such purposes. Earthen barriers may
be constructed to augment the straw bale containment area of the spill. The Collection System ORC
or the person in charge on the spill site will advise the clean-up personnel where to get the straw
lime, and other necessary items to complete the clean-up operation, i.e., local farm supply centers,
nurseries, etc.
4. CLEAN-UP
Employ front-end loader, vacuum equipment, sludge application vehicle, and/or local septic tank
service to remove as much of the spilled material, debris as possible. Barriers (i.e. caution'tape)
should be erected to preclude public access for at least 24 hours.
6. FINAL CLEAN-UP
Employ rotary brush sweeper if needed, and apply lime to the spill area upon the approval of the
clean-up efforts by the Asheville NCDENR representative. If the event occurs on private property,
the clean-up will be completed to the satisfaction of the property owner and the Asheville NCDENR
representative. The ultimate goal will be to restore the spill area to its original condition if possible.
6. NOTIFICATION:
As soon as possible after the spill occurs, the Collection System ORC will notify the CSD Chairman
and that person will then be responsible for notifying other key officials.
7. REPORTING:
The Collection System ORC or the CSD Chairman will notify the Asheville regional office of
the NCDENR by telephone as soon as possible, but not more than 24 hours after, or on the next
working day following the occurrence. The Collection System ORC shall file a written report to the
Asheville regional office of the NCDENR within 5 days of the occurrence.

page 2
CLIFFSIDE SANITARY DISTRICT
A. CSD CHAIRMAN
B. WWTP/COLLECTION SYSTEM ORC
C. WWTP BACK-UP ORC
D. LOCAL POLICE/FIRE
E. CONTRACTORS
F. NCDENR ASHEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
NC STATE WARNING POINT
(after hours, holidays, weekends)
BARRYJONES
MIKE GIBERT
828-289-2707 mobile
828-287-6300 office
704-300-8640 mobile
828-657-9180 office
BUREN BAILEY 704-300-8640
828-657-9180 office
911
HST ENVIRONMENTAL INC.
PHIL HARRIS 828-429-7802 mobile
828-453-0548 office
( Revised November 1, 2007 )
828-296-4500
1-800-858-0368 (toll free)

EQUIPMENT LIST HST ENVIRONMENTAL INC.
1. Harben sewer cleaning equipment
2. Vacuum tanker truck
3. Gasoline trash pump
4. Backhoe
5. Tractor and scrape blade
6. Personnel hoist and tripod
7. Pipe saw

NC STATE OVERFLOW REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
1. Wastewater Collection Systems bypasses must be reported to the Water Quality section
of the Asheville Regional Office during regular business hours (8:00 am thru 5:00 pm,
Monday thru Friday, excluding holidays) by telephone within24 hours of first knowledge
of the bypass. A wastewater bypass in any amount which reaches surface water or a
bypass to the land greater than 1,000 gallonsmust be reported.
2. Sampling of the impacted stream(s) consisting ofdissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity
must be conducted upstream, at the point of entry to the stream,and downstream of
the bypass when the spill reaches surface waters. The data must be reported on the
Sewage Spill Response Evaluation Form within (5) working days. The report should be
sent to the Water Quality Section of the Asheville Regional Office.
3. The responsible party must immediately notify theNorth Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission at [phone] should the bypass cause a fish kill.
4. A wastewater bypass that is the result of vandalism must be reported to this Office within
24 hours of first knowledge. Pictures of the vandalism and/or a copy of the police report
should be included with the written report.
Be advised that a minimum civil penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000) may be
assessed against the responsible party who does not report a sewage bypass in a timely
manner as described above.

EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT / SPARE PARTS
COLLECTION SYSTEM / PUMP STATION
1. Emergency Generators located at 221A lift pump station and
Haynes pump station.
2. Alarm Systems located at 221A lift pump station and Haynes pump
station.
3. (2) Bhp. Portable gasoline pumps located at WWTP shop area.
4. Spare rotating assemblies for pumps located at each pump station.
5. Spare parts V belts, bearings, flap valves, etc. located at WWTP
.shop area.
6. Coveralls, boots, gloves, etc. located at WWTP shop area.
om-manual 25

