NC0087033_Engineering Alternatives Analysis_20010212

- tieo��7D33
_ CAVANAU G H
Solutions through integrity and partnership
Town of Harmony
Preliminary Engineering Report
Alternatives Analysis
February 2001
—
Sewer Collection System &
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Prepared By:
Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A.
8064 North Point Boulevard
Suite 102
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106
336/759-9001
Fax: [phone]
—

MA
an
Town of Harmony
M, Sewer Collection & Wastewater Treatment Facility
Preliminary Engineering Repo rt/Alternatives Analysis
raq Revised February 12, 2001
Project Planning Area ..................................................................................................................
1
MR Existing Facilities & Need for the Project
3
.........................................................................................
Presentation of Proposed Improvements —Alternatives Considered
4
.......................................................
Description of Treatment Alternatives
5
.........................................................................................
'MR Environmental Assessment of Treatment Alternatives
8
...................................................................
Land Requirements of Treatment Alternatives
9
..............................................................................
Construction Problems
9
,X,............................................................................................................
Capital Cost for wastewater Treatment Facility Alternatives
11
.........................................................
Operation and Maintenance Costs
14
Net Present Cost of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives .............................................................
19
Advantages/Disadvantages
21
............................................................................................
Proposed Project (Recommended Alternative}
23
....................
�+ Funding for the Project
24
.........................................................................................................
Conclusions & Recommendations
......................
26
�► Exhibit A —Topographic map of area
Exhibit B — Correspondence
Exhibit C — Sewer Layout
g► Exhibit D — USDA RD "Guide 8"
MR
Fam
M
Fan
Im
M
M
M

aq
FUR
Proiect Planning Area
so
The Town of Harmony is located in northern Iredell County, approximately 13 miles north of Stateville.
Highway 21 runs north/south through the middle of Harmony and State Route 901 runs east/west
MR through the middle of town.
The Town of Harmony sits on a minor basin ridge. The southeast side of town flows into Kinder Creek.
The north side of town flows into Long Branch and the west side of town flows into Dutchman Creek.
All of these are tributaries of the Yadkin River. Exhibit A shows the topography of the area surrounding
Harmony.
The Yadkin River Basin is the second largest river basin in North Carolina. Its headwaters begin in the
eastern Blue Ridge Mountains with part of the upper watershed in Virginia. The Yadkin flows into the
,R Pee Dee River through South Carolina and into the Atlantic Ocean. Harmony is in the 03-07-06 sub -
basin of the Upper Yadkin River Basin. There is no mention of the tributaries around Harmony in the
Yadkin Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. None of these tributaries are marked
for additional management strategies for Oxygen -Consuming Wastes. However, Hunting Creek and
Rocky Creek (into which the Dutchman, Kinder and Long flow) may be considered for reclassification
to High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW).
PM Exhibit A is a topographic map showing the basins and major streams in the area. The majority of the
land surrounding Harmony is agricultural and forest land. There are no known historic sites or critical
Im habitats that will be impacted by the proposed project.
Growth areas & population trends
`N' According to the North Carolina Office of State Planning, the 2000 population of Harmony was 587. In
1990 the pop was 502, a percent growth of 2.41 % per year on average. It is estimated that with the
addition of public sewer in Harmony, the population growth will only increase slightly. We are
MR estimating an increase of .5% per year on average.
PR
Pm
Pm
The following table shows projections for Harmony's population growth first based on historical data,
then with the estimated increase in population with the addition of public sewer.
Year
Unsewered Population
Sewered Population
1990
502
502
2000
587
587
2005
631
637
2010
678
701
2015
728
773
2020
783
851
'I' The following figure is a graphical representation of the population projections.
rM
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 1
MR

010
Population Trends
900
Roo 7oa
700
701
637
679
600 tigl—..
587
IM c 500
7R3
c: 400 _
300
200 -
A
100
1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
Unsewered Population Sewered Populadop
•
Though the population in Harmony will only slightly increase with the addition of public sewer,
economic development will be greatly affected. If public sewer is not provided, growth will stagnate.
There will be no new businesses and there will be no new development. Existing businesses may be
forced to close down, and the main street of Harmony will cease to exist. _11ci ses cannot develop
to their fullest potential because existing septic systems cannot support them The following are some
• A new barbecue restaurant has recently opened on the west side of town. The restaurant can only
serve take-out because they cannot provide sewer facilities to support a sit-down type of
restaurant.
• Main Street businesses such as the Dairy Freeze have had to close their doors because they can
not physically provide sewer service. When their existing septic systems failed and a new system
was needed, the land needed was not available.
• If the Harmony Caf6 on Main Street were to even temporarily close, they would not be able to
reopen because of septic system requirements.
• There is raw sewage flowing behind the Harmony Elementary School.
a Rosewood Rest Home has been ordered to "do something now or else" about their failing septic
system.
• Approximately 60% of the septic systems in Harmony were failing in June 1999
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report— October 2000 Page 2

n"
min
Existing Facilities & Need for the Project
It is the goal and intent of every community to provide safe and healthy living conditions for all of its
citizens. The Town of Harmony relies completely on private septic systems. Residents and
businesses in Harmony, including the elementary school, have in the past, and/or presently, are
suffering from failing septic systems. For example:
R, Right now there is raw sewage flowing in close proximity to the elementary school. The
potential exposure to children on playgrounds to raw sewage is not a pleasant thought.
,R Seventeen percent (17%) of community members responding to an opinion survey performed as part
of this PER said that they have experienced septic problems in the past two years, or are currently
experiencing problems. As Harmony grows, the failure of septic systems will continue, even though
community members who are experiencing problems with their septic systems will most likely begin to
experience negative environmental considerations in the future. The Town of Harmony needs to keep
these options of providing for future growth and development, and providing for safe and healthy living
conditions, to be left open.
Exhibit B includes correspondence from Iredell County and local businesses.
Growth
P" The following flow projections are based on the population projections above, existing businesses and
the projected increase in commercial use. Because the Town of Harmony has made a commitment to
mandatory connections to the public sewer system, the number of new customers is equal to the
"�' number of houses and businesses in town. Maximum flow was calculated using a peak factor of 2.0.
MR
Mq
FM
M
MR
cm
Year
Ave Daily Flow (gpd)
Max Daily Flow (gpd)
158,690
2003
79,345
2005
82,865
165,730
2010
92,231
184,462
2015
102,847
205,694
2020
114,589
229,178
Im
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 3

Presentation of Proposed Improvements - Alternatives Considered
The Town of Harmony will require both a collection system and a treatment facility to resolve the
driving issues. In order to have enough users to support the system, the entire town needs to be served
with sewer instead of "phasing" the project. Exhibit C shows the layout of the sewer system and
roposed location 0f the treatment facility.
C Ire S stem Com onents
The To of Harmony sits on a ridge and will require seven pump stations, most of which will be small
sepower stations. Most of the town can be served by sewer lines in the NCDOT Right -of -Way with
., only a small amount of outfall required. The majority of the collection lines will be 8" with a 12"
collection line through the business district. Below is a cost estimate for the collection system
construction excluding design and administration costs.
M
Item
Unit
Quantity
Unit Price
JTotal
8" PVC Sanitary Sewer
LF
32,617
$26
J$848,042
12" PVC Sanitary Sewer
LF
6,500
$32
1$208,000
4' Standard Manholes
EA
125
$1,600
1$200,000
Stone Stabilitization
TN
9,153
$15
$137,301
Clear & Seed Easement Area
AC
8
$5,000
$39,486
Asphalt Repair & Replacement
SY
333
$16
$5,328
Service Connections
EA
333
$500
$166,500
Pump Station
LS
7
$70,000
$496,000
4-6" Farce Main
LF
25,000
$12
$300,000
Subtotal
1$2,394,657
Treatment Component
The Town of Harmony would construct
a facility to treat Harmony's anticipated wastewater flows for a
design period of 20 years. The proposed discharge would
be on Dutchman's Creek. Dutchman's
Creek is a tributary to Rocky Creek which
flows into the South Yadkin River. Speculative discharge
limits for the Dutchman's Creek were
received April 23,
1999 for a site near the proposed plant
location. The Speculative limits are as follows:
Effluent Limits
Summer Winter
Flow
(MGD)
0.25 .25
.. BOD5
(mg/L)
30 30
NH,-N
(mg/L)
2.4 4.7
TSS
(mg/L)
30 30
., Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/L)
5.0
Fecal Corrform
(#/100ml)
200 200
PH
(SU)
6.0-9.0 6.0-9.0
Total Residual Chlorine
W/O
28 28
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 4

FER
MR
The preliminary cost estimates for the design of the treatment facility are based on the following
F, elements:
1. Average Daily Flow
0.25 mgpd
FLI 2. Design BOD5
250 mg/L
3. Design TSS
250 mg/L
4. Design Total TKN
45 mg/L
Mq 5. Effluent BOD5 Required
5 mg/L
6. Effluent TSS
10 mg/L
7. Effluent Ammonia as NH3-N
2 mg/L
MR
Presentation of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
'M Four alternatives were considered to address Harmony's wastewater needs:
Option A: A 250,000 gpd Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
'I Option B: A 250,000 gpd Mechanical Wastewater Treatment Facility
Option C: A 250,000 gpd Land Application Treatment Facility
Option D: Connecting to any nearby existing wastewater collection systems
fqlq
M Description of Treatment Alternatives
p► Option A: A 250,000 ad Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
The Town of Harmony would construct a new 250,000 gpd Constructed Wetlands Wastewater
Mn Treatment Facility (CWWTF) to treat Harmony's anticipated wastewater flows for a design period of 2
y� The CWWTF would consists of the following components:
• Preliminary screening equipment
• Tri-cell lagoon (aerobic, non -aerobic, partially aerobic)
• Dual Shallow rooted plant cells
• Post -treatment (sand filter, UV disinfection, Parshall flume, cascade aeration)
The manual screening device for the constructed wetlands wastewater treatment facility would have an
effective opening of 3/8 to 1 inch. The tri-cell lagoon system which would serve as the primary
treatment unit would utilizlkthree cells within one lagum The first cell would have two aerators; the
second cell non -aerobic and the thir cell would be partially aerobic with one aerator.
Following the tri-cell lagoon is the wetland cells which serve as secondary treatment. The shallow -
rooted plants included in these cells will be bullrush and cattails. The wetland cells comprise e
majority of the site area and will need to be terraced to fit the terrain of the project site.
Following the wetlands cells will be post treatment units including a sand filter, UV disinfection, a
e, Parshall flume and cascade aeration.
MR
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 5

The CWWTF would require approximately 20 acres which would include access roads and other
infrastructure. While the Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment facility could be configured to
minimize space, it is anticipated that there would still be a large area required to be under construction.
Of course, the larger the construction area, the more opportunity for construction related problems to
occur. A detailed geotechnical investigation must be performed to determine the amount of rock, if
any, expected to be encountered during construction. Because the cuts are fairly shallow and the depth
_ of basins likewise shallow; it is anticipated that the conflicts with seasonal high groundwater table
would be limited.
M
M
M
Screening
Tri-cell Lagoon
I Wetland Cells I
Sand Filter
UV Disinfection
Parshall Flume
Cascade Aeration
Z
Option B: A 250,000 apd Mechanical Wastewater Treatment Facility 25°,
i
The Town of Harmony would construct a�nts
0 echanical wastewater treatment plant to meet
their wastewater needs. The following would be required:
• Screening equipment
• Two Aeration Basins
• Two Clarifiers
Sludge Digestion
• Tertiary Filtration
• Disinfection
• Post Aeration
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report— October 2000 Page 6

MM
tM
,mot The following is a schematic of a mechanical wastewater treatment facility.
raq
F"
P"
Mn
r%t
Clarifier (Clat•ifiet
i
Scrremtt_ lfeasurentetttation Sphtter Junction Tertian
' --, AerBox BOX Fihn1it.-t Disirfxtion
f'asl -
'� I :\eratiott
RAS Sludge Return
Pump Station
WAS
To Discharg-t:
Point
Di�asttoit�---► To Sludge Disposal
Pin The discharge points and design criteria for the mechanical wastewater treatment facility would be the
same as for the CWWTF.
Option C: A 250,000 apd Land Application Treatment Facility
The Town of Harmony would develop a land application site with a capacity of 250,000 gpd to meet
their wastewater treatment needs. This system would consist of the following components:
• A secondary treatment facility consisting of a mechanical bar screen, flow monitoring station
and aerated storage lagoon.
• A land application field (for this preliminary report slow rate irrigation is the assumed method
FNI of application).
-40 This alternative does no � t require an NPDES permit since wastewater is not released or discharged to
surface waters of the State. The hydraulic application to the soil must be carefully determined to
preclude run off. The applied wastewater evaporates and is used by plants or percolates into the soil
and ultimately joins the groundwater. The total system must be carefully controlled to insure proper
operation, and the groundwater must be monitored to prevent contamination.
,It Option D: Connecting to any nearby existing wastewater collection systems
The nearest existin water tr is the Statesville. The closest line is 1
miles from Harmony which is too distant to consider as a possible discharge point. This option is cost
prohibitive and will not be included as an option for evaluation further in this report.
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 7
M"

M4
Pin
Environmental Assessment of Treatment Alternatives
Fa,
The following is an environmental discussion of the impacts of each of the altematives. This section
primarily addresses the adverse impacts associated with each option.
MI
Option A: 250,000 apd Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
The constructed wetlands wastewater treatment facility will require construction of approximately 10
acres of property. Counting roadways and appurtenant infrastructure, this number approaches N
cres. Because of the large land area required and associated buffers around the wastewater treatment
rim
facility, it is anticipated that the opportunity for disturbance of habitat, existing wetland areas, and other
highly specialized natural areas is sse. A species survey (both plant and animal) as well as a
wetland a ineation is anticipated prior to the final option being exercised on the property. During the
course of construction, machinery such as bulldozers, scrapers, pans, and other trucks and
combustion powered equipment will be on the project site. The praiact duration
short (within 6 to 8 months) and the environmental impacts are considered to be minimal.
_
The effects on the environment with respect to ultimate system and how it fits in and balances with the
environment is an extreme positive and one of the primary considerations for this alternative being
Fin carefully considered. The approximately 20 acres of new natural habitat area associated with the
constructed wetlands facility are anticipated to greatly outweigh any potential temporary environmental
impacts associated with construction.
Option B: 250,000 apd Mechanical Wastewater Treatment Facility
raq
The construction of concrete basins and piping and discharge facilities does represent a temporary
impact to a small area. This impact would be in the form of utilization of combustion engines on the
M, project site, potential for construction noise, and the transport of new materials to the project site. The
temporary construction noise and air quality effects are minimal as they relate to the overall operation
of positive environmental solutions. There are, however, long-term environmental impacts anticipated
rM such as an increase in decibel level to the area based on the continual operation of rotary positive
displacement g[Qweers and other rotating equipment.
,a, The mechanical wastewater treatment facility would be designed with sufficient aeration which would
provide for the dampening to reduction of any potential negative odors associated with the facility.
Option C: A 250,000 apd Land Application Treatment Facility
Following primary treatment and disinfection, wastewater can be land -applied using irrigation or
infiltration/percolation systems. Generally, land application requires several acres of cleared land with
gentle or no slopes to prevent runoff if spray applied. Irrigation applications require comparable
SM acreage. The ability of existing soils in the community to adequately treat the wastewater irrigation
would control the required acreage. The area is defined by mountainous terrain. Substantial clearing
and grading would have to be performed to develop adequate ground slopes. This would require
imp emen a ron erosion con ro measures ur nng construction. Substantial storm water controls
�► would also have to be constructed to control storm water runoff during a rain event. The -Temporary
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 8