COLLECTION SYSTEM / PUMP STATION
INSPECTION / PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE
1. Visually check main sewer lines monthly, check all other lines at least 2/year
and document.
2. Visually check aerial crossings 2/year and document.
3. Bush hog sewer right-of-ways as needed and document.
4. High pressure clean 10% of sewer lines yearly and document.
1. Visually inspect 221A lift pump station on a daily basis making note of any
problems. Contact HST maintenance as needed.
2. Visually inspect Haynes pump station on a daily basis making note of any
problems. Contact HST maintenance as needed.
3. Run emergency generators at 221A and Haynes pump station on a monthly
basis and document.
4. Change oil and grease all pumps at (6) month intervals and document.
5. Check alarm system monthly and document.
om-manual 26

#1 PUMP
GORMAN-RUPP T SERIES 8"
MODEL# T8A60-13
SERIAL# 1029408
INSTALLED 04/04/1999
1.3
Lift Pump Station
Under Bridge
#2 PUMP
GORMAN-RUPP T SERIES 8"
MODELP T8A60-B
SERIAL# 918037
INSTALLED 05/101989
# 1 PUMP MOTOR #2 PUMP MOTOR
TECO WESTINGHOUSE TECO WESTINGHOUSE
SERIAL# CL 7041040001 SERIAL* CL 7077070001
HP 75 HP 75
KW 55 KW 55
VOLTS 575 VOLTS 575
RPM 1775 RPM 1775
GENERATOR DRIVES
KOHLER
ACS/ACC/ACP 601 AC DRIVES
MODEL#
200ROZD
3 TO 150 HP
SERIAL#
606043
2.2 TO 110 KW
RPM
1800
PLC (ALLEN BRADLEY)
KW
200
page 6

7.1
Havnes Waste
Pump Station
#1 Pump #2 Pump
Gorman -Rupp
No Data Plate
Model # T4A3 B
Serial # 716901
#1 Pumo Motor #2 Pump Motor
Siemens -Allis
Siemens -Allis
Model # 649
Model #
-------------
Serial #
716901
HP
25 All Other Data Same as #1 Motor
Volts
200
Amps
68.5
RPM
1740
Frame
284T
Phase
3
Hertz
60
Type
RG
S.F.
1.15
KVA Code
G
Eff Ind
G
Nema Design
B
Class Ins.
B
Duty
40 c Cont.
S.H. End Brg
50BC03JPP3
D.P.P. End Brg
45BCO2JPP3 ,
page 31

Generator Set
Onan Electric Generator
Model #
Serial #
Time Rating
Hertz
RPM
3 Phase
KW
KW
Voltaqe
120/208
127/220
240/416
120/240
7.2
Haynes Waste
75 ODYC-15R/19610K
K 790464225
Standby
60
1800
1 Phase
75
KVA
93.8
50
WA
62.5
Amps
Voltage
Amos
260
139/240
226
246
120/240
226
130
254/440
123
260 _
277/480
113
P. F. 0.08
Batt. 24V
For Electric Equipment Only as LR 3927
Diesel
Allis-Chalmers
Model #
Serial #
Cat. #
Diesel Fuel Tank
Bendel Corporation
4823 North Graham Street
Charlotte, N.C. 28269
Bendel Tent -tank
Tank #
670 T
70-07382
1-7451-85228
583047
page 32

7.3
Haynes Waste
Pumping Station
Main Power Disconnect
Federal Pacific Electric Company
Newark, N.J.
Y86915X-19
Cat #
DT 1232
Amps
200
Volts
240 AC
Poles
3
Liquid Level Controller
Gorman -Rupp
Model # 12781-018
Serial # M1795-0260
Date
Diesel Battery Charging
System
Lamarche MFG. Co.
106 Bradrock Dr.
Des Planes, ILL.
Constavolt
Model#
A20R
Serial #
31744
Input Volts
120
Input Amps
1
Phase
1
Hertz
50-60
DC Amps
5
DC Volts
24
No. Cells
12
Type Cell
L
page 33

.l
-bAo,
wfisre wATE�
�pa5 T�2 STi�rion�
27

14t)PL4Air ton rcl/1 t,_ //.- C�uri t_iI �� rior✓ F'c�sr�l
.6 �:Z - t o g. A
(1 rr7 ,
J' II
�urv�f'•' Cotj Tf:oc
n- o 1,0
r—r—
7�-
1 S Toe(.1 e iAnl e
�JN ��CUI.
rrir•ILt
l))G
Kr(-'_
JJC--1nlr'
"Nny
6,1GJ rl s LE Tic-E /? i-/� t6 eJ r
�Io C Prrl
. Nur 7-0 sc.0 E_
" � 4,
fl A yAIC
%ALA lJ
29