rin
FM
construction impact could be minimized with proper construction techniques and construction
oversight. The temporary environmental impacts during construction can be categorized as moderate.
Permanent environmental impacts for land application by field irrigation are minimal, if properly
installed. A pumping system would be required to provide the flow to the irrigation system. Noise
�' levels from the pump station are considered non-existent. Noise levels from the floating aerator for the
primary treatment lagoon can be moderate. During wet weather odor from the application field may be
a consideration. Extremely prolonged wet spells could also provide inadequacies in the ability of the
MR application field to properly transport the irrigation. Saturated soils during
p p Y p g g prolonged wet periods may
cause wastewater to reach receiving waters in either an untreated or partially treated state.
Land Requirements of Treatment Alternatives
Option A: A 250,000 upd Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
'q 20 acres including buffer area
FM
Option B: 250,000 gpd Mechanical Wastewater Treatment Facility
10 acres
M Option C: 250,000 gpd Land Application Treatment Facility
90 acres including storage acreage
Construction Problems
Option A: A 250,000 gpd Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
fm This option would require approximately 20 acres which would include access roads and other
infrastructure. While the constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment facility could be configured to
minimize space, it is anticipated that there would still be a large area required to be under construction.
Sin Of course, the larger the construction area, the more opportunity for construction related problems to
occur. A detailed geotechnical investigation must be performed to determine the presence of rock on
the proposed site. Because the cuts are fairly shallow and the depth of basins likewise shallow; it is
anticipated that the conflicts with seasonal high groundwater table would be limited.
Option B: 250,000 god Mechanical Wastewater Treatment Facility
Dependant upon the hydraulic profile associated with the final layout of the mechanical wastewater
treatment facility, it is anticipated that a portion of those structures necessary for the major process
OR units may need to be buried with a wall height of 42 inches. This partial burial would require an
evaluation of the groundwater conditions and possible dewatering of high groundwater in the area of
construction. The other construction consideration such as rock are expected to be minimal based
MIM upon the minimal footprint required for mechanical treatment facility.
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 9
MR

MR
FER
FMR
Option C: 250,000 god Land Application Treatment Facility
PR
Because this option required 90 acres of land, the availability of that much consecutive land is a —
concern of Harmony. Also, a detailed geotechnical investigation will be needed to insure
FM That the soil is acceptable for land application and to determine the amount of rock to be expected.
MI
MR
MR
rAq
MR
SM
PIR
ran
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 10

M
M
Capital Cost for Wastewater Treatment Facility Alternatives
Option A: 250,000 opd Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
Item
Unit
Quantity
Unit Price
Total
Earthwork
CY
125,000
S 2.00
$250,0001
Clearing and Grubbing
AC
22
$ 2,500
$55,000
Wetland Liner (Bentomat)
SF
348,480
$ 0.45
$156,816
Wetland Plantings
SF
348,480
$ 0.05
$17,424
Plant Process Piping
LF
2,200
$ 15.00
$33,000
Lagoon Baffle
SF
3,600
$ 1.00
$3,600
Splitter Boxes
EA
1
$ 1,500.00
$1,500
Effluent Control Structure
CY
100
$ 300.00
530,000
UV Disinfection Equipment and Installation
LS
1
$ 25,000.00
$25,000
Sand Filter System Installation
LS
1
$ 15,000.00
$15,000
Cascade Aeration Structure
LS
1
$ 5,000.00
$5,000
Plant Access Roadway (Gravel)
LF
2,500
$ 25.00
$62,500
Influent Wetland Distribution Manifold
EA
1
$ 1,500.00
$1,500
Effluent Wetland Collection Box
EA
1
$ 1,500.00
$1,500
Floating Aerator Including Mooring
EA
3
$ 10,000.00
$30,000
Miscellaneous Electrification
LS
1
$ 10,000.00
$10,000
Erosion and Sediment Control
LS 11
$ 300 00
Sewer Collection System
11
$ 394,6
$2,394,657
Construction Subtotal
$3,122,497
Species Survey & Floodway Analysis
$10,000
Surveying (easements & property)
$36,500
Design
$199,800
Subsurface Investigations
$10,000
Land Cost
$135,000
Legal & Administrative
$31,200
Construction Administration
$149,900
Operation & Maintenance Manual
$15,000
Interest During Construction
$50,000
Construction Contingency
$312,200
Total Cost Opinion
$4,072,097
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report - October 2000 Page 11

M Option B: 250,000 and Mechanical Wastewater Treatment Facility
M
■1
M
M
.N
Item
Site Preparation
'Total Price
1 $300,000
Yard Piping
$35,000
Aeration Basins
1 $125,000
Clarifiers
; $100,000
Sludge Return & Fitter Pump Station
$42,500
Tertiary Fitters
; $45,000
Control Building
$50,000
Standby Power & Electrical
$44,000
Disinfection
$25,000
Sludge Stabilization Basin
$62,500
Instrumentation
$12,500
Erosion & Sedimentation Control
i $30,000
Sewer Collection System
$2,394,657
Construction Subtotal
$3,266,157
Species Survey & Floodway Analysis
$10,000
Surveying (easements & property)
$36,500
Design
$209,000
Subsurface Investigations
$10,000
Land Cost
$90,000
Legal & Administrative
$32,600
Construction Administration
$156,800
Operation & Maintenance Manual
$15,000
Interest During Construction
$50,000
Construction Contingency
1$326,600
Total Cost Opinion
1$4,202,657
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 12

fan
rR
zil
PIR
Pm
M
W
FER
AM
pq
Fm
fun
7
Option C: 250,000 qpd Land Application Treatment Facility
item
unit
qty.
unit cos
total
Land Acquisition
AC
85
$
6,000
$ 507,612
Clearing & Grubbing
AC
85
$
1,500
$ 126,903
Crop Planting, Seeding, Mulching
AC
185
$
1,000
$ 84,602
Storage Land Acquisition
AC
5
$
1,000
$ 4,911
Clearing & Grubbing
AC
5
$
1,500
$ 7,366
Build Earthen Berm
LS
1
$
48,000
$ 48,000
Liner
I
I
SY
23767
$
10
$ 237,671
Seeding & Mulching
AC
1.8
$
1,000
$ 1,837
Distribution Pump Station
LS
1
$
50,000
$ 50,000
Pre-screening
LS
1
$
210,000
$ 210,000
Delivery Piping
LF
2600
$
15
$ 39,000
Delivery Valves & Blowoffs
LS
1
$
5,000
$ 5,000
Irrigation Main
LF
5700
$
10
$ 57,000
Lateral Pipe
LF
28075
$
5
$ 140,374
Valves
EA
67
$
300
$ 20,107
Sprinkler Heads
EA
281
$
200
$ 56,150
Sewer Collection System
LS
1
$
2,394,656
$2,394,657
Construction Subtotal
$3,991,100
Species Survey & Floodway Analysis
$10,000
Surveying (easements & property)
$50,000
Design
$255,400
Subsurface Investigations
$10,000
Legal & Administrative
$39,900
Construction Administration
$191,600
Operation & Maintenance Manual
$15,000
Interest During Construction
$60,000
Construction Contingency
$399,100
Total Cost Opinion
$59022,100
� - o -
Mc4^m4
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report - October 2000 Page 13
FM

Pin
n
(2" Operation and Maintenance Costs
Sewer Collection System Operations and Maintenance
There are seven pump stations that will be operated and maintained in the sewer collection system
along with the actual line work itself. Below is an estimate of the operation and maintenance cost for
MR the collection system.
Pm
2003
2023
((92%/yr.)
Average/yr.
Pump Station - Power
$9,100
$13,500
Pump Maintenance
$10,200
$15,200
Total operations & Maintenance
$19,300
$28,700
$24.000
Annual operations and maintenance costs are described for each of the primary alternatives.
Option A: 250,000 apd Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
mn If a constructed wetlands wastewater treatment facility is selected for the Town of Harmony, the
operation and maintenance is reduced significantly. The constructed wetlands wastewater treatment
concept uses the natural approach of biological waste decomposition through anaerobic, aerobic and
Fm facultative microbial life. The influent waste stream would still need to undergo a rudimentary screening
process followed by flow measurement. These operation and maintenance aspects were outlined in
the mechanical treatment section.
Following the preliminary screening, the wastewater must undergo primary treatment. The primary
treatment anticipated for the Harmony system would be a small aerobic lagoon which provides for
M, aeration, then a quiescent zone settling followed by a slight reaeration zone prior to entrance into the
constructed wetlands marsh facility. This highly aerobic zone would be accomplished through either
floating aerators or course bubble diffused aeration in an impervious lagoon or tank. The maintenance
fm associated with a floating -type aerator would be lined periodic observation of the aeration equipment
and turning off and inspecting the equipment for required greasing of fittings, etc. The aeration
equipment that should be designed and installed in the aerobic zone should be equipment that is
ton expected to run 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
Following the preliminary treatment, the wastewater would flow to the natural section of the constructed
wetlands wastewater treatment facility. In this section which could be a bulrush or cattail plant section,
the waste is placed in an environment which has an extremely long detention time. The natural nutnen
uptake from the plant species breaks down the waste elements specifically nutrients such as
phosphorus and nitrogen. There is maintenance around this facility, as it is land intensive. It is,
however, only as it relates to mowing and potential animal depravation if those animals begin to cause
problems such as borrowing into berms, etc. Following the natural marsh facility, the wastewater
would flow to a sand filter followed by UV disinfection, a Parshall flume and finally cascade aeration.
These components would require the same type of maintenance required as described in the
mechanical treatment section.
MR
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 14
0"

FM
MR
M
M,
MR
M4
MR
fm
CAR
w
ran
Expected Annual 0 & M
2003
2023
(@2°%/yr.)
Average/yr.
Treatment Plant - Power
$8,500
$12,600
Treatment Plant - Maintenance
$9,500
$14,100
Treatment Plant - Operations
$34,000
$50,500
Total Operations & Maintenance
$52,000
$779200
$641600
CA ww� _174
yol�
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 15
am

MR
Pq
Option B: Conventional Mechanical Wastewater Treatment Facility
Rm
If conventional mechanical treatment facilities are constructed, the Town can expect to provide
operation and maintenance to the following process units:
1,
• Manual/mechanical bar screen which will require attention raking and screenings removal and
disposal.
Fm
• Influent wastewater pumping which will require electrical power maintenance at the pump station
and potential odor control.
FM
• Influent flow measurement through a Parshall flume with an ultrasonic flow meter recording flow.
The output for this flow would most likely go to a circular chart recorder which would require daily
Ral or weekly chart maintenance to switch the charts, pins, etc.
• Aeration basin. In most mechanical wastewater treatment facilities, aeration is provided as the
primary treatment facility in the flow scheme. In any aeration basin you will have either mechanical
`� surface type aeration or diffused bubble aeration. in either of these, there are bearings on
mechanical rotating equipment or blowers with rotating equipment providing aeration. Operation
and maintenance would be in the form of checking grease fittings on bearings, observing the
IT-1 equipment in operation and a routine maintenance plan.
• Clarification. For the liquid/solid separation circular clarifiers are typically utilized. The circular
rm clarifier is driven by a one to two horsepower worm gear drive unit which rarely needs extensive
maintenance other changing the oil. Periodically, the clarifiers need to be taken down and the
rotating equipment (skimmer arms, scrapper blades, etc.) need to be touched up and repainted.
• Tertiary Filtration. Most likely a mechanical wastewater treatment facility for the Town of Harmony
would be required to use a tertiary filtration basin. This third step in the treatment process will
MM assure high quality effluent, particularly for total suspended solids and BOD5 that is captured on the
suspended solids. Typical operation and maintenance items for tertiary filtration include:
periodically coring the filter media to observe its functionality and uniformity and operating the
MR filters in a backwash mode to clean and scrub the media to afford a 50% media expansion for
continued filter performance. The equipment necessary to facilitate backwash and normal
operation typically includes a rotary positive displacement blower pumps, etc. Greasing and
Pm observation of this equipment would be a part of the routine.
• Disinfection Facilities. While the move in wastewater treatment technology is more towards
ultraviolet disinfection, the characteristics of the waste treated must be carefully considered. If UV
disinfection is selected, it is anticipated that bulb cleaning, which involves taking a rack of bulbs
,.out of the wastewater flow stream and removing the film that builds up over time, would improve
the transmissivity of light. This is a routine maintenance item. Periodic observation of the
equipment for other touch-up paint type items or cleanliness around the facilities is critical. If
chlorination/dechlorination is suggested based on effluent conditions, then chlorine storage and
,_, handling becomes a major consideration. Chlorine which is a hazardous chemical, is required to
be stored in a safe manner. It is anticipated that this would include a storage building equipped
with evacuation fans, alarms, sensors, and scales. The operation and maintenance requires a
fm
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 16

MA
r4
process safety management plan and training of operators, specifically for work around the facility
rM containing chlorine.
OR
M
M
raq
Mn
ow
SM
M
IMI
• Routine process control test, as well as laboratory and NPDES permitting test are required. It is
anticipated that a portion of these new laboratory procedures would be "farmed out" to larger
facilities or to contract operators. Nonetheless, however, a few of the basic rudimentary
operational test must still be performed by the operators. These would include total suspended
solids, BOD5, residual chlorine, dissolved oxygen, etc.
Expected Annual 0 & M
2003
2023
(@2%/yr.)
Average/yr.
Treatment Plant - Power
$32,500
$48,300
Treatment Plant - Maintenance
$15,000
$22,300
Treatment Plant - Operations
$45,000
$66,900
Total Operations & Maintenance
$92,500
$137,500
$115,000
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 17

M
IM
Option C: A 250,000gpd Land Application Treatment Facility
A land application treatment facility consists of the same preliminary treatment equipment as a
mechanical plant. A mechanical bar removes large solids from the influent. Flow is then sent to an
SMI aeration basin. Aeration is provided as described in the mechanical plant process.
From aeration the flow is disinfected. Disinfection is normally achieved by chlorine disinfection
MR systems. Ultra violet light disinfection is normally not an option due to the lack of clarity in the effluent.
Once disinfected, flow is pumped to the irrigation field for application. The irrigation field consists of a
series of distribution lines and control valves. Field vegetation control most also be considered.
`op Expected Annual 0 & M
ZQI
fm
MI
FMI
rMn
r,
rM
M
SM
SM
MI
2003
2023
(g20/o`/yr.)
Average/yr.
Treatment Plant - Power
$25,000
$37,100
Treatment Plant - Maintenance
$7,000
$10,400
Treatment Plant - Operations
$38,000
$56,500
Total Operations & Maintenance
$70,000
$1049000
$879000
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 18
ow