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Arthur J. Toompas
Cone Mills Corporation
3101 North Elm Street
Greensboro, NC 27415
January 31, 2002
AA,,NC,DENR
•
. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT] AND -NATURAL -RESOURCES
Subject: WQCS00098`r
FEB 13 2002.
APplication Withdrawn,;, :_.:_..:_...
Cliffside Mill
Wastewater Collection System
Rutherford County
Dear Mr. Toompas:
The Division of Water�Quality (Division) has recently began a new permit program geared towards the
operation and maintenance of wastewater collection systems.; The utilities requested to submit a permit
application for their collection system are according to flow (over 200,000 GPD permitted or actual) and
compliance history. Your Cliffside collection system qualified for an individual permit because the permitted
flow according to your NPDES permit is 1.75 MGD. As you are aware, a collection system permit application
was sent to you on December 28, 2001.
Upon discussion with Roger Edwards of the Asheville Regional Office and your letter dated January
29, 2002, it appears that the flow is largely industrial in nature and that the domestic flow is less than 200,000
gpd. Therefore, an individual permit will no longer be necessary and the Division will consider your
application as withdrawn. Your collection system will be "deemed permitted 15A NCAC 2H .0227
identifies the minimum conditions that must be maintained to remain deemed permitted. The Division director
can require an individual permit if the deemed permitted conditions are not being met or the collection system is
proven to repeatedly violate the US EPA Clean Water Act. A copy of the rule is attached for your review.
Although Cone Mills is currently not required to obtain anindividual permit f6f the Chffside collection
system, it is highly recommended that you remain dedicated to the continual proper operation and maintenance
of the collection system to prevent non-compliance. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the
collection system permit program, please contact Marie Doklovic at 9197733-5083 x 371. Roger Edwards of the
Asheville Regional Office may also be contacted at 828-251-6208 for assistance in any environmental matter.
Sincer' y, .
Kim H. Colson, P.E., Supervisor
Non Discharge Permitting Unit
Enclosure
Cc: Roger Edwards, DWQ Asheville Regional Office
Permit File
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,, North Carolina, 27699-1617 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

1 15 A NCAC 2H .0227
2
3 .0227 SYSTEM -WIDE COLLECTION SYSTEM PERMITTING
4 (a) In accordance with the North Carolina Clean Water Act of 1999, S. L. 1999 c. 329, s. 11.2, the Director may
5 issue system -wide permits for collection systems.
6 (b) The following definitions apply to this Section:
7 (1) "Collection system" means a group of contiguous sewer systems that convey municipal or domestic
8 wastewater to a wastewater treatment facility or separately -owned sewer system.
9 (2) "High -priority sewer line" means any aerial line, sub -waterway crossing, line contacting surface waters,
10 siphon, line positioned parallel to streambanks that are subject to eroding in such a manner that may
11 threaten the sewer line, or line designated as high priority in a permit.
12 (c) Permit applications for the initial issuance of a collection system permit shall be completed and submitted to
13 the Division within 60 days of the collection system owner's receipt of the Division's request for application
14 submittal. The Division shall request the initial application submittal by certified mail. Permit renewal requests
15 shall be submitted to the Director at least 180 days prior to expiration, unless the permit has been revoked in
16 accordance with Rule .0213 of this Section. All applications must be submitted in triplicate and made on official
17 forms completely filled out, where applicable, and fully executed.
18 (d) Collection systems that have a design flow and convey an actual flow less than 200,000 gallons per day shall
19 be deemed to be permitted pursuant to G.S. 143-215.1(b)(4)e, and it shall not be necessary for the Division to issue
20 individual permits for the operation and maintenance of the these systems and their associated management
21 programs provided that the following criteria, are met:
22 (1) The sewer system is effectively .maintained and operated at all times to prevent discharge to land or
23 surface waters, and any contravention of the groundwater standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0200 or the surface
24 water standards in 15A NCAC 2B .0200;
25 (2) A map of the sewer system has been developed prior to January 1, 2004 and is actively maintained;
26 (3) An operation and maintenance plan has been developed and implemented;
27 (4) Pump stations that are not connected to a telemetry system are inspected at least three times per week until
28 July. 1, 2000; thereafter, pump stations are inspected at least daily, as defined in 15A NCAC 2B .0503(5),
29 until July 1, 2001; and thereafter, pump stations are inspected every day. Pump stations that are connected
30 to a telemetry system are inspected at least once per week;
31 (5) High -priority sewer lines are inspected.at least once per every six-month period of time;
32 (6) A general observation of the entire sewer system is conducted at least once per. year;
33 (7) Inspection and maintenance records are maintained for a period of at least three years; and
34 (8) Overflows and bypasses are reported to the appropriate Division regional office in accordance with 15A
35 NCAC 2B .0506(a), and public notice is provided as required by G.S. 143-215.1C.
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
(e) The Director may, on a case by case basis, determine that a collection system should not be deemed to be
permitted in accordance with this Rule and require the owner of the collection system to obtain an individual
collection system permit from the Division if:
(1) The owner of the collection system does not maintain compliance with the requirements of Paragraph (d)
of this Rule; or
(2) - The collection system is determined to be contributing to the impairment of surface waters specified on
the Division's list generated as a result of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)
Section 303(d), 33 U.S.C. Section 1313(d).
History Note: Authority G.S. 143-215.1(a); 143-215.3(a),(d); North Carolina Clean Water Act of 1999, S.L. 1999
c.329; _ _ _
Temporary Adoption Eff. March 1, 2000.
Permanent Adoption Eff. September 14, 2000.
2