Net Present Cost of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
For the basis of comparing alternatives, a 20-year life cycle cost analysis (net present cost) was
performed for each alternative. A compounding rate of 8% was used for the analysis. Salvage value
was based upon the land cost, and assumed a 50-yr useful life on piping and other materials. The
following summarizes the net present cost analysis:
Option A: 250,000 god Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
Total Present Worth of 0&M @ 8% $869,884
Salvage Value
Category
Cost
Salvage Factor
Salvage Value
Structure
$2,525,757
30/50
1,515,454
Land
$135,000
3% inc.(20 yr.)
243,823
Total Salvage Value year 2020 $1,759,277
Total Salvage Value year 2000 (98%) $377,365
Total Present Worth
Capital $4,072,097
0&M $869,884
Salvage $ 37� 7,365)
Total Present Worth $4,564,616
Option B: Conventional Mechanical Wastewater Treatment Facility
Total Present Worth of 0&M @ 8% $1,364,716
Salvage Value
Category
Cost
Salvage Factor
Salvage Value
Structure
$2,829,657
30/50
1,697,794
Land
$90,000
3% inc. 20 yr.
162,549
Total Salvage Value year 2020 $1,860,343
Total Salvage Value year 2000 (@8%) $399,044
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 19

Total Present Worth
Capital $4,202,657
0&M $1,364,716
r Salvage $ 399 044
Total Present Worth $5,166,329
Option C: A 250.000 gpd Land Application Treatment Facility
r Total Present Worth of 0&M @ 8% $1,089,809
Salvage Value
r
r
Category
Cost
Salvage factor
Salvage Value
Structure
$2,762,288
30/50
1 1,677,373
Land
$512,523
3% inc. (20 yr.)
1925,678
Total Salvage Value year 2020 $2,603,051
r Total Salvage Value year 2000 (@8%) $558,354
Total Present Worth
Capital $5,022,100
0&M $1,089,809
r Salvage 558,354)
Total Present Worth $5,553,555
Table 4: Net Present Costs of Alternatives
r
From an economic position, the 250,000 GPD CWWTF yields the lowest Net Present Cost by
r $441,223. This analysis indicates that best long term solution (20 years) for the Town of Harmony is
to construct a constructed wetlands wastewater treatment facility.
r
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report— October 2000 Page 20

RM
MR
Advantages/DisadvantageFM
Because the Town of Harmony is a small town with few resources, the cost of the wastewater
treatment facility, both capital and operational, must be as minimal as possible. The Town plans to
contract out plant operation to a licensed operator instead of hiring an employee. Lab analysis, testing
FM and billing will also be contracted to outside sources. The best alternative will satisfy the Town's need
for low cost and ease of operation.
MA The followingtable has been developed to aid in the decision making p g process. This matrix identifies
seven selections or parameter weighting criteria. These are described as below:
am 1. Expandability - Expandability is the ability for the constructed option to be expanded upon in the
future and allow for additional flow and capacity within the existing site.
FM 2. Life Span - Life span is the planning window and long term operation and maintenance window of
the facility.
M' 3. Engineering Concept - Engineering concept is the measure of applicability to normal engineering
practices and assuring the solution is technically capable of meeting the design constraints.
fm 4. Environmental Impact - Environmental impact identifies those areas which are potentials for upset
and concern.
R" 5. Susceptibility to Upset - Susceptibility to upset is the measure of the buffering or damping affect of
the wastewater treatment facility to handle abnormal occurrences of inflow or slow flows into the
waste treatment facility.
6. Ease of Operation - Ease of operation is a measure of how easy it is to operate the facility and how
adaptable and user friendly the facility is to operate or direct changes.
Mn
7. Net Present Cost - Net present cost is simply a measure of the total cost of the project or life cycle
cost. It is calculated by taking the capital cost and associated operation and maintenance cost and
,14 combining those costs to generate the total net present cost.
The matrix shows the relative importance in weighing each of these seven parameters. It is most
M, common that net present cost is the primary decision making tool, and as such, we have weighted it at
50 percent. The remaining decision making factors are distributed based on their importance to the
long term operation and their ability to meet existing and proposed conditions.
MR
Upon studying the preferred systems analysis matrix, it can be ascertained that not only is the
Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility the best alternative from a net present cost
fm standpoint but it is also the preferred alternative overall. The charts accompanying the matrix shows a
definite trend towards the Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility.
M"
FMI
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 21
Mp

Table 6: Matrix Parameters
Ability To Expand (0-5)
WeightParameters
5
Option
3
Option
I 4 1
Option
0.5
System Lifespan (0-2)
1 2
2
1.5 1
1
Engineering Concept (0-2)
2
2
2
2
Environmental Impact (0-7)
7
6
5
3
Upset Potential (0-7)
7
6
4
5
Operational Ease (0-27)
j 27
23
14
25
Net Present Cost (0-50)
50
50
40 j
30
Total Score 1
100
92
70.5
Alternative Evaluation Matrix
Mility To Espand aystam Lifespan agh... na Enrimnmental UW1 Patential (0- Operational Ease Net Present Cost
(0-5) (0-2) Cancept(0-2) llry (0-7) 7) (0-27) ("o)
® Constructed Wetland Facility ® Mechanical W WrP M Land Application System
Alternative Evaluation Summary
I ®Constructed Wetland Facility M Mechanical W WTP M Status Quo -Union County System
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 22

fon
fm
MR Proposed Project (Recommended Alternative)
Because of the on -going problems Harmony residents and businesses have with private septic
systems, the Town of Harmony will develop a public sewer system. Building a central collection
system that serves the entire town and a 250,000 gallon per day Constructed Wetlands Treatment
Facility is the best alternative for treating the Town.
The proposed treatment plant site is west of town and borders on Dutchman's Creek. The total
acreage of the site is approximately 68 acres, 25 of which will be used for the treatment facility.
Currently the site is predominately forest land.
fm
M
ran
r,
rAq
rAn
M
MR
am
raq
M"
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000
Ml
Page 23

ran
-too V0
Funding the Project
The Town of Harmony has acquired a grant from The Rural Center for $1,000 000 for ' 'ect
and also has a commitment from IredeCounty for $200
is first model assumes no grant
money is acquired for the project.
Total Project Estimate (Updated 4-19-00)
$ 4,072,097
Rural Center Supplemental Grant
$1,000,000
Rural Center Unsewered Communities Money
Rosewood Rest Home Funding
$ -
Pq
Iredell County Funding
$ 200,000
45% (of Total Project) Rural Development Grant
$ -
Project Balance to Be Funded Through RD loan
$ 2,872,097
Annual Debt Service (38-Yr. Amon, 4.475%)
$ 156,381
System Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost
$ 71,289
Total Annual Revenue Need
$ 227,670
Number of Connected Users (Equivalent User Calc)
333
"M
Monthly Cost to User (Equally Distributed)
$ 56.97
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Pump Station Summary
Sm
Power (5Hp,12 Hr. Run, $.08/Kw-Hr)
$ 1,306.99
Pump Replacement (1 every 10 Years)
$ 500.00
fm
Maintenance (0.25 Hr/day, $7.00/Hr)
$ 455.00
Maintenance Equip (truck, tools, etc.)
$ 500.00
Total Annual Per Pump Station Cost
$ 2,761.99
My
Number of Pump Stations in Project
7
Total Pump Station Cost
$19,333.94
MR
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Primary Process Power (1511p, 24 Hr., $0.08/Kw-Hr.) $ 7,841.95
Tertiary Process Power (5Hp, 24 Hr., $0.08/Kw-Hr.) $ 613.20
'a'
Laboratory and Analytical Testing $10,000.00
Mowing/Grounds Maintenance ($50/Acre, Ave. 6 wk.) $ 6,500.00
Maintenance Equip (truck, tools, etc.) $ 3,000.00
Operational Labor $ 24,000.00
Total Treatment Cost $ 51,955.15
Total Annual Operation and Treatment Cost $ 71,289.10
Suggested Rate Structure
,a,
Base Rate (Approximately 2/3 Fixed Cost) 0-2000 Gallons $ 37.98 $151,780 Fixed Revenue
Variable Rate >2001 Gallons Consumed {$/1000 Gal} $ 6.33
FM
Assuming 5,000 Gallons Average Usage $ 227,670
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 24
FMI

This and model a sumes that a grant equaling 45% the project cost is acquired
Rural Deve
from USDA
bring the user cost down to g more reasonable monthly amount.
Total Project Estimate (Updated 4-19-00) $ 4,072,097
Rural Center Supplemental Grant $1,000,000
Rural Center Unsewered Communities Money
Rosewood Rest Home Funding $ -
Iredell County Funding $ 200,000
45% (of Total Project) Rural Development Grant $1,832,444
Project Balance to Be Funded Through RD loan $1,039,653
Annual Debt Service (38-Yr. Amort, 4.475%) $ 56,607
System Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost $ 71,289
Total Annual Revenue Need $ 127,897
Number of Connected Users (Equivalent User Calc) 431.3
Monthly Cost to User (Equally Distributed) $.
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Pump Station Summary
Power (51-1p,12 Hr. Run, $.08/Kw-Hr) $ 1,306.99
Pump Replacement (1 every 10 Years) $ 500.00
Maintenance (0.25 Hr/day, $7.00/Hr) $ 455.00
Maintenance Equip (truck, tools, etc.) $ 500.00
Total Annual Per Pump Station Cost $ 2,761.99
..
Number of Pump Stations in Project 7
Total Pump Station Cost $19,333.94
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Primary Process Power (151-1p, 24 Hr., $0.08/Kw-Hr.) $ 7,841.95
Tertiary Process Power (5Hp, 24 Hr., $0.08/Kw-Hr.) $ 613.20
Laboratory and Analytical Testing $10,000.00
Mowing/Grounds Maintenance ($50/Acre, Ave. 6 wk.) $ 6,500.00
Maintenance Equip (truck, tools, etc.) $ 3,000.00
Operational Labor $ 24,000.00
Total Treatment Cost $ 51.955.15
Total Annual Operation and Treatment Cost $ 71,289.10
Suggested Rate Structure
..
Base Rate (Approximately 2/3 Fixed Cost) 0-2000 Gallons $ 21.34 $ 85,264 Fixed Revenue
Variable Rate >2001 Gallons Consumed {$/1000 Gal} $ 3.56
(Assuming 5,000 Gallons Average Usaqe $ 127
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000
Page 25

MR
r.R
Conclusions & Recommendations
AM
In order for this project to move forward successfully for the Town of Harmony, additional funding must
be acquired. In order for the project to be affordable for the citizens of Harmony, grant funding must be
,,,, acquired. It is recommended that the Town of Harmony continue to work together with The Rural
Center and USDA Rural Development through the completion of the sewer system.
MR
W
MIA
raq
FIR
MR
M
MR
fm
MR
rM
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000
Page 26
0"

Exhibit A

' % f
• N t
*• y taf �■eage
f■
■ i�'�� f
00090
•+` ! y l
t
I
f •�
t
tt
+r �. Of
00
•
A •
♦ 400dOw �s■■qmmmp
r.
• ' ■OPOP
Aims tea■
of,
i
`�- VOTC41AMM CgUILdo
■ a
t
■ f
m q sop,* a ■
■ + ■ s •
k A • S i
•
■ 00 ■
A � � •• --ram � � 1
' r■
16
�� ..•
a

Exhibit B
17

ra, 11/13/1998 18:04 7045463010
. 4 � TLJEETEC PAGE 02
Alt
,, : 1
Advanced Tuf�in,( Technolo Ync: "•<
i37 �>
V.
Harmony, NC 28634
704-546-3005
Novernber I I998
John Ray C a t,tl)bell
n.
P.O. Box 118
1111" ony. NC 286:34
1)0••t'_ Mayor Campbell, :Sill
• .}'. '� O.•.i.'�-'�'S I :'�' �ti�� • •••fir. i• •'r •;` -
110 veFv Much enjoyed Qttt ,l?rIB{Slii �
(rave occtnpieci rile Leggett k !'tart �o e : r' th can year that we
artt 3 : 'uc.Ai i
and a Similar number of temporary en p1 e ., i,;, �.bdt: .��. <s employed to Yed 2 2 people
We have been lbrtunate to grow extreme pra
rc:Cc»tly been nlptiilEd b�,'dcrii�ir.ftsre:of.hu>l�iss Tn.dditinn, we have
ram, y a major ctxstbmer*flip • ' .,:.•• : .
., ,. -,1 '. h x�eri au�8tdiad ri% roducri n c
tlegill it' June cif' 1999 that will do y1':� � � ,• p' � contractthatwill
ai?c: of cur titcil i ��'�: . .. ,• , t7st�#etlitw•�we mi ht increase ti e
t within _ �z
Y n the next si�c.moiitits � ''' ��••':•• ' <: "'� .., •w ;�:. �:..: .
As you knout. leased Y :: �;.?,.��:;,.:, : �.`:.: . ;- �:;
our Ctlt'rCllt. faeilil _ ".` :`• ' ' ;.
�l{sc�p�itlgf'a::s tic si i<e ; .
i harmony sewer system. The se. ptic.fink ' t•>r; ate;` t I'Jii:r ' is not a 'row11 of
�areaI"or this Property, (hereby elimifi&tin: � tie pfft' #1itt ;ura�ifc16-the logical expansion
-sI ° a t z or a rc tTYi .� ,pert
r I lair and c;xlr<tndiltg it to meet our needs " ti :. ,• `; .fK y fro Leggett &
It iN Illy undc.jrt.tncling that the TovKti':ofl ' y• \> '' `"'i 'rE' 'r .
t'is ri t✓� r' "`.
tt•e,tt relent C•rci[iiy arld ated . , l�- : : e ss . 1 VlYin# °i, nnd$ to build a water
ttssaci selec sysixri�etiid:
as il'there were a way to manage the stiot•t t `.»` =, Ire:s: ' :x:. ysiii.e'I,rtiotta( ley June, 1999 rind
et :1 ONE. ,.: i rile a isti» se tic i,, •r �,• • ';t? J:o edo;iM*Atfie%il { ng in•:rlte same area a
S I tc'lIt ube.tec t�icliild ttleTtseip;{ s
Ii-0111 Leg"e-tt & plati.:`I? = 1dtTIO `}�tit•cltase clf''the boil 1 dit g
Iiecat'sc tilt: saver System fiends an2d .;?. ; .`� <. ;,. ' ..�:a'.::::•:.:.;.:$; `_=
:ime1'ire ar#ehra ' t'b8s al��
Getter t, - 'tn:tho
rlc:w t�lciiitl'tllat Lan ,::; �,•, _}?roces$.ofseai•ching fora
caccolnmb-iiate`'Clhlrs: [(� 11.; . t`�ex o
c�t�craticrl;t! by June 199� ;; ,, <.. r.Pahsi.:, a:�ltni}>7t die' iel�yec: and must be
1Ve lrlve n�ti>rt I? Ht'. 'It
! apc�Jc)eire i('this is a disrlPpointme,itio:(11:. :=.:::� _-: -'•.. ':;-..::.'_.: ::;� •. � •_ '
.0. � .of l��rt`citoh :'V a Ii
` •. -sincere tv, een oyed-*a
laornchereanti�cOvoulclalavc liked itFtua tva , a aril. 5haad",fiee;-Fe cv-I(I �i-1fiinnllly Pieise cut nee know. l act ctr
. Thank vcn.i very rlr)t.Ich for the hospitit[iry, >l '
l..�011l �nilytil �1 1 _
Preside-111