tate of North. Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., -Secretary
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
December 28, 2001
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Arthur J. Toompas
Cone Mills Corporation
3101 North Elm Street
Greensboro, NC 27415
Dear Mr. Toompas:
_7
�••
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
You are hereby notified that in accordance with the North Carolina Clean Water Act of 1999, S.L. 1999 c. 329, s.
11.2, an application for coverage under a Wastewater Collection, System Permit for your Cliffside Mill collection system must
be submitted. Upon receipt of this letter, your facility has sixty (60) days to submit the attached application and all
supporting documentation (15A NCAC 2H .0227). Failure to submit the application as required may subject your facility to a'
civil penalty and other enforcement actions for each day the facility is operated following the due date of the application.
The attached application has been partially completed using the information listed in your disposal permit. If any of
the information .listed is incorrect, please make corrections as noted on the application. The application and draft permit
shell are available on our.web site at http://h2O.enr.state.nc.us/ndpu/ndpuapps.html. It is suggested that the permit shell
be reviewed in preparation for completing the permit application as the information requested is used by the Division to
determine the current status of the collection system operation and maintenance program and additional steps that may be
necessary to achieve compliance with this permit. The original application signed by an authorized signing official, two copies
of the signed application and three copies of any attachments must be returned to complete the application package (i.e. all
applicationmaterials submitted in triplicate).. Please note the requirements for an authorized signing official on Page 6 of the
application. The completed package should be sent to the following address:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Non -Discharge Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
ATTN: M. Doklovic
If you have any questions concerning this letter, please call Marie Doklovic at [phone] extension 371 or E-
mail [e-mail]. You may also contact Forrest Westall with the Asheville Regional Office at (828) 251-
6208.
Enclosure
cc: - Permit File (w/o encl.)
Is eviller �eginna Qce (�v/ )
Sincerely,
for Grecr J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
—
DEC 3- 1 2001
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Telephone 919-733
50% recycled/ 10%

2
1�
(i; LEtzUY �V�T1,=iNs D.�. 1�=f!—►�-( �
�2 ILOC>SEVE LT PCDCD PE� — 2?�.
�) GQA`{SP�'.r�) Fa�"IELEQ D. F± 2-G� - 15,
N1 CDT I N ]= �'. �� '.� T I i " I�! <i )-I \ti/ t+,) k-I CY? G �j P�) IS F.,) 0 T P-,AS F L7 C C ! '! ti A G l,1 J (A l_
i LL1 SLI!ZVLLtij, ;----,UT \VAS iaE V G D :-72.'-0r.;i 1v\J t.sP.!
� � ✓� fti � 1,3 f- i2 o M �' ' 1 � :". I C t� E v i.1 �� '� I 1 � T Lc ( G Q ��i (�: i 4r !` r� :_� �� -i-
P ti? 0 S G I a
CL! P 1= Q.1 DJ �—: SAN E-1"A!';`-i D i S i Q-E CT
Ws k ZSNGALA-� TOk\!NS;4IP
73