0,41
MR
ram
r--n
R,
Pm
M4
02-10-1990 li:26AM
l-sns.nd It Uot
11M IREG. CI�JNTY ENV. hE;t_TH TO '!?. b,bb1Nuq�1
r+; we 0
IREDELL COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
318 TctrAsrsbkrg Hfghway • statesville. NOM Carotiaa ZMS - (704) 97&53oo
Steve McDonald
lmdell Sw=ville Schools
Dew Steve:
February 10, 1999
'a' R2cezttly we received a request to tie the concession stand bathrooms onto the e, cisting septic
tank systeM at Harmony School. As part of the conditions to be able to tie this on ow department
makes an inspcclion of the existing system to dgurtnkc the aottdil, n of the 5 Wrn and t0 see if it
PER has the capacity to accept thus addltional load.
Aflvr I : eceived this request I checked this system sad found that one of the four dram eld s
Sm had SCVMSe surfacing. Thc=&r - cur department cannot approve any additions to this systcrn at this
brae. It is our wadec5tanding that Dent Gryder and his dcpara =t is now tag steps to improve
landscape over this failing drainficld and distribution was going zo be improved to spread more
ef3luent in the 3 fields that were working,
After these improvemcats are madc i wiU reinspeu This system is approximately 30 days to
set if thcso tncssuras have caused the syetem io be functional again. If the system continues to fail
after this table your engineer will need to prepare a plan to repair this system. You for your
cooperation in this mattrr.
rM
M
SM
fm
Sm
Sincerely,
C.
I C. Moore, R 3.
Enviroruncntal Health, Specialist
MR rOTRl_ P_ s-2

MR
FOR
I� wffw%w bed Next 04me
Rq 3134 Harmony HighwW
H8=QXW, NC 28634
Euless # (704) 5445-2671
FaX[phone] -
NOWEM 16.1998
�► TOWN OF HARMONY
ATTN• MAYOR JORN R.Ay C, iMpBgLL
HIGHWAY 21 NORTH
,�, HARMONY. NC 28634
RE: ROSEWOOD REST HOME
r-M ONY, NC 28634 B
PROBLEMS
FM
DEAR 1tAYOR CAW13ELL:
rM WE PURCHASED ROSEWOOD
JANUARY, I 994; LNHE TI NG T1iFM HOME, 3134 HARMON Y HWY. HARMONY, NC,
SE
FAIL' NG FOR OVER 14 YEARS(! WF.R PROBLEMS. OUR SYSTEM UAS ,BEEN
TO OUR TROUBLED SY WE PRL°SENTLY "AVE ONLY A
'"' STEM. WHILE AWAITING T�RARY SOLirI'ION
�3AVE SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOi.LARS AND MAN MONY�S PURPOSED SYSMhj WE
THIS PR08LEM THE ENG�FEE+,R gg� AND ATTORNEY
HOURS TRYING TO R.EC`I'IFY
FEES HAVE BEEN EXHORBANT!
WE HAVE HAD PLANS DRAWN S N
Cp
1995 B�ECAUSL OF ALL ' DELAYS CAUsgp 8 Y OTHE R A 40 M E'ANSION OUR
rim AND STATE, WE HAVE NOT AS OF TB! RB�ONSiBL$ClALS YES)' BUT
PRESP..N't'LY ]HAVE 24 S DATE ABLE TO BEGIN CONMUC-rjOTH COUNTY
'N�ASE OUR N USER 01OP S W11O �iE 49 RESiDEN�'S. OUR ADDITION L
THE S ALONFS
E WOULD BRING TAX DOLLARS BY A WOULD
`� ARS TO HARMONY �' AND PERHAPS MORE.
Wi STRONGLY FEP.L, THAT IF THE TOWN OF RARMONY am NMDS TO FIGHT DILIGENTi.y FOR T1.IE PROJECTED SEWER SYS To GROW, WOULD
LIKE
TO ASK FOR YOUR ASS] STANCE IN A POSSIBLE GRANT FOR OUR AS.SIS ID4 WE WOULD L11
FACB.TI'Y. WE WILL DONATE THP ENPIRE AMOUNT TO HARMONY'S SEWER PR G
U.IECr...
PLEASE LET US KNOW WIAT FORMATION YOU MA Y NEED TO ASSIST US IIJ REM
rim A GRANT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO TIES MUCH NEEDED ENI) AVop VII1G
MR SII�IC'•ERII.Y, '

ran
MR
M"
MR
MR
MR
raq
HARMONY CAFETERIA, INC.
The Harmony Cafeteria Inc. has been operating under the management of Judy Daniels
and Marcia Parise since January of 1980. Prior to that it was operated by Robert and Musa
Kinder since 1973. The Harmony Cafeteria Inc. is a locally owned and community based
restaurant that is an integral part of the town of Harmony. Prior to purchasing the Cafe, both
Judy Daniels and Marcia Parise worked as waitresses under the previous owner Robert Kinder
and other restaurant establishments. They now have over 50 years experience between the two
of them.
Back in the 1980's, the restaurant was open 7 days a week: Monday through Saturday,
MR 5:30 a.m. until 8:00 p.m., and Sundays, 11:30 am. until 2:00 p.m. In an effort to extend the life
of the septic system, the restaurant has been scaled back in hours. It is now only opened 6 days a
week from 5:15 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. to curtail water usage. That is a 39% reduction in hours!
The Health Inspector for Iredell County has informed us that we are now operating under
+" a Grandfather Clause and the business cannot be sold. 3f the doors are closed a new restaurant
will not be allowed to operate on this site. We will become just like the Tastee Freeze across the
ran street from us, a dead business! We pump our septic tank on a regular basis, at a considerable
cost, to insure this does not happen.
fm The Harmony Cafeteria Inc. employees 5 full time people (6 people if 32 hours/week is
considered full time) and 10 to 15 part -tune employees. Our part time employees are working
ron mothers, college students, and high school students from our community i vith varied schedules
that we try to accommodate. Please see the attached Harmony Cafeteria payroll earnings report
as of June 30, 1999.
run
Sincerely,
0,
Judy A. Daniels --
Marcia K. Parise
MR

Exhibit C
7

Pe7
o
SCHOOL
To
Wwrp
s ����o oo�o
;o'� o
CAVANAUGH
so!"lons and mme'st-v
NO
P5 -- ?UMr,6TATjvt4

--------------------- /-,
fop
0.
.401
/
------ — I -----
~
— � ''
`---_--_ _i_—_— fr
J I ` ----- Ole
''
Oq %
Full
14,
,----------'
op
// / '♦ ! / '
la ,i' i' 1�--------'
w-----------
--'
PIR
/'
'r•�l � / iI r / /'-- i i /% �/L�♦ ' ♦',i ' /mar/`/ �.Tl
RVI
ran
.00
Sm
- - i
�?._
I
! r
r1 I i j------_---�—_.
Pal
I III J .l
FM
1

fT-
. /C__ �� _ � J 1 r
IIA
IJ
/
raid /-olo
AQILI�
FM
Uyl
ROM
Off,
Iji B
+� ' ,; �.. ; ...�� �- ` ;1 � O�•r%;/ < �' . ��� ..1�'.� r •�.' -� ram" ,,�' ,t_
P41
Ow
7_5 90 1 V
� -• �'�;�1r,� \,( _ .. 'r ';��i � ~.�" �I�Lt, .�S , `� t{, , I` i' 11\� -��. �� � (: � ��,r`��'\���'�'^1 �' ••� '`-�� % ,''r ',�� �F
Bar'?
\` ir, D r-� 'i,r /,r 1 % 1f �>a1//i> >r r i.j / (r') / l= ��r i I �''`_f 1,��, f .ti�":�4��j �� r .-^',J �/ m•-
00
ro
tit
a i
It
owr,
4A.W1,
Y• r
Rik V.
'\j"N \NM .�' J: � '~• `I ` 'i,•-�..'`1 % � 1. `t�)• � ..r'I/ '1 •/�1'�I�l�! �' /
PIN� ! �'
—
Ir

Exhibit D
r1

Page 1
SUPPLEMENTAL TO PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
(SEWAGE FACILITY)
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
(List All Major Items)
SEWAGE COLLECTION
LF 8" Sewer Pipe
@
(SEE ATTACHED
LF 10" Sewer Pipe
@
DETAILED
LF 12" Sewer Pipe
@
ESTIMATE)
Ea. Standard Manholes
@
Ea. Drop manholes
@
Ea. Lift Stations
@ LS
LF Force Mains
@
Ea. Service Taps
@
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
(Round to nearest thousand dollars)
$2,394,657
SEWAGE TREATMENT: (Include all items to which EPA
will grant)
LF 8" Interceptor Pipe
@
(SEE ATTACHED
LF 12" Interceptor Pipe
@
DETAILED
LF 18" Interceptor Pipe
@
ESTIMATE)
LF 24" Interceptor Pipe
@
Ea. Lift Station
@ LS
LF Force Mains
@
Treatment Plant
@ LS
$727,840
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
(Round to nearest thousand dollars)
$3,122,497
Above prices are current through 2000

Mn
Page 2
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Collection
Treatment
TOTAL
rMl Construction
$2,394,657
$727,840
$3,122,497
Land & Rights
$5,000
$130,000
$135,000
Legal & Admin.
$10,000
$21,200
$31,200
Engineering & Const. Obs.
$268,201
$81,499
$349,700
Interest
$39,500
$10,500
$50,000
Equipment
0
$15,000
$15,000
Contingencies
$239,466
$72,734
$312,200
Surveying
$31,500
$5,000
$36,500
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$2,988,324
$1,063,773
$49052,097
rM
PROJECT FINANCING PLAN
Cash
r' Contrib. Clean Wat. Other
FmHA Loan
by Appl. Bond Grant Grant*
(GO Bonds)
Total
$1,200,000
$2,852,097
$4,052,097
(Collection Facility)
$195,700
$2,792,624
$2,988,324
M1
(Treatment Facility)
$1,004,300
$59,473
$1,063,773
TOTAL FUNDING $1,200,000
$2,852,097
$4,052,097
*Identify source of grant.
r-M Do not assume any FmHA Grant.
MCI
r-a
Existing Indebtedness:
(This facility only)
N/A
Amount of
Purpose Amount Owed Amortization Period Installment
r� GRANTS
$1,000,000 Supplemental Grant from The Rural Center
$200,000 Grant from Iredell County
MR
M"

ram
aq
Page 3
fm
Sewer rates may be
expressed as a percentage of the water bill or as a straight cost per 1,000 gallons of
water consumed.
r�
EXISTING RATE SCHEDULE
First
gallons @
Min.
Next
gallons @
Per 1,000 gal.
"
gallons @
"
gallons @
44 is
69
All Over
gallons @
" «
C<
rev
PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULE
First
2,000 gallons @ $21.34
Min.
Next
gallons @
Per 1,000 gal.
"
gallons @
« °<
«
"
gallons @
°4 °
«
r'
All Over
2,000 gallons @ $3.56
"
USE AND INCOME ESTIMATES
r-M
(According to proposed rate schedule)
SEWER:
F'
Benefited Users (All users with % x 5/8 meters)
Existing
New Total
r14
25 25 users @ 2,000
gal.
$
533.50
55 55 users @ 4,000
gal.
$
1,565.30
145 145 users @ 5,000
gal.
$
4,642.90
92 92 users @ 6,000
gal.
$
3,273.36
�'
8 8 users @ 7,000
gal.
$
3 13. 12
5 5 users @ 8,000
gal.
$
213.50
3 3 users @ 10,000
gal.
$
149.46
TOTAL
333 333 users @
gal.
$ 10,691.14
S'
Non Benefited Users (All users with 3/4 x 5/8 meters)
Existing
New Total
users @
gal.
$
users @
gal.
$
users @
gal.
$
users @
gal.
$
TOTAL
users @
gal.
$
�+
TOTAL - $ 10,691.14 x 12 = $ 128,293.68
Annually

rip
MA
Page 4
BUDGET FOR COMPLETED FACILITY
Actual
Estimated
(Fiscal Year
(Completed
Ending 19 }
Facility)
Income:
ram,
Sewer Charges
$128,294
Adv. Tax
rm
Other
TOTAL
$128 294
SN"
EXPENSES:
Salaries
rim
Supt. & Clerk
Labor
$24.000
Soc. Security Tax
$2,500
r1
Office Exp. (Supplies, Postage,
Heat, Electricity, Telephone,
Equipment, etc.)
$1,000
Bond & Insurance
$500
Audit
$300
Testing -St. Reg. Agy.
$10,000
Chemicals
IMP
Transportation
$5,000
Electricity
$17 600
Supplies
$1,500
Maint. & Repairs
$6,500
Miscellaneous
$2.400
Bulk Treatment Charges
Debt Service
rim
Existing
Proposed Addition
$56,600
Pm
TOTAL
$127,900
BALANCE AVAILABLE
$394
low,
FLOOD PLAIN INFORMATION
raq
Is any part of project located in a flood plain area? If project is in flood area, is applicant eligible for
National Flood Insurance?
MR
r-1
PR

r-q
��
WATER AND SEWER DESIGN AND COST INFORMATION
fm
Est. Value of
Project: TOWN OF HARMONY SEWER Existing Facilities: NONE
MR
��
am
n"
L.a
M
raq
rR
M
am
Storage Already Available
Gal.
c
w
Storage to be Provided
Gal.
�
U
3
Design Daily Source Capacity
Gal. Per Day
U
0 U
a
Design Average Daily Flow
250,000
Gal.'da y
a �
¢
Design Maximum Daily Flow
Gal./day
U
a
Design Peak Hourly FIow
Gal./day
3
Design Treatment Plant Capacity
250,000
Gal./day
SEWAGE
Avg. Waste Water Flow
Gal./day
Percent of Domestic
Total Feet of Pipe in
39,117 gravity
Consumption: 100%
System:
25,000 force main
Percent of Farm Use
Percent of Other Use of
of System: 0%
System:
Development $3,122,497
Equipment
$15,000
F-
o
Land and Rights $13 5,000
Contingencies
$312,200
0
¢
Legal Services $31,200
Refinancing
0
W
Arch/En/Fees $386,200
Initial O&M
0
Capital Interest $50,000
Initial Reserves
0
Comments:
rya
Engineer/Architect: Lisa Routh, P.E./ Tory Wagoner, E.I.
,a, Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A.
8064 North Point Boulevard Suite 102
fm
F—�
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Date: October 24, 2